Generation X was the first to be introduced to the marketing boom of video games that occurred in the 80's. For many who's childhood revolved around a screen, many a fond memory was made playing classics such as Mike Tyson's Punch Out! or Super Mario Brothers. That generation has since grown up, but the interest for recapturing these memories has all but gone away. As explained in this article by NPR, the market for old, original video games has surged in recent years.
One of the things I noticed about the article was the emphasis on the "original games." After all, if the person was nostalgic about playing the game, then couldn't they play it on an emulator? Classic games on newer consoles is not a new idea. They have been available in multiple formats, from plug-and-play consoles to downloadable titles on both Xbox Arcade and the PSN store. Why then, do these older patrons insist on the original copies on the original consoles?
Games can range from a few dollars to a few hundred, depending on popularity and scarcity.
This quote implies that it's not the game that invokes the nostalgia, but the experience itself. Buyers are willing to spend hundreds to regain the experience. As shown here:
For people of a certain age, the sound of the video game character Mario growing after eating a mushroom brings back great memories.
This is a testament of the "sticky power" these companies have on to their customers since they are children. While there will always be the older products that will be sold in second hand shops, it is the new iterations of these series that the older players will introduce to a new generations. Appealing to the older fans might be the best solution for staying afloat in the long run.
Bradford, B. (2015, February 4). Businesses Offer A Link To The Past For Lovers Of Old Video Games. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
One of the first articles on this blog I wrote about was the in-game economies that Valve has implemented into its three flagship games: Dota 2, Counter Strike, and Team Fortress. The source video was at a conference at Steamworks, the company held-event where Valve essentially gives a lecture to other companies on how to do it right. Obviously, this economics lesson is from Valve's point of view with very broad implications that gloss over the everyday micro-transactions between users. How, then, does Valve's model stand against the real world? It comes as no surprise that the model works extremely well, as Valve had years of experience and hard evidence on their side to prov that what they did maximized profits and user satisfaction. What's surprising to most is the degree of effectiveness it has on the users in a bad way; maybe it's not surprising to the cynics out there. The demand for in game items with value dictated by the community has led some down the road of ill intent: scamming, sharking, among other things in this article by Polygon. As the article states, certain items, which have a controlled scarcity by Valve, are a de facto unit of currency for buying/selling in game items. For the uninitiated: Earbuds were only available for a limited time to Team Fortress players on an apple computer, and keys are a one-time use item sold in the virtual store for $2.50. Both have a high enough demand for there to be an external market buying these items for real world money. Louie, the investigator in this article, deducted that criminals from Russia would perform credit card fraud and use Team Fortress as a laundering device.
"Louie believes someone came into possession of some stolen credit card numbers, used them to purchase as many Crate Keys as they could before the cards were deactivated and then traded those keys for items they could sell via PayPal for clean money."
Due to the nature of online purchases, these transactions are completely anonymous and virtually untraceable. Unfortunately, the corruption does not stop there. Middlemen, used to facilitate a trade between in game items and real world money, are being impersonated as a way of scamming those eager to sell their items for cash. Sharkers, those who keep their victim in the dark about the worth of their items and buy it cheap, buy tools to target inexperienced players and then resell the items on paypal.
"James used another tool, called an inventory scanner, to browse the complete inventories and friends lists of any given player or group."
There are many other types of scams, like phishing links that hijack your account, but this is besides the point. The economy that valve has created has morphed into a microcosm of real life; as such, it brings all the pitfalls of human nature alongside it. As long as there is money to be made, there will always be someone who will make a business out of lying and cheating. Valve cannot integrate real world money into its trading system, otherwise the company would lose sovereignty over its biggest intake of money. The integration of the Steam market will for now be the safest way to trade your items for cash, albeit cash tied with your steam account and non-withdrawable.
