• 28Oct 08

  Growing Pains of the Digital Age

  In the last two and a half years we have seen the technology of digital downloads improve vastly. It would appear that the allure of the once forgotten console, the Phantom, has in some ways been realized, it appears that digital distribution is the future of gaming. However as this notion has become more and more popular, the actual 'salability' of digital distribution is not being properly discussed without a bias.

  My first claim against digital distribution is a somewhat ludicrous one that for some reason I feel necessary to point out. Overall I think that consumers want to feel the instant gratification of popping in a disc and being able to play a game in seconds, casual consumers usually want the most enjoyment in as little amount of time as possible. With the digital era the waiting times to download games may not entice these consumers to buy into digital downloading. However there are bigger issues to note and it is naïve for me to simply assume that all consumers have short attention spans. Jesus, I was starting to sound like a GameStop employee for a while.

  My next point is a point that I genuinely hope is proven wrong, and that is that I doubt that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are willing to make a full 100% dedication to going digital. Sony and Microsoft are getting better, but I still think that their next video-game console with have some sort of disc drive on it, proving that they are 100% sold on the idea either. It's Nintendo that concerns me; because they have always resisted technological development, and you hopefully already know of these examples, so I won't explain them. They to me represent the reservation this industry has when it comes to moving digital. Their reservation sends a possible message to consumers, causing some to believe that the digital distribution is not worth their time and money. This digital movement will not succeed if the manufacturer of the (currently) fastest selling home-video game console. Instead it needs to be embraced by all three consoles to prevent a split in the consumer base, which could cause all sorts of unexplainable issues.

  Yet what about the potential market for digital distribution? Surely there are millions of consumers that would embrace the digital age? So let us ask ourselves what is required for the digital era to succeed. Well, digital downloading requires fast internet access, and everyone has internet access in America, right? Well, actually no. Internet usage in America and worldwide is actually more limited than we may think.

  Internet market:

  • 3 out of 4 Internet users live in North America- The USA and Canada make up the vast majority of Internet users. Other counties have a different structure and high costs associated with surfing. This is changing, but North America will be your biggest market for now.

  Internet surfers from work:

  • 2 out of 3 Internet North American users access the Internet from work- More and more companies are allowing employees Internet access as well as Intranet access for specific company related information.
  • 1 out of 5 Internet users at work have limited access the Internet- Some companies have strict policies regulating any Internet access.
  • 4 out of 5 Internet users at work have Web access from work - Some companies have only Email Internet access.

  Internet surfers from home: 1 out of 3 North American users 'technically' have Internet access from home.

  • 3 out of 4 people with Internet access actually use it- There are many ways to calculate Internet users including computers sold with modems. There's an assumption that if you have a modem you'll use it for the Internet.

  The next question is- if you access the Internet, how often do you use it? Some people access the Internet less than once a month or use it only for Email.

  • Internet users that access the Internet at least once a month- 53%
  • Internet users that access the Internet at least once a week- 17%
  • Internet users that access the Internet at least once a day- 3%

  These are not enticing facts for companies and industries that will have to invest billions in licenses and advertisements. Hence we reach my main argument point; THE POTENTIAL AUDIENCE THAT TRUELY BENEFITS FROM THE DIGITAL AGE IS A NICHE AUDIENCE! The truth of the matter is that America is dominated by Baby-Boomers and other older demographics, and these demographics have been relatively inconsistent when it has come to adopting recent technologies. Hence why most people still neither have a wireless internet connection nor an HDTV, both being technologies that are necessary for this movement to succeed. This digital industry isn't going to work by appealing to you and me; it has to appeal to everyone in America if it is going to become a genuine opponent to hard copies of games and entertainment.

  Why is it that I claim that Baby-boomer to be an important factor into the success of the digital age? Well firstly the average age of a video-gamer is rising because some gamers are Baby Boomers. But more importantly Baby Boomers are parents to many gamers, and it is their money that is readily being used in this industry. If parents feel iffy or uneasy about investing money into this then the digital age isn't going to work. It is them, that industry heads that so happily embrace digital distribution that must be convinced, and it is their hands whether this movement lives or dies.

  • Posted Oct 28, 2008 4:55 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 17Aug 08

  The Gaming Industry is Being Run by Morons

  Recently the head of The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences (AIAS), the organization that holds the annual D.I.C.E. summit event and promotes video games by trying to gather all the heads of the industry under one roof, Joseph Olin has expressed his belief that "game reviewers are lazy" due to a reliance on scores and the desire to review a game quickly. His comments are as follows:

  "When I just see a score, whether it's a Metacritic score or 5 stars or 4 thumbs, that doesn't tell me anything, I am never surprised when there's as much as a 40% or 50% variance between Metacritic numbers and user numbers."

  "My pet peeve is that game reviewers are lazy," he said. "Not all, but in terms of the reviews [something like] 'This game isn't as good because let's compare it to that game over there and that game was great.' Who gives a, you know, *bleep*?"

  First off I would like to make it clear that I will not be going on an expletive laced rant, as that would accomplish nothing. Also I would like to point out that I will also not go on a defensive triad defending the gaming press. The reason for the latter is that the gaming press is being run by adults who can defend themselves. Instead I will express how troubling I find Mr. Olin's words. The troubling part comes from the fact that Mr. Olin is someone who should be defending this industry and trying to unite it during a time of indecisiveness, and in my eyes the above words that he has uttered have done the opposite.

  I have two issues with this comment, the first of which that I think we have reached a point with criticism of game reviews where we as a community have now lowered ourselves to name calling, in Mr. Olin's case calling gaming journalist 'lazy.' I think that we as a whole are totally uninformed when it come to how gaming journalism works. This as with all forms of journalism is a complex 'mechanism' that has many moving parts being controlled by various 'engineers' of sorts. In my opinion unless I ever get a job working in the actual gaming journalism community, I don't think I can ever really levee warranted criticism towards it, and I genuinely think the same goes for everyone else. Just as one cannot hypothesize on the anatomy of an organism without first examining the organism first, the same could be said about criticism levied towards journalism.

  My second issue is if the head of the AIAS genuinely thinks this is an issue for the gaming community, then he needs to swallow his pride and grow a set and start naming names. I mean is just the forums of NeoGaf that are levying unwarranted criticism, or is something wrong with our main gaming journalism outlets? Are the figureheads of gaming journalism part of the problem or is it just a handful of angry bloggers, who only trying to milk their fifteen minutes? If you genuinely want this problem to make a total 180 then give examples instead of general statements. General statements that are ambiguous as this cause the gaming community to speculate and spread rumors, which just makes the problem even worse, and as said before divides the community into various camps.

  Instead of pointing out examples Mr. Olin instead uses the current gaming scapegoat of Metacritic. Now I have seen the use of Metacritic as a scapegoat not only by gamers but now by industry heads, this just like Mr. Olin's' words I find troubling. Let me say this now so is that I can make it clear, Metacritic is a website that makes various reviews more accessible for consumers so is that they can more easily figure out whether or not a product is worth their time. It is not the end all be all for videogames, which is what many are claiming it to be. However trying to point out scapegoats to the public is both a difficult and frivolous affair, and maybe Metacritic will remain the John Proctor of the gaming community for some time.

  So what does everyone else think? Am I overreacting and mentally insane? Or do other video gamers find the comments of Joseph Olin, someone who should be helping the industry, troubling?

  • Posted Aug 17, 2008 11:00 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »