Sony Price Cuts?

Here's a little something from GoNintendo:

"Logically, if Sony cuts the price of PS3 to $299, Nintendo may be forced to cut to maintain sufficient price differential versus the PS3 and 360. In other words, hardware sales, while slow now, are about to get a boost in the near-term driven by price cuts." - Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia

I really don't see things that way. I don't think those looking to buy a Wii are really paying attention to what's going on with 360/PS3 prices. It's a different market, and the core that do follow games already know what's going on…and probably have a Wii by now.

While GoNintendo is obviously pro-Nintendo, I have to disagree with their statement.  The main advantage of a Wii is it's cheap in a bad economy.  Nintendo is already raking in money hand over fist, making almost $60 on each console.

(By the way, $60 x 50 million? 3 billion dollars.  Chew on that number for a bit.)

In other words, if Nintendo dropped their console to, say, $199, they would still have the advantage in price, putting them firmly in the lead and encouraging the fence-sitters to buy.  The only thing they need to do next is allow the Wii to play DVDs or bring streaming video to the States to really land the knockout punch.

Baseball Giggle Of The Day

So, Scott Boras, agent for recent No. 1 draft pick Stephen Strasburg, says that Strasburg is in a 'special class.'  Good for Strasburg!  I also hear he wears a bicycle helmet and drool bib to the mound.

Tried and Failed

Well, I asked my wife if she loved me enough to let me drop about $400 between a PS3 and Rock Band, and the answer was a very firm "No.  Not that much."

Ah well.  I still have my Wii, PC and DS.  I also still have to possibly fix my PC since it keeps rebooting randomly, so I suppose.  Still, Blu-Ray!  MLB The Show!  Ratchet and Clank!

Sigh.

Screw It

I'm trying anyway.  I'm going to run it past her and see what happens.  If I get shot down, at least I tried, right?  Man, I'd love a PS3 something fierce.

PS3 Deal...Oh So Close

I just came oh-so-very-close to getting a PS3.  It was in my shopping cart.  You see, Amazon is offering the PS3 for $349 today.  Combine that with a cheap Rock Band bundle from Gamestop, and I would be all set with a Blu-Ray player and an HD gaming system.

Alas, I couldn't pull the trigger.  I know that if I did pick one up, my wife would eviscerate me.  It would be brutal.  I would be sleeping on the couch for months on end.  It's not even worth trying to convince her.  Ah well.

Game Design: Goal Achievement

You can't throw a 360 controller these days without hitting a new scientific study about video games.  "Gamers are addicted!" says one.  "Gamers aren't addicted!" says another.  "Gamers are psychopathic killers!" says another.  "Gamers are totally normal people!" says yet another.  In all of these studies, no one ever asks the question, "Why?  Why do people play video games?"

It's an odd question to ask.  I mean, why not?  Video games are fun!  That's why we play!  It's so simple!  But why are they fun?  Some people find video games mind-numbingly boring.  Why?  Isn't fun universal?  You have people like this 11-year-old kid who says video games are a waste of time.  We don't feel that it is.  Why would someone say such a thing?  The answers to these questions are fundamental to our understanding of gaming, game design, and the industry in general.

Humans are very goal-oriented.  When you waste an entire day watching TV, you don't feel very well afterwards.  You don't feel like you did anything, right?  Our goals are fairly dynamic as well.  In a few minutes your goal may be to read an article or wash the dishes or sell X amount of sprockets at your job.  We have long-term goals and short-term goals.  The more difficult these goals are, the more inward satisfaction we feel once they're completed.

Video games work on this level.  Each game provides us with artificial goals.  If we're playing Halo, our goal may be to win this multiplayer round.  If you're playing Super Mario Galaxy, your goal may be to get to 90 stars.  If you're playing World of Warcraft, your goal may be to use that shiny new bow that's sitting in your inventory.  When we reach these goals, we feel satisfied, secure in the knowledge that we did something.

Now, are these goals necessarily noteworthy?  No, not really.  I mean, in the grand scheme of things, winning a Counterstrike match isn't going to change the world.  There's still a sense of pride that fills us when we do these things.  Why?  Because it fulfills a basic human need, a need to get things done.

This can explain many things.  For instance, why are Diablo and its variants so addicting?  Is it because of the awesome storyline?  No, it's because it continues setting goals in front of you.  They'll give you an awesome new weapon that you can only use once you achieve level X.  You want to achieve that level to use the weapon, and once you do, you feel contented.  However, Diablo doesn't stop there.  It's already given you another weapon or piece of armor that you need to work towards.  It's constantly setting easily attainable goals in front of you and letting you accomplish them.  MMOs do this as well, which explains why they're so very, very popular.

There are two sides to this coin.  When a task is too easy, we don't feel like we've accomplished anything.  I'm playing The Legendary Starfy right now, and I'm bored out of my mind.  It's decent, but it's not difficult at all.  I'm plowing through it easily, and I haven't felt like I've accomplished anything yet.  Conversely, when a task is too difficult or too obscure, accomplishment gets stymied.  We stop playing.  This is why we don't like backtracking and wandering aimlessly.  This is why we like to have current quests waiting for us.  If we don't, we feel like we haven't done anything, haven't accomplished anything, haven't gone anywhere.  It's not satisfying.

This is also why most casual games aren't as bad as you'd think.  Games like Peggle or Wii Fit help someone set goals and achieve them, just like a normal game.  A game like Wii Music is comparatively a flop for the same reason:  There's no goal.  There's nothing to achieve.  You cannot improve with the game.  It rightfully can be called a failure in game design.