Bowman, M. (2014, May 22). The Hidden World of Steam Trading. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
One of the biggest new trends that game developers have been doing over the last couple is releasing unfinished. The ludicrosity of uttering such a statement might leave some scratching their heads, but it would only be crazy if it didn't work. Of course, during the initial implementation of this idea, game developers didn't use the word unfinished. DLC, downloadable content, would be additional content to the game that would be sold maybe a couple of months after the games release. After a couple years of this practice, developers would get brazen enough to release Day 1 DLC, additional content for the game that was released right alongside the game which had a full price tag, as if to assume it was a full game. Gamers even discovered that some releases even had this content on the disc already, yet needed to shell out an additional 15 bucks just to activate it. Now, Steam has allowed the newest iteration of this marketing to be released on its store. Games tagged with "Early Access" are essentially stating "we have not completed the game, but pay money to have access to it before it's finished." In this article from Polygon, the author describes how Early access has really opened the eyes of the uninitiated to this predatory marketing practice.
One of concepts the article mentions is the authors's beliefs of "unfinished games" and how he categorizes them into two types.
Early Access has the kinds of games that, as long as they're supported, are going to be consistently tweaked, expanded, patched and even modded.
Which is true, as many games before Early Access have followed this model. World of Warcraft and Team Fortress 2, with their constant updates over their long lifespans, have never had a final version because there is always something that is being added. Their widespread community support has allowed them to keep living, as many games before them have died because people lost interest. The other type of game he mentions is:
They're also unfinishable in that they're not games that players can say they've completed with any kind of authority.
While there can be argument for how open world games such as Minecraft, because they have no set goal and allow players to do whatever they want in the confines of the game, can never be "finished", the better type for Early Access games are those which are actually never completed. This isn't because of constant updates, but the lack thereof. Games marked Early access on steam but the developers have given up updating it and have left it in a stage of unfinished limbo have also been popping up. Even games that have been rushed to be released that are barely functional have pockmarked 2014 as the year of unfinished games. In response, more and more gamers have been taking a stance from pre ordering a game before they see if it functions or not. Some have gone far enough to boycott entire companies because of this sneaky tactic. While games were still considered a novelty, developers would take time to perfect the little details and treat their product like an art; hence, the late nineties and early 2000's are considered by many to be the golden age of gaming. Now, while games are being pumped out to maximize revenue, players are losing faith in the companies themselves. In order for companies to regain consumer trust, they have to think about customer satisfaction over the bottom line.
Most gamers who play online have unfortunately encountered this scenario: they're at home, relaxing, about to play a match when a piercing shriek rings in their ear. Despite what they may think, it isn't from listening to music to loud; rather, it is the wail of a small child, possibly 12 or 13, talking over the microphone. The gamer does a double take and checks the rating on the box. There is no mistaking it- a big black M, meaning mature, in the right hand corner of the box is clearly visible. It should stand as a deterrent for parents from buying it. How come, then, does it appear to be the opposite?
In this article on Gamespresso, the author describes the faults of the archaic ratings system. Back then, the rating was a way to know what kind of game you're buying before purchase. Mortal Kombat, the infamous game with glorified violence which prompted the creation of a ratings system, proved that it was both beneficial to both child and parent to implement the ESRB. How they graded a game, in terms of child, teen, and adult levels, was pretty cut and dry, considering the limitations of technology of video games back then. With the advent of new technology pushing the boundries of both visuals and content, one can say violence and sex can go to 11.
The ESRB rating is intended to be a safe guide for those who don’t play games to view.
This is the intention of ratings, but as the article also points out:
a good majority of games are now rated Mature
Which is a safe measure from the ESRB to make sure there is no controversy from rating a game "too low." Also, putting a M rating on a game is always a good selling point- it generally produces more sales. Combining these two factors, its inevitable that kids will be convinced that the only good games are rated M, and they will convince their parents of the same. What the parents don't know, however, is the intensity of said violent/uncouth/sexual themes that is hidden within the disk. Since the M rating is so broad, parents are essentially tricked into buying a game. The M rating encompasses everything from a simple blood spatter on a wall to full on bloodbath orgies. Obviously, parents should take an active duty in investigating what they buy for their child. More descriptive information on the box would make a better buying experience. Also, we wouldn't need to hear a child's screeching voice in our supposed mature games again.
