The Wii U had an abysmal January, only selling 50,000 units in the US. The Vita did even worse, possibly only selling around 35,000 units in the US. One of these systems will survive. One of them won't.
There's a brief window at the beginning of a console's life cycle, after the launch, that the purchasers end their initial honeymoon with the console, look around and ask, "OK, so now what?" If the console has a steady stream of games on the way, the purchasers continue onwards happily. If there isn't, a bit of a rebellion starts to form.
Let's look back at the 3DS. The 3DS launched with a crappy original lineup, and afterwards the cupboard was bare for months. The best game from the original launch was Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars, and it remained the best game on the system for months afterwards. Nintendo had to respond by dropping the price on the unit and offering early adopters free games to mollify them.
With time the games came in, and the 3DS now has a surprisingly robust lineup, with plenty on the way. Of course, now the 3DS sells well and the early hand-wringing over whether or not a system with glasses-free 3D would work is mostly gone.
The PS2 experienced something similar back in the day. If you'll remember, the launch lineup for the PS2 wasn't very good,. There were just a few games: Tekken Tag Tournament, Fantavision, and a few other middling games. However, two things propped up the system: 1) Downwards compatibility and 2) The ability to play DVDs, since DVD players were pretty expensive at the time. That led to people buying the system because it was a cheap DVD player and they could still play their PS1 games on it. After that, the games started coming in and the PS2 sold like wildfire, becoming arguably the best system of that generation.
All right, so the Wii U has underwhelming sales right now. That's because so far there are only about two or three really good games for it. There's no hype about anything new coming out. After some initial excitement, everything appears quiet.
However, if there's one thing Nintendo knows how to do, it's make games that sell systems. They just need two or three exciting titles to turn this around. In a year or so, we might be talking about the Wii U's robust library of great games in the same way that we talk about the 3DS. It's still early in the Wii U's lifespan, so there's plenty of time to turn it around, build excitement, and continue onward.
The Vita doesn't have that luxury, though. The initial excitement over the spectacular quality of the hardware has died down. (And make no mistake, the Vita is a great machine.) They just dropped the price in Japan, usually a hotbed of portable gaming.
Most importantly, though, the release schedule for the Vita is empty. What's on the horizon for Vita purchasers? Best case scenario, a few games tossed in its direction that will be middling-to-good with a couple of great ones. Worst case scenario, lazy ports of Madden.
The ceiling for both of these systems has been lowered somewhat. The Wii U isn't going to trounce the competition like the Wii did, but it can hope for performance like the 360 and PS3 this generation: Solid systems that did good business and turned a profit. The basement is still the same: Something comparable to the Nintendo 64, a good system that tried some new things and wasn't as good as you remember it.
With the Vita, the ceiling has been lowered drastically. The best that it can hope for is something akin to half the sales as the PSP. The basement? Not as bad as the Nokia N-Gage, which sold only three million units worldwide. Still, with only about five million units for the Vita, it's not far behind.
This is default featured slide 1 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 2 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 3 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 4 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 5 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Showing posts with label General Gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Gaming. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Who's Agreeing With Me Now
(Apologies to Stephen Colbert for the post title.)
I had an article a while ago that explained what went wrong with the Mega Man series of games. Here's a quote from the article:
Look, Mario can support sub-brands. He's the most popular video game character in the world, and in every Mario game, you actually play as Mario. Mega Man, while important and well-known, isn't as popular as Mario, and making Mega Man games without Mega Man is just plain irresponsible to the brand. Making tons of Mega Man side-series isn't working. It has to stop.
Fortunately, we've seen that Mega Man releases have slowed down considerably recently. This is a good sign. Capcom might be coming around. Fingers crossed.
I had an article a while ago that explained what went wrong with the Mega Man series of games. Here's a quote from the article:
If Capcom wants to make 50 RPGs a year in a series no one cares about, fine. Spin off the series. Take the Mega Man name off of it. YOU'RE DILUTING THE BRAND. [...] Mega Man is iconic, and making Generic RPG X or Platformer X and slapping a reference to Mega Man in there is irresponsible and is cheapening your brand.Lo and behold, a Capcom executive agrees with me!
I (and probably I alone so please don’t ascribe said belief to “Capcom”) think one of the problems MM has had as a brand is that we’ve had too many competing splinter sub-brands within it.YES! Exactly!
Look, Mario can support sub-brands. He's the most popular video game character in the world, and in every Mario game, you actually play as Mario. Mega Man, while important and well-known, isn't as popular as Mario, and making Mega Man games without Mega Man is just plain irresponsible to the brand. Making tons of Mega Man side-series isn't working. It has to stop.
Fortunately, we've seen that Mega Man releases have slowed down considerably recently. This is a good sign. Capcom might be coming around. Fingers crossed.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Zynga, Casual Games, and the End of the Skinner Box
Zynga had a horrible last quarter. People are leaving their flagship game, FarmVille, in droves and their revenues are plummeting. It seems that the directors of Zynga also dumped their stock right before the earnings report, so there are now some allegations of insider trading levelled against them.
Some are using this as ammunition against the supposed Rise of Casual Gaming. After all, when one of the biggest companies in casual gaming starts falling apart and revenue from Android apps can be nonexistent, something is wrong in Casual Land.
Before we get underway, I want it to be known that I have a shameful, dirty secret.
