Gametrailers.com has an interesting weekly segment called the “Bonus Round” where are panel of three gaming experts and host Geoff Keighley talk about relevant issues in the gaming industry or games themselves. The episodes are broken into three or four parts and one part is posted every Sunday. Yesterday they posted the third part of their episode dealing with how the gaming industry will change with the current economic recession. Unfortunately video games are not completely recession proof and there will be changes but just what these changes will be and how far reaching they will be will be decided by the game developers and publishers themselves.
With disposable income declining and the market in the worst slump of my (and most people’s ) lifetime gaming has become less of a priority for families (I mean food and shelter are still important right?) but that doesn’t mean that people have stopped buying games all together they have just changed their “strategy” in terms of buying games and systems. Michael Pachter made an interesting point in this episode of the bonus round, he claimed that the PS3 was being hit the hardest by the recession because of its reliance on HDTV’s and other hi-tech gadgets. The value of Blu Ray, Wi Fi, and HD gaming are only pertinent to people who use them and to get the full effect a person needs an HDTV. So not only is Sony asking for a $400 minimum purchase for the system itself but to fully use the system you need to also buy an expensive HDTV. HDTV sales have dropped as a result of the recession and to the consumer trying to decide what system to buy, this doesn’t bode well for the PS3.
Another important thing to consider is the pricing for the systems, as I have mentioned the cheapest PS3 is $400 whereas the cheapest 360 is $200 and the Wii is $250. When faced with these choices the clear leader seems to be the 360 because it is a true “next-gen” system and it is the cheapest but the popularity of the Wii has kept it going strong through the recession with Wii sales still trumping its competitors by double or more each month.
But console sales are not the only thing affected by this recession, game production itself will be hit hard. Original IP’s are the spice of the video game industry and they are what really keep it going but they are much more risky than a new installment of an established franchise. Now that less capital is flowing, game developers and publishers will be less inclined to take a chance on a new IP and they will go for the sure shot franchise. As much as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty are good games it is new games like Little Big Planet or Mirror’s Edge that keep the industry fresh. (Although Mirror’s Edge didn’t do so well commercially or critically it is a new idea that could spawn future innovation)
The creative hit that this will cause developers is of some concern as the recession seems like it will stay with us for several years, games already in their development cycle will most likely survive but down the road new games won’t even get an initial green light. The recession has also led to resurgence in the idea of eliminating hard copies of games and making it all digital. Companies like Gamestop sell games used and this hurts the publishers and developers because they don’t get a cut of the sales, especially when the games are for sale used the week of release of the game. Proposed systems like Onlive are an attempt to combat the used game market by making it impossible to trade in a copy of the game. The money for the download will stay with the publisher and developer. However this is not all good, the reliability of the system must be questioned (like all new tech) and the quality of the gameplay itself (frame rate and the like) needs to be looked at thoroughly. On top of that if the hard copies of games disappear from store shelves this will mean that consumers who don’t have access to the internet (this is still a large segment of the populace) will have virtually no way of getting new games and in the end that just hurts the consumer.
The recession hasn’t hit the gaming industry very hard yet but it will over the coming years and more so in a stifling of creative properties. However that doesn’t mean that the industry will die out or even become completely unoriginal, we will still be treated to new IP’s just is smaller numbers, and with companies being more careful to put out only titles that are ensured to do well maybe the overall quality of games will increase. Who knows maybe we will come out of this recession better off than we were before it, in terms of games anyway.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Advertising in Video Games
Product placement is one of the staples of marketing and has been seen in just about all mediums that allow for video (TV, movies) but recently in-game advertising and product placement has risen sharply while video games have become more generally accepted by a mass audience. Driving games like Burnout and GTA have billboards and other advertisements for real world companies in their fictional cities. Games like Fallout like to keep their ads true to the time period, in the example of Fallout the ads are very much like the ads of the 1950’s because in their timeline the US stayed in the 50’s mentality all the way up to the cataclysmic nuclear war that led to the “fallout.” But even though these ads are reminiscent of the time period one of the most innovative ideas for period marketing will be a part of the upcoming Ghostbusters: The Video Game. The game is set in 1991 and at least two of their sponsors (Coke and Doritos) have agreed to put in 1991 advertising to keep with the timeline of the game. In the new videos that feature the Times Square cutscene, an old school Coke logo and an old Doritos ad can be seen in the background. It is unknown at this point how many other old ads they have in the game but it is an impressive detail to add to the authenticity of the game. Advertising in games is just like any other media, the ad needs to be appropriate in its context, in driving games anything can be put on a billboard because just about everything is actually advertised on a billboard. Sports games also do a good job of incorporating advertisements just like in the actual sporting event. An example of this is in the game NBA2k7 one of the correspondents reports in the “Gatorade around the cooler update.” It is appropriate because those are the kind of promotions that actually occur in live NBA broadcasts. The advertising can actually really add to the authenticity of a game but it can’t be overdone. If it gets in the way of the gameplay if can be a real hassle, so the developers and the sponsors need to tread the fine line between wanting to get their product featured and not annoying the gamers who are trying to enjoy the gameplay experience. But as of right now advertising in games seems to pretty tame which is good, we don’t have anything that resembles “pop-ups” on the internet. However advertising will increase in the coming years considering how video games are becoming more in the forefront of society, I mean I saw an ad for Wheelman before a movie in a theater, there would have never been an ad for a video game before a movie just 10 years ago. Here’s hoping everything stays in control.