Fearnall, A. (2015, January 8). ESRB RATINGS: THE UNNECESSARY EVIL OF GAMING. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
2013 was one of the biggest years for video games in the recent decade. Kickstarter, the crowd-sourcing website, had many successful projects that were backed by thousands of users. A wide spectrum of games, ranging from small indie games like Shovel Knight, to big studio releases like Broken Knight , were all completed and received positive criticism. With many good title attributed to it, its a weird phenomenon to think that Kickstarter games are starting to lose their appeal. The proof is in the money, as this article from Gamespot explains.
With over $53 million raised for Kickstarter games last year, and only $15 million raised in the first half of 2014, there is an obvious decrease in popularity for these types of games. The article gives multiple reasons for this steep decline.
"Bidaux theorizes that the decline is in part because all the big name Kickstarter projects were already funded"
This may be true to a certain extent, but doesn't take into account that even small unknowns still get discovered and funded if the idea is creative enough. A prime example of this is Monsters ate my Birthday Cake.
"Bidaux says that some priojects might be going directly to Steam Early Access instead of Kickstarter, which might be better for many developers with playable builds since there's no end date for the funding campaign."
Again, this seems like a plausible reason, but it also misses that Steam Greenlight isn't for funding. it's a voting platform where user's can decide and discuss what type of games they want in the steam store. So, in essence, it's comparing apples and oranges. The final reason the article gave, however, was very intriguing to me.
"Another reason for the decline, Bidaux thinks, is that people are more aware that Kickstarter projects can fail. "
With the high profile failures of games such as Yogsventures, Clang, and dozens of other smaller projects, investors are getting more skeptical of Kickstarter projects. I believe that many people used to have an idealized vision of the Kickstarter mission, which was to help aspiring game developers achieve their dream and receiving compensation in return. With a few sore thumbs in Kickstarter's history, there is a more overall negative perception of the Kickstarter process. Most of that hate is focused on Kickstarter's policy about returning money on failed projects (Hint: they don't), and its understandable. The allure of the Kickstarter campaign has started to wane, and it is no longer the preferred method for marketing. We may instead see the rise of competitors to Kickstarter with better return policies that may restore the confidence of the online community.
Maiberg, E. (2014, October 5). Funding for Kickstarter Games in 2014 Drops by More Than Half. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
Videogame developers and players have long struggled for their passion to be validated as an acceptable art form. Roger Ebert is credited for saying that he didn't believe games to be on par with movies, simply because there has never been a game that was on par with the greats in music, theater, poetry etc. In my opinion, Roger forgets that the definition of art is personal to the viewer; nothing is imbued with the inherent status of art. We, as a society, have standardized the definition of art to mean many different things, and it seems that video games just barely miss the quota according to general opinion. Games, however, have taken strides to reverse this and be respected as a true art form. There is a new trend of artsy games being created with wonderful creative direction and bold experimentation. In this article by CNET, the rise of the indie developer is displayed with such hit titles such as Monument Valley and Journey.
"The game has to work as a puzzle, but it also has to work as piece of graphic design." This was dilemma for Monument Valley: How was it possible for the art itself to be as big of a gameplay mechanic as the puzzles in the game. Looking at the still from the article, its clear that they intended for level to be art. Taking influences from Escher, the world inside the puzzle is splashed with a pallet of color, and the puzzles are designed around the world itself. In essence, the art becomes the puzzle, and a good example of using of art being used. The article, however, delves deeper into the problems of being an indie developer: the lack of funding and attention. In order to survive in the rapidly changing market, indie developers need to find their niche and get their name out there. It just so happens that their method of getting noticed is by emphasizing on their artistic styles. As the article claims, "Getting noticed is the most important step to long-term survival in the gaming industry."