I was hooked on FarmVille for a while.
I know! It's awful!
I never spent any money on it, but I tended to my little farm, raised strawberries, collected cows, and annoyed my friends to play. I knew what FarmVille was doing, too. I knew it was just a device to keep you coming back and clicking on things, and I knew how badly they wanted you to spend money on their stuff. I saw right through it, and still I couldn't stop playing.
After a few months I slapped myself repeatedly and made the decision to block FarmVille. I returned about a month later just because I was curious, and all desire to play had been sucked out of me, so I thankfully never cared after that. But I know firsthand what a timesink Zynga games can be and how you can fall into them.
With that out in the open, I learned how easy it is for these games to get their hooks into you. You start playing, and then the psychological processes that form the game's backbone start to take over. Since these games demand your attention, you can't ignore them. Since they fill up your news feed with your friends' accomplishments, you can't get away from them. If you try to ignore the game, you're constantly reminded of what you're not doing.
So maybe you spend a little bit of money trying to get ahead of your friends, or maybe you decide that there's a really cute barn that you just have to have. If that happens, then the sunk-cost fallacy kicks in: "I've already spent X amount of dollars on this. I have to get my money's worth."
Next thing you know, you're down a rabbit hole of haybales and horses. You're rearranging your farm, organizing your fruit trees, and buying a new tractor, and for what? You finally step away from the game when a new shiny distracts you or you lose interest, and the cycle begins anew.
The thing with so-called "casual" gamers is that they don't really have brand loyalty. They don't care that Zynga made the game they're playing, just that they're playing a game. If a new game comes along that tickles that part of their brain, they'll play it, and it doesn't matter who made it. Zynga (or any company who courts a "casual" gamer) may try and cultivate brand loyalty, but in the end, it's for naught. "Casual" gamers play what their friends play, and that's that.
So with that in mind, it's not surprising that some of these companies are struggling, especially Zynga. They've gone back to the well for game after game with the same few ideas.
Compare this with Rovio. Rovio has an incredibly infectious idea in Angry Birds. I personally have spent about $12 on Angry Birds games, and most everyone who has a phone has bought one of them or played the free, ad-supported version.
Rovio has made four incredibly popular Angry Birds games, but after the third, they changed up the game considerably by putting it in space. It's not a cosmetic change, because there are new birds and gravity changes that are fairly complex. For Rovio's next game, they went in a different direction. They didn't go back to the Angry Birds well, but rather made Amazing Alex. It's still a physics puzzler, but you're not killing pigs protected by shoddily-built shelters, but accomplishing different tasks. It's proving fairly popular as well.
Rovio is setting themselves up for long-term success because they're diversifying. They recognize that there's no brand loyalty in casual gaming, so you need to keep churning out new ideas and ways of playing to keep eyes on your games.
Zynga did not. They attempted to put the same "Skinner box" techniques in a variety of venues, and it's failing.
See, when people are whining about casual gamers taking over our hobby, Zynga is the type of company that was the most terrifying. After all, if you could pacify people and make insane amounts of money by having people click on things over and over with no end in sight, what hope did gaming really have?
But now we’re seeing that Zynga’s success may have been an aberration, a short-term lark that could end in a complete rejection of their methods, at least for the time being. That should be heartening to most people who are afraid of “casual” gamers.
However, some people are pointing at this and saying that Nintendo had better beware as well. After all, “casual” gamers propped up the Wii, and casual gamers are fickle. They’re running away from Zynga, and they’ll run away from Nintendo long-term, right?
Well, that depends. If you’re talking about gamers running away from crappy sports compilations that weren’t made by Nintendo, that’s correct. Gamers have roundly rejected that. However, Nintendo as a whole hasn’t exclusively made casual games during the Wii years. Here’s a list of Nintendo’s games that have sold over one million copies:
That’s why a company like Zynga, with their horrible “games,” is struggling now. All they know how to do is copy the same template, buy smarter companies, and defraud investors. That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.
Some are using this as ammunition against the supposed Rise of Casual Gaming. After all, when one of the biggest companies in casual gaming starts falling apart and revenue from Android apps can be nonexistent, something is wrong in Casual Land.
Before we get underway, I want it to be known that I have a shameful, dirty secret.
I was hooked on FarmVille for a while.
I know! It's awful!
I never spent any money on it, but I tended to my little farm, raised strawberries, collected cows, and annoyed my friends to play. I knew what FarmVille was doing, too. I knew it was just a device to keep you coming back and clicking on things, and I knew how badly they wanted you to spend money on their stuff. I saw right through it, and still I couldn't stop playing.
After a few months I slapped myself repeatedly and made the decision to block FarmVille. I returned about a month later just because I was curious, and all desire to play had been sucked out of me, so I thankfully never cared after that. But I know firsthand what a timesink Zynga games can be and how you can fall into them.
With that out in the open, I learned how easy it is for these games to get their hooks into you. You start playing, and then the psychological processes that form the game's backbone start to take over. Since these games demand your attention, you can't ignore them. Since they fill up your news feed with your friends' accomplishments, you can't get away from them. If you try to ignore the game, you're constantly reminded of what you're not doing.
So maybe you spend a little bit of money trying to get ahead of your friends, or maybe you decide that there's a really cute barn that you just have to have. If that happens, then the sunk-cost fallacy kicks in: "I've already spent X amount of dollars on this. I have to get my money's worth."