This also explains the explosion in motion controls.  Motion controls work because they take away one of the barriers to goal achievement, that pesky little controller.  Now, all someone has to do is mimic the movement that they would do naturally and they're able to achieve a goal.  Natal hopes to further cut down on that barrier to goal achievement.

There's more to this, though.  Consider:  Since we all have this basic need to accomplish tasks, and video games provide us with an artificial sense of accomplishment, what does that mean for our psychological health?  Does that mean that we feel more accomplished than other non-gamers?  Does that mean that we might not try as hard in other facets of our life?  Or do we have a higher self-image that other groups?  Do we become accustomed to achievement so often that we search for it in other parts of our life?

These are all questions for greater minds than mine.  Still, recognizing this truth helps us to understand why certain games and technologies work and others don't.  We understand why we shouldn't fear most casual games.  It also helps us to understand a little bit more about ourselves and why we play.

Why Do I Talk About Nintendo So Much?

It occurred to me that I talk about Nintendo a lot.  I mean, a lot a lot.  One might assume that I was a Nintendo fanboy.  I can see why someone would say that.  I mean, I just spent days in a row defending Nintendo, and I frequently blather about why they do such good work.

It's a shame that this journal wasn't more active during the last generation.  During the last generation, I was in a heated debate over whether Sony or Nintendo had the better system with a very opinionated ex-friend.  He was of the opinion that Nintendo had better everything, but that the gaming public was too dumb to understand it.  I was of the opinion that Sony made the right decisions, and while their hardware wasn't the most reliable, they had the best games and were therefore the best system.

To this day, he still insists that the battle was far closer than the final results show.  To that, I respond that the Gamecube sold only 20 million units to the PS2's 150 million.  To put that into sports terms, if a baseball team lost 15-2, you would say it was a pretty lopsided victory.  You might even use the term "trounced."  If a football team lost 45-6, you would call it a blowout.  It wouldn't even be worth debating.  Sony sold 7.5 times the units that Nintendo did.  It wasn't even close.

I enjoy raking Nintendo over the coals for their past dumb decisions, like sticking with cartridges when the entire console world was moving to discs or stubbornly pushing "connectivity" instead of getting online like the rest of the world.  Nintendo's last generation was layered with bad decisions, starting mostly with the games.

Super Mario Sunshine, as I've said before, is blah.  Mario Kart: Double Dash isn't nearly as interesting as it tries to be.  Eternal Darkness wasn't marketed well and had awful box art to boot.  And Pikmin?  Oh, poor, sweet Pikmin.  I refuse to pick up your misguided game, and do you know why, dear Pikmin?  Because I REFUSE TO PLAY A TIMED GAME.  It doesn't matter how good you are, you're a timed game.  Go home and think about what you've done.  Oh, and please release the Pikmin 2 remake for the Wii.  Thanks.

That's not to say there weren't successes.  Smash Bros. Melee was the highest seller, and the Metroid Prime series did okay too.  Zelda: Wind Waker was good too, and sold a lot of copies.  But when you're trying to push the quality of your games as the reason to purchase your platform and you have nothing to show for it, your argument rings rather hollow.

Now, of course, the same ex-friend who at one time was willing to lay down his life for Nintendo now claims that they've abandoned the hardcore audience and that he hopes that they curl up and die for all the grievous mistakes they've made.  But Nintendo is merely doing the opposite of what led them to failure.

Consider:  The Gamecube made the most overtures to the hardcore audience of any Nintendo system.  They released first-party M-rated games.  The Cube was loaded with shooters.  The N64 saw shooters like Goldeneye, Conker's Bad Fur Day and Perfect Dark.  What did Nintendo get for their trouble?  A big, fat goose egg in the win column.

Meanwhile, the systems that had the biggest casual reach were the most successful, like the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance, and going all the way back to the NES and Super NES.  So, if you were Nintendo, what would you do?  Stick with what's making you fail, or go back to what works?

Even with this supposed casual reach on the Wii, it's amazing what games have come out.  Twilight Princess is as insular and fan-friendly as a Zelda game gets.  Metroid Prime 3 came out, and Smash Bros. Brawl is the very definition of "fan service."  Also, as I've stated before, I'm prepared to call Super Mario Galaxy one of the best games of all time once a little time passes and some historical perspective can be put on it.

In other words, while the second half of last year was deader than the Washington Nationals' playoff hopes or Jay Leno's monologues, there were enough quality games in the time up to that point to make for a quality library.  This year is proving to be excellent as well, with the capable Excitebots and excellent Punchout!!! out, and a pile of second-half releases that all look good, including New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

The next reason I blather about Nintendo is because this generation they found their hook, the reason to buy their system instead of the others.  In the N64 era, that hook was four controllers.  The PS1 had games that could be marked down because of the cheaper cost of disc duplication.  The PS2 had DVD playback built right into the system.  The XBox had online play.  The Gamecube had...what now?  A mildly powerful system that did nothing that the other systems did?  Oh.

In this generation, Nintendo has motion controls.  It was the hook that got them into houses.  Now, just as other systems did in the past, Nintendo must find a way to work past that hook and become more established.  Will they?  Maybe.  The game's they've announced are showing that they're at least trying to accomplish that.

So, in conclusion, I'm now in a unique position.  I'm excoriating the company that I used to stand behind and standing behind the company that I excoriated.  It's not because I'm fickle or a fanboy.  It's because the only way we can learn how to succeed is by learning from successes and not pretending that a failure is a win.