At what point, however, does focusing on the art of the game impede on developing the gameplay? Does focusing on the artistic side of the game too much distort the overall goal a game is trying to achieve (that is, an interactive experience for the user)? At what cost are we willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the allusive classification of art? Recent controversy came out of the game Gone Home, when gaming journalists and gamers had two very polarizing opinions of Gone Home's ''classification." In Gone Home, the plot revolves around a girl who has, fittingly, come home and explores her house. Along the way, the player can unfold the story through various clues around the house. Critics praised it for its artistic take on telling a story in the first person. Players, however, believed that there was little to no substance to the game, and it did not warrant a 20$ price tag. Sure, it told a great story against a great soundtrack, but there was barely any player input. If anything, the "game" was closer to a movie where you could control the pace. Can Gone Home really be classified as a game then? In an effort to produce a video game that could be considered art, Gone Home created something entirely different, almost akin to a new medium of interactive storytelling. It is not a game by any conventional definition; this is why that there is a threshold between complimenting a game with art and complimenting art with an interactive medium. Creating the latter only hinders games from ever being classified as art, because it sets a standard that an actual game can't achieve, and it doesn't showcase the mechanics of that a game should have.
Source: Statt, N. (2014, November 23). Video games aren't all guns and gore; artistic titles are on the rise. Retrieved December 5, 2014.
With recent outburst over Electronic Art's system of micro transactions in their games, most notoriously in their mobile apps, I felt that it would be good to look at a model of micro transactions that works. Valve's three flagship games, Counter Stike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, and Dota 2, are the shining examples of how good customer service can expand player base, maximize profits, and keep users happy. In early 2014, Valve hosted an event called Steamworks, whose aim was to advise game developers who want to publish their game on the Steam distribution service. Among the many topics talked about, the one concerning in game economies and micro transactions was the most prolific. Here is the video of that presentation; it is long, but very informative:
Kyle Davis, the presenter, focused on five main points throughout the video:
1) Focus on persistent customer value: "Making sure that customers will be happy about making a purchase and make sure they stay happy." Valve's model wants players to be confident about the purchases they make and continually be happy with them over the long run. To avoid regret, Valve makes sure they describe clearly the products they're selling to avoid ambiguity and they keep the value of such items through their trade system.
2) Positive Externalities: Making sure that the purchases people make do not negatively effect someone else's experience is key. Including purchases that remove barriers in the game and give an advantage to a player over those who didn't invest money only hurts the consumer. Valve's outlook is to make purchasing opportunities that benefit the players in the game as well as improving the game overall.
3) Make everything tradable: As Kyle Davis puts it "Trade makes every item that is tradable to be worth more. It makes the trading system more valuable, and makes users more valuable to other users." Cross-trade between different games encourages players to invest more money into the system and makes everyone happier overall.
4) Random distribution: Random distribution of in-game items through "drops" is superior to static distribution, because it allows game developers to have more flexibility over wealth and power distribution. Players will have an incentive to play more in order to hopefully receive a drop that is worth a lot.
5) Let users make value for each other: Prices of tradable items are not dictated by the game developer, but by the players themselves. They will take an active attempt to make improve the quality of the game they play by creating new items, new updates, and new communities alligned for a particular goal. This allows the product to grow in ways that "couldn't be possible with just people at the office," as David explains.
After listening to the the multiple examples that are given in their case examples, I believe that any game should include an in game trading system that models Valves' in order to receive longer term customer satisfaction. In the case of EA, many people were outraged over their business models of putting artificial boundaries in their game that could only be surpassed by investing into the game. The term "free to play" gives a bad taste in the mouth of the gaming community, and rightly so; they are, in most cases, very limited in their features unless money is invested. In the end, they end up not being "free to play", but rather "pay to win."
In my experience with playing Counter Strike, the in game trading system is what keeps me coming back and investing my time in playing. The insane amount of hours that I have in both Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike is a monument to that hold that Valve has over their customers. By maintaining a good relationship with its player by way of its trading and micro-transactions, both those who spend money and those who don't end up benefiting each other, and Valve is able to make a huge margin of profit. If every appropriate candidate for an economy was given one, companies would be able to sell more and have a higher customer appreciation rating. In-Game Economies in Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 [Motion picture]. (2014). United States: Youtube.