Monday, April 6, 2009
I did that! I did that! That's my fault!
Atari released a brand new trailer for their upcoming Summer title Ghostbusters: The Video Game. The trailer explains that the third rule is "Split up..." the trailer focuses heavily on the destruction and mayhem that the Ghostbusters leave in their wake. You can see the video in HD at the following link. Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzXErbu9fE
Friday, April 3, 2009
First Person or Third Person?
Over the past few years there has been a large surge of shooter games in the video game industry, titles like Halo, Killzone, Gears of War, and many others are becoming the core of gaming that most 13-30 year old gamers (the traditional game audience) are playing. These shooters come in all shapes and sizes but there is always one feature that distinguishes games like Halo from games like Gears of War and that is the camera perspective. First person shooters were popularized by games like Wolfenstein and Doom in the early 1990’s and the biggest first person shooter in recent memory seems to be the Halo trilogy. (Sony fanboys, shut up Killzone isn’t as popular as Halo, get over it) These games feature a view that focuses on what you would see if you were actually the person (hence the “first person”) The other type of shooter is the third person shooter, like Gears of War. This style of game has an over the shoulder view that allows you to see the action from behind your character but up and to the side so you can see in front of the character (this is a little hard to explain but just look at a screenshot of Gears and you’ll know what I’m talking about) So which one is better? Well I believe it is all a matter of preference but I’ll weigh the pros and cons of both for you.
A first person view tends to immerse the player more because they feel like they are actually the character they are playing as; they aren’t disconnected from the character. A first person view gives a good view of the crosshairs of your weapon which allows for an easier targeting system. However the first person view limits your peripheral vision and makes you feel squeezed into a smaller space, you can’t see as much of what is around you making it easy for someone to sneak up on you.
A third person perspective pulls back the camera and lets you see a more complete picture of your surroundings. You no longer feel cramped and you also get to see your character which, at least for me, is a plus. Another thing that the third person view allows for is an effective cover system, like the one seen in Gears of War. In a first person view it is really hard to take cover whereas in Gears of War it is an essential gameplay mechanic. This ability allows for added strategy instead of the run and gun gameplay of first person shooters. However this view does tend to “disconnect” you from your in-game character (though I never really feel “connected” in the first place.) The third person view can also block some objects that are right in front of your character, you need to move a lot more.
It seems to be a decision of cutting off your view of your peripheral or what is right in front of you. For me, I prefer the third person because I get to see my character (which I like) and I can utilize cover with greater efficiency, plus I always feel cramped when I am in first person mode and split screen just makes it worse. But I still play both types of games because they can both be fun in their own terms. But it is clear that not all shooters are alike and based on what perspective it gives you the gameplay mechanic will change significantly.
Camera angles in games can be a real great tool or an incredibly annoying obstacle to gameplay so it is really important that the developers choose the correct angle for their game. Games that feature customization of characters (ie Mass Effect) or detailed characters and equipment (ie Ghostbusters) or games that feature a heavy use of cover (ie Gears) need that third person view but a game that is run and gun (ie Halo) or a game that wants you to become really immersed in the character (ie Brother’s in Arms: Hell’s Highway) need the first person view to maximize the game experience. So whatever your preference just remember that there usually is a good reason why it is one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