Next thing you know, you're down a rabbit hole of haybales and horses. You're rearranging your farm, organizing your fruit trees, and buying a new tractor, and for what? You finally step away from the game when a new shiny distracts you or you lose interest, and the cycle begins anew.
The thing with so-called "casual" gamers is that they don't really have brand loyalty. They don't care that Zynga made the game they're playing, just that they're playing a game. If a new game comes along that tickles that part of their brain, they'll play it, and it doesn't matter who made it. Zynga (or any company who courts a "casual" gamer) may try and cultivate brand loyalty, but in the end, it's for naught. "Casual" gamers play what their friends play, and that's that.
So with that in mind, it's not surprising that some of these companies are struggling, especially Zynga. They've gone back to the well for game after game with the same few ideas.
Compare this with Rovio. Rovio has an incredibly infectious idea in Angry Birds. I personally have spent about $12 on Angry Birds games, and most everyone who has a phone has bought one of them or played the free, ad-supported version.
Rovio has made four incredibly popular Angry Birds games, but after the third, they changed up the game considerably by putting it in space. It's not a cosmetic change, because there are new birds and gravity changes that are fairly complex. For Rovio's next game, they went in a different direction. They didn't go back to the Angry Birds well, but rather made Amazing Alex. It's still a physics puzzler, but you're not killing pigs protected by shoddily-built shelters, but accomplishing different tasks. It's proving fairly popular as well.
Rovio is setting themselves up for long-term success because they're diversifying. They recognize that there's no brand loyalty in casual gaming, so you need to keep churning out new ideas and ways of playing to keep eyes on your games.
Zynga did not. They attempted to put the same "Skinner box" techniques in a variety of venues, and it's failing.
See, when people are whining about casual gamers taking over our hobby, Zynga is the type of company that was the most terrifying. After all, if you could pacify people and make insane amounts of money by having people click on things over and over with no end in sight, what hope did gaming really have?
But now we’re seeing that Zynga’s success may have been an aberration, a short-term lark that could end in a complete rejection of their methods, at least for the time being. That should be heartening to most people who are afraid of “casual” gamers.
However, some people are pointing at this and saying that Nintendo had better beware as well. After all, “casual” gamers propped up the Wii, and casual gamers are fickle. They’re running away from Zynga, and they’ll run away from Nintendo long-term, right?
Well, that depends. If you’re talking about gamers running away from crappy sports compilations that weren’t made by Nintendo, that’s correct. Gamers have roundly rejected that. However, Nintendo as a whole hasn’t exclusively made casual games during the Wii years. Here’s a list of Nintendo’s games that have sold over one million copies:
Wii Sports (79.6 million)In here, you’ll find a pretty good mix between “casual” games (Wii Fit, Wii Play, Wii Party) versus games that provide a really deep and engaging experience (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3). Nintendo, like Rovio, is diverse. They’ve done what they can to set themselves up for long-term success.
Mario Kart Wii (32.44 million)
Wii Sports Resort (30.14 million)
Wii Play (28.02 million)
New Super Mario Bros. Wii (26.26 million)
Wii Fit (22.67 million)
Wii Fit Plus (20.48 million)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (10.79 million)
Super Mario Galaxy (10.68 million)
Wii Party (7.94 million)
Mario Party 8 (7.6 million)
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (6.36 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (5.82 million)
Donkey Kong Country Returns (4.98 million)
Link's Crossbow Training (4.80 million)
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (3.52 million)
Animal Crossing: City Folk (3.38 million)
Wii Music (2.65 million)
Super Paper Mario (2.28 million)
Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree (2.26 million)
Super Mario All-Stars 25th Anniversary Edition (2.24 million)
Punch-Out!! (1.86 million)
WarioWare: Smooth Moves (1.82 million)
Mario Strikers Charged (1.77 million)
Kirby's Epic Yarn (1.59 million)
Mario Sports Mix (1.54 million)
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (1.31 million)
Mario Super Sluggers (1.26 million)
Wii Play: Motion (1.26 million)
Kirby's Return to Dream Land (1.31 million)
Pokémon Battle Revolution (1.202 million)
That’s why a company like Zynga, with their horrible “games,” is struggling now. All they know how to do is copy the same template, buy smarter companies, and defraud investors. That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Difference Between the New Kirby and Mario Games
I've spent about five hours with Super Mario 3D Land, and I'd like to explain what makes it so great so far, especially in comparison to the drab Kirby's Return To Dreamland. In order to do so, we're going to look back at this article.
If you haven't read it, here's the theory I put forth. In every game, there need to be three things in order to make the game work well:
Kirby's Return to Dreamland had solid controls, and that was about it. Beating levels was easy, and the supposed "secrets" were painfully easy to find. There was minor anticipation, since you knew you weren't going to find more special powers as you played. That made Kirby's Return to Dreamland bland.
Super Mario 3D Land, on the other hand, has phenomenal controls. It's challenging yet fair. Every level is slightly different or has something you didn't expect to see, including the remixed special levels that you get to play after you've beaten the first quest.
In essence, everything that you could want from a platformer is in Super Mario 3D Land. That's the difference between an OK game and a great game. Good job, Nintendo.
If you haven't read it, here's the theory I put forth. In every game, there need to be three things in order to make the game work well:
- Good controls.
- Challenging yet attainable goal achievement.
- Anticipation of what comes next.
Kirby's Return to Dreamland had solid controls, and that was about it. Beating levels was easy, and the supposed "secrets" were painfully easy to find. There was minor anticipation, since you knew you weren't going to find more special powers as you played. That made Kirby's Return to Dreamland bland.
Super Mario 3D Land, on the other hand, has phenomenal controls. It's challenging yet fair. Every level is slightly different or has something you didn't expect to see, including the remixed special levels that you get to play after you've beaten the first quest.
In essence, everything that you could want from a platformer is in Super Mario 3D Land. That's the difference between an OK game and a great game. Good job, Nintendo.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
AM2R Demo Out Now
Remember AM2R, the Metroid 2 remake I talked about a long, long time ago? I even interviewed the guy who made it. Seriously, you don't remember that?
Well, anyway, they released a demo. I'm excited about it, and I'll see if I have some time to look it over.
Well, anyway, they released a demo. I'm excited about it, and I'll see if I have some time to look it over.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Arkham City Out November 15th For PCs!
Batman: Arkham Asylum was one of my favorite games of all time. Early reviews of Arkham City say it's even better than the first. It's out November 15th. In the immortal words of noted thespian and wordsmith Bart Scott:
Friday, October 7, 2011
Too Many Games On the Horizon
There are times where gaming is a very, very expensive hobby. These next few months are that kind of time. Within the span of 48 days, there are five games coming out that I want to play at a cost of approximately $210 in total:
Professor Layton 10/17
Kirby's Return to Dream Land 10/24
Super Mario 3D Land 11/13
Zelda: Skyward Sword 11/20
Mario Kart 7 12/4
Now, I could go crazy and try and get all of them at once. That's just what the developers would like me to do. However, in order to get them, I'd have to start getting rid of other games, and I don't really want to do that.
This is the downside of gaming. It's the eternal struggle between what we want to play, how much time we have, and how much money we have to spend. It's a very odd, materialistic culture that grows. If you don't have the new game, what's wrong with you? Why haven't you played this new game?
If you decide to wait and pick up the game in a year, you're old news! You don't have an opportunity to join in the discussion, because you're late to the party and no one will discuss it with you. It's kind of a weird culture and one that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
So what I'm doing in these next couple of months is just picking out which games I want to play, and picking out which ones can wait. The only two that are must-have first-day purchases will be Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Super Mario 3D Land. As intrigued as I am by the London Life RPG in Professor Layton, that can wait. As much as the new Zelda makes me excited, I can wait. And Mario Kart 7 can sit for a bit.
This means, though, that my Games of the Year for 2011 will be incomplete. I can live with this. I've never pretended to be an exhaustive cataloger of all games that exist, just the ones that personally interest me. I'm sure I'm forgetting about games that are coming out, but that's OK. If I don't remember them, they won't exist for now.
Professor Layton 10/17
Kirby's Return to Dream Land 10/24
Super Mario 3D Land 11/13
Zelda: Skyward Sword 11/20
Mario Kart 7 12/4
Now, I could go crazy and try and get all of them at once. That's just what the developers would like me to do. However, in order to get them, I'd have to start getting rid of other games, and I don't really want to do that.
This is the downside of gaming. It's the eternal struggle between what we want to play, how much time we have, and how much money we have to spend. It's a very odd, materialistic culture that grows. If you don't have the new game, what's wrong with you? Why haven't you played this new game?
If you decide to wait and pick up the game in a year, you're old news! You don't have an opportunity to join in the discussion, because you're late to the party and no one will discuss it with you. It's kind of a weird culture and one that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
So what I'm doing in these next couple of months is just picking out which games I want to play, and picking out which ones can wait. The only two that are must-have first-day purchases will be Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Super Mario 3D Land. As intrigued as I am by the London Life RPG in Professor Layton, that can wait. As much as the new Zelda makes me excited, I can wait. And Mario Kart 7 can sit for a bit.
This means, though, that my Games of the Year for 2011 will be incomplete. I can live with this. I've never pretended to be an exhaustive cataloger of all games that exist, just the ones that personally interest me. I'm sure I'm forgetting about games that are coming out, but that's OK. If I don't remember them, they won't exist for now.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Syndicate Reboot: Oh, For God's Sake
The Syndicate reboot is real. Unfortunately, it is also a "visceral first-person shooter experience." Yes, that's exactly why we wanted Syndicate back, because we wanted to play a game that was nothing like Syndicate.
What is with companies thinking that every AAA game needs to be an FPS? One only needs to look at the amazing indie scene to see that we don't always want to play first-person shooters.
Idiots.
What is with companies thinking that every AAA game needs to be an FPS? One only needs to look at the amazing indie scene to see that we don't always want to play first-person shooters.
Idiots.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
5 Ways To Save Mega Man
1) Stop. Just... Stop.
I want to be clear: When I say "stop releasing Mega Man games," I mean for them to end all Mega Man games for the time being. No RPGs. No sports games. Nothing. Radio silence. It's time for Capcom to let Mega Man rest for a while. After almost two games per year in 24 years, he's tired.
After a while, excessive sequels kill any interest that people have in a franchise. The only way to counteract that is to stop making games for that franchise for a while.
You might say that putting Mega Man out to seed for a while is a tremendously risky move for Capcom to make, but on further reflection it's not that bad. The series is doing so poorly right now that Capcom has to be losing money on every Mega Man game. How many copies do you think they sold of Mega Man ZX Advent? 75,000 copies in Japan. That's barely worth talking about.
On top of that, Keiji Inafune, the creator and guiding force behind the Mega Man series, has also moved on. No one has really stepped up at this point to fill that void and be the voice of Mega Man in a figurative sense. Why not let Mega Man lie fallow for a bit, give someone a chance to come up with something really good and then unleash it on the world? As it is right now, every new entry only further dilutes Mega Man down to almost nothing. It's time for it to stop.
So how long is too long? I'd say that if Capcom lets Mega Man sit for three years, that's the absolute maximum amount of time. That should be enough time to come up a with a new, long-term strategy to allow Mega Man to be viable for the foreseeable future. It's a temporary setback to ensure the long-term survival of a gaming icon.
2) Reboot.
The less complicated Mega Man is, the more popular he is. I don't know why Capcom doesn't get this. How much story does Mega Man 10 have? It's minimal. Was it a mild success? Yes, it was. By current standard, it's a rousing success. It's possible that the original Mega Man series doesn't need rebooting.
So which series needs a clean slate? In my opinion, it's the Mega Man X series. If there's a way we can pretend that all games after X2 were just a dream, that would be great. I would even be OK if we avoided a hard reboot. If we just go back to X and Zero blowing up robots, that would be awesome. Jettison dead weight like Axl and Sigma being a virus and lengthy cutscenes and other garbage.
Just like Sega does with Sonic fans, Capcom has a tendency to listen too closely to the most die-hard fans who really legitimately CARE about the minutiae of the Reploids and can rattle off biographies of minor characters. It's to the point that the series is starting to devour its own tail.
Die-Hard Fans: "We want more story!"And so on. It's time to cut off the maniacal fans and focus on the public at large or face death at the hands of public indifference.
Capcom: "Here you go!"
Buying Public: (crickets)
Die-Hard Fans: "See, forget about them! They don't love Mega Man like we do! Give us more story! Satisfy us!"
Capcom: "I guess so, here you are."
Buying Public: (emphatic crickets)
Die-Hard Fans: "Philistines! We're the only ones who truly appreciate Mega Man! MORE STORY!"
3) No More RPGs.
Look, I played the first Battle Network game and found it interesting. Then I woke up one morning and there were 3 more of them waiting outside my window and peering at me while I slept. That's enough. I know they're cheap to produce, Capcom, because you can reuse sprites and make minor variations of the same battle systems. Here's the problem: NO ONE LIKES THESE GAMES.
Who's buying these games? Honestly? Japan, is this your fault? Because I will come over there RIGHT NOW, I am not even kidding.
If Capcom wants to make 50 RPGs a year in a series no one cares about, fine. Spin off the series. Take the Mega Man name off of it. YOU'RE DILUTING THE BRAND. I wish I could grab Capcom by the lapels and shake them until they understood this.
I would even be OK if Capcom decided to make only ONE Mega Man RPG for every handheld system, but only on one condition: Make Mega Man the star. That dovetails nicely with the next point...
4) Put Mega Man Back In Mega Man Games.
If I pick up ONE MORE Mega Man game that doesn't have Mega Man as the star, I swear to Odin that I am going to lose it. They did this with the Mega Man X series. I am going to make this clear to you, Capcom:
When someone buys a Mega Man game, they want to play as Mega Man.
Sega learned this lesson the hard way with Sonic. We don't want to play as Big the Cat or Shadow or whatever characters that they're loading up Sonic games with nowadays. Now that they're refocusing on Sonic, the series is recovering ever so slightly.
And no, Capcom, you can't bend the rules by having "MegaMan.exe" be an assistant or making an offhanded comment in the game about there being "Mega Men." NO. Mega Man is iconic, and making Generic RPG X or Platformer X and slapping a reference to Mega Man in there is irresponsible and is cheapening your brand.
It's ridiculous that I even have to say this, frankly.
5) Unleash Hell.
So, after you've let Mega Man sit for a few years, reinstated your commitment to quality and spacing out your releases, stopped making RPGs and started putting Mega Man back into Mega Man games, what next?
After the two to three year waiting period, unleash Mega Man 11, the relaunched Mega Man X series, and, what the heck, a Metroidvania Mega Man game for handhelds where your weapons are required to open up new passages while USING THE SAME SPRITES as Mega Man 2. I think I just pooped myself a little bit over how awesome that sounded.
Then, sit back and stagger your releases. NEVER release more than one Mega Man game per year from there on out. Make your releases count. Make sure that each game is quality or it doesn't make the cut.
----
Listen, Capcom, we all love Mega Man. We really do. We're ITCHING to play a good Mega Man game again. You have an enormous audience that's waiting patiently. If you play your cards right, you'll end up with more Mega Man fans than you can count.
If you don't? Well, let's not think about that.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Why Is Mega Man Dying?
First, a little history. In the NES days, there were a few major franchises for Nintendo systems. Mario games were obviously big. Zelda was huge, although not exploited as often as Mario games. Dragon Quest was massive in Japan. The other major tentpole franchise was Mega Man.
It can't be overstated how cool Mega Man was back in the day. Here was a game where you could take on any level you wanted at any time. There was technically only one or two orders you could beat the levels in, but still, it was the illusion of an open world that was so shocking. Most console gamers were so used to linearity in platformers that it was mind-blowing to have a game that gave us the choice of going wherever we wanted right off the bat.
The music was also key. Most game music to that point wasn't really meant to get you moving in your chair to the beat. Mega Man games changed all that with songs that had a cool beat and catchy hooks. After designers realized that you could use scratch noises and static to approximate drums and cymbals like the designers of Mega Man did, all bets were off.
Mega Man games were challenging, although not unfair (unless we include the original Mega Man game). The level design was top-notch, too. Mega Man had everything you would look for in a great series of games.
So what happened to Mega Man? Why is it so hard to see a good Mega Man game these days? We'll examine three reasons.
1) Sequel Fatigue.
We've talked about sequel fatigue before regarding Sega's games and Activision's mismanagement of the Guitar Hero brand, but Mega Man is actually in WORSE shape.
To prove our point, let's open up with Mario. Mario is kind of a whore, so we should see a lot of Mario games in his history, stretching back to 1984 when Mario Bros. first launched, right?
4 - NES (Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 1-3)
3 - Game Boy (Super Mario Land 1-3)
2 - SNES (Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island)
1 - N64 (Super Mario 64)
1 - Gamecube (Super Mario Sunshine)
1 - DS (New Super Mario Bros.)
3 - Wii (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii)
15 games in 26 years. That's it. That's less than 1 game per year in the main series. I could see an argument made for including the Super Mario Advance series or Super Mario Deluxe in that list, but even if we do that we only have 20 games total. We're still sitting at less than 1 game per year, and that's including remakes.
Now, here's a list of only the action games in the various Mega Man series.
6 - NES (Mega Man 1-6)
4 - SNES (Mega Man 7, X1-3)
5 - Game Boy (Mega Man I-V)
2 - Game Boy Color (Xtreme 1 & 2)
6 - Playstation (Mega Man 8, X4-6, Legends 1 & 2)
5 - Game Boy Advance (Zero 1-4, Mega Man & Bass)
2 - Playstation 2 (X7 & 8)
2 - DS (ZX & Advent)
2 - Downloadable (Mega Man 9, 10)
That's 34 games in 24 years that are JUST action games. That's a lot of games. That's more than one Mega Man game in a year. I left out Mega Man Powered Up! for the PSP and some of the other side games just because I didn't want to be here all week counting them, but there are more out there.
We're not even counting RPGs yet. Do you realize they've made 11 Mega Man RPGs since 2001? Once again, that's more than one per year! By comparison, there are only 7 Mario RPGs since 1996. That's about one every two years.
See? Capcom killed Mega Man by spamming him all over the place. After a while, you start to get diminishing returns.
2) Diminishing Returns.
You'll always have your die-hard fans that insist that Mega Man is still just as good as he ever was, but for those of us who live in the real world, there is a very clear downward trajectory with the Mega Man series.
Quick, name the best Mega Man game in the main series! You probably spat out Mega Man 2 or 3. That's not to say that 4 or 5 weren't good, but 2 and 3 were just that much better. Now, if someone told you that Mega Man 8 is the best Mega Man game, you would roll your eyes and groan. It's not the best by a long shot. The voices are weird. The level design isn't that great. The weapons are dull. The bosses are forgettable.
OK, now which is the best game in the Mega Man X series. You probably said X1 or X2. Why? The bosses were memorable. The weapons were cool. The level design was tight. X3 is OK, but not great. X4 is really neat, but it's not as good as X1 or 2.
It's clear that they started running out of ideas. To prove it, which bosses are more memorable: The bosses in Mega Man 2 or Mega Man 6? What about Mega Man X versus Mega Man X8? Which weapons do you remember more?
Good ideas take time to gestate. You need time to trim the fat off of a good idea. You need time to build on a good foundation. When you crank out sequel after sequel in such a short period of time, you don't give good ideas time to breathe.
So what's happened? Because of the excessive sequel diarrhea that Capcom has fostered, the newer games (9 and 10 aside, mostly) haven't been as good. Therefore, Mega Man no longer carries the cachet he once did. It's no longer a guarantee that a Mega Man game is going to sell. It's a riskier investment.
If you are Capcom and you know that Mega Man isn't going to sell very well because you've mismanaged the franchise, why would you keep greenlighting Mega Man games? It's especially true of weird experiments like Mega Man Universe or continuations of series that only a small crowd liked, such as Mega Man Legends 3. Why pour resources into games that won't sell?
3) No Mega Man.
If someone buys a Sonic game, they expect to play as Sonic. If you buy a Mario game, you expect to play as Mario. If you're not able to, you say that the game misrepresented itself.
With that in mind, name the hero of Mega Man Network Transmission. Now Battle Network. Now ZX Advent. If you were able to do that, congratulations. You're better at this than I am.
The most recent Mega Man games have been doing just that. They've been expecting that people will willingly play as different characters other than the name on the box. That's insanity. When I pick up a Mega Man game, I want to play as Mega Man.
That's not taking anything away from the Mega Man Zero series, which is a fine series. But even that series didn't sell very well and started getting low marks towards the end of its lifespan. The point still stands: If you're going to make a Mega Man game, make a Mega Man game. If you don't want to make a Mega Man game, then don't slap "Mega Man" on the cover in big, bold letters. You're only diluting the brand name.
----
So, can Mega Man come back from the dead? What does Capcom need to do to revive interest? We'll cover that in a different article.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
So Long, Guitar Hero
I predicted that Guitar Hero was going to collapse, and verily, it came to pass.
Here's what a few people are saying:
Sing it, Cliff.
Activision sez:
When Guitar Hero came out, it was a revelation. It was fun, easy to learn, and just plain brilliant. You could tell that it had a limited shelf life, but there were ways to stretch that shelf life considerably. By metering out carefully the releases, Activision could have kept Guitar Hero viable for several years.
Don't believe me? Think of this: What if they would have ONLY released Guitar Hero 3 and Guitar Hero: World Tour this generation? They could bide their time, wait a a few years, and then release the next Guitar Hero with cool new features. They might even wait a generation for the next one. Can you imagine the demand for the next game? Instead, they pummeled the tar out of Guitar Hero so badly that no one wanted anything to do with it.
They also learned the wrong lesson from Guitar Hero in a different sense. Instead of understanding that the appeal wasn't in the motion or the peripheral but rather the gameplay, they started pounding out peripherals like mad. Here's the thing: No one liked the extra cost involved with the peripherals. They used them because the games they were attached to were fun.
What a concept! Instead of peripherals driving purchases, people actually would buy good games in SPITE of the extra expense BECAUSE they were good! WOW!
I've hammered Activision on this point repeatedly, but don't be surprised if they go the way of 90's Sega. They have no idea what they're doing. So why aren't we having this conversation about Call of Duty instead? We'll discuss that a different time.
Here's what a few people are saying:
“You can have an IP that you lovingly care for and release every so often that can last forever, or one you ride hard into the ground.” - Cliffy B
Sing it, Cliff.
Activision sez:
"Although we did well with the core gamer in 2010, we felt the effects of changing consumer demand for peripheral-based and mid-tier titles, which performed well below our expectations.It appears that Activision learned the wrong lesson here. Instead of placing the blame on peripheral oversaturation, as yours truly talked about back in 2009 and everyone could see coming from a mile away, they said that demand decreased dramatically. In other words, it was completely out of their hands and just a market fluctuation.
After two years of steeply declining sales, we’ve made the decision to close our Guitar Hero business unit and discontinue development on our previously playing Guitar Hero title for 2011.
Despite a remarkable 92 rating on DJ Hero 2, a widely well-regarded Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, as well as the 90-plus rated release from our most direct competitor, demand for peripheral-based music games declined at a dramatic pace."
When Guitar Hero came out, it was a revelation. It was fun, easy to learn, and just plain brilliant. You could tell that it had a limited shelf life, but there were ways to stretch that shelf life considerably. By metering out carefully the releases, Activision could have kept Guitar Hero viable for several years.
Don't believe me? Think of this: What if they would have ONLY released Guitar Hero 3 and Guitar Hero: World Tour this generation? They could bide their time, wait a a few years, and then release the next Guitar Hero with cool new features. They might even wait a generation for the next one. Can you imagine the demand for the next game? Instead, they pummeled the tar out of Guitar Hero so badly that no one wanted anything to do with it.
They also learned the wrong lesson from Guitar Hero in a different sense. Instead of understanding that the appeal wasn't in the motion or the peripheral but rather the gameplay, they started pounding out peripherals like mad. Here's the thing: No one liked the extra cost involved with the peripherals. They used them because the games they were attached to were fun.
What a concept! Instead of peripherals driving purchases, people actually would buy good games in SPITE of the extra expense BECAUSE they were good! WOW!
I've hammered Activision on this point repeatedly, but don't be surprised if they go the way of 90's Sega. They have no idea what they're doing. So why aren't we having this conversation about Call of Duty instead? We'll discuss that a different time.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Warning For Activision
Activision had best watch itself.
I'm not saying this because of recent controversies or even because Bobby Kotick, the current CEO, is a jerk. I'm saying this because of history.
I recently purchased Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection, a collection of the Sega Genesis' astounding murderer's row of games. There are 40 games in the collection, mostly released within eight years of each other, between 1988-96, and 8 more unlockable games. Some of the games are great games that I've never played (Bonanza Bros.) and some of them are horrible games that suck (Super Thunder Blade).
However, this got me thinking. 40 games in 8 years? That's nuts! That's at a clip of 5 games per year, and many of them were very solid games! That was some amazing work by Sega! How did they not continue to compete with that sort of capability? What happened?
Let's take a closer look at what they really did. Of the games in this collection, there are 2 Ecco the Dolphin games. There are 5 main Sonic series games (Sonic 1, 2, 3, Knuckles and Sonic 3D Blast), 3 Golden Axe games, 3 Streets of Rage games, 2 Shining Force games, 3 Phantasy Star games, and 2 Vectorman games. They also have Shinobi 3 in this collection, although there are no other Shinobi games. The first sequel in this group was Golden Axe 2 in 1991. The last sequel was Vectorman 2 in 1995.
Let's do the math. In a span of five years, Sega pumped out 15 sequels to their hits, at a clip of three per year. I'm not counting handheld games in this number, as a steady library of games was necessary to attempt to establish a handheld presence.
Are some of these games excellent? You bet! Sonic 2 is the best of the Sonic series, Shining Force 2 is amazing, and the Phantasy Star games were great too. But what did Sega accomplish by making so many sequels in such a short period of time? They watered down their franchises to the point that no one was interested in them anymore, and what's worse, they blew all of their great ideas in such a hurry that no more great ideas existed.
Let's compare this with Nintendo. During this time frame of 1991 to 1995, Nintendo also released sequels. They released 10 of them in Japan, and only 8 in the United States. Of this group, there were three Fire Emblem games, Super Metroid, Super Mario World (in the US it was released in 1991, Japan 1990) and Super Mario World 2, Donkey Kong Country 2 and Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past as well as Kirby's Adventure and Star Tropics 2 for the NES. I'm also not counting handheld games in this number, as Nintendo was trying to build up the library of the GameBoy.
In most of these cases, Nintendo went back to the well in order to do things they couldn't do previously. For example, Yoshi was created during the making of Super Mario Bros. 3, but they couldn't include him due to system limitations. Instead, they held on to the idea until they could do it in Super Mario World. Kirby's Adventure built on concepts they couldn't accomplish in Game Boy iterations of the game. Super Metroid became one of the greatest games ever made, and so on. The only series that was really run into the ground by excessive sequels was the Donkey Kong Country series, which started strong with the first two installments and had a miserable third game.
Therein lies Sega's problem. For example, what does Streets of Rage 3 add to Streets of Rage? What did Golden Axe 3 add to the Golden Axe formula? Sure, they added new characters and continued the story, but no one was dying for either of those series to continue. In those cases, the property was run into the ground by repeated trips to the same well.
Take Vectorman. Vectorman was Sega's response to Nintendo's CGI characters in Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario RPG. Vectorman was a fun, if slightly unpolished game. The music was tremendous, and the level design was good. Vectorman 2 looks and plays like a cheap cash-in. It's boring and repetitive.
Sonic also suffered. Sonic 2 was great. Sonic 3 was good. Sonic and Knuckles was OK. Sonic 3D Blast was hideous. The downtick in quality is striking.
Now, let's say that Sega held off on developing these properties. Let's say that they instead waited on Sonic 2, integrating the Sonic 3 save system, the fantastic Angel Island level, and the different elemental shields into Sonic 2. Wouldn't you say that it would make one of the best games ever? Instead, some of the ideas had to wait for the inferior Sonic 3.
Sega probably thought they were doing the right thing. It would make sense to strike while the characters are hot, right? I mean, Nintendo was taking their sweet time making sequels, so pumping out sequels would distract from what Nintendo was doing and make the Genesis the more viable system, right?
That's almost exactly what happened, too. The Genesis overtook the SNES in Europe and made Nintendo look like out-of-touch old fogeys in the States. They opened the door for a new core audience that wanted more adult games, and if they had been able to keep their momentum going, they could have become the dominant company.
I'm going to bring another thread into this discussion, so keep up. A long time ago, I made a webcomic. Don't bother asking about it: It was awful. I never put it online because I started running out of ideas. Instead of creating situations with the characters I had made, I just started adding more characters to create more situations. It was totally unsustainable, and I'm glad it never came to fruition.
Sega made the same mistake, especially with the Sonic series. They blasted through all their great ideas in the first 5 games they made and ended up sitting on a great character with no gameplay ideas. What to do? Add characters!
They're still doing it, too. Instead of stopping with Sonic games, look what they've done in the last few years. Starting in 2001, we've had Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic Heroes, Sonic the Hedgehog (again), Sonic and the Secret Rings, Sonic Unleashed, Sonic and the Black Knight, and Sonic Colors. That's an average of about one Sonic game on a console per year.
Now compare Mario's main offerings since 2001. We have Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario Galaxy 2. That's it. Since they spaced out their releases, Mario is still a big deal. Most every Mario game sells quite a few copies because it's still a big deal.
Heck, let's throw Zelda games into the mix. Since 2001, we've had Wind Waker and Twilight Princess on consoles. Once again, that's it. Heck, throwing in handhelds, we have Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. That's still fewer games than Sonic.
OK, so what does this all mean? Let's look at the facts.
1) Sega watered down their franchises to the point that they are unusable. They can't revive them either, because nobody cares about them (see Golden Axe: Beast Rider).
2) They got some quick gains in their market by creating tons of games based off their franchises, but quickly lost ground to Nintendo, they of the "slow and steady wins the race" attitude.
3) While they did make some poor decisions with their management (i.e. the early termination of the Sega Saturn, among others), a game company is all about the games, and if the quality drops, they can't expect to stay in business for very long.
All right, so let's circle back to Activision. Activision has three major licenses that they keep trying to exploit: Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, and Call of Duty. Blizzard's licenses are independent of Activision, so World of Warcraft and Starcraft remain untouched. Activision has made piles of money off of these, and is one of the most powerful companies in gaming.
However, of the three major licenses that Activision attempts to exploit, Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk are almost dead. Guitar Hero has been exploited so often their name is on milk cartons. Tony Hawk has been lapped by other, more superior games that don't require ridiculous and expensive peripherals. Call of Duty is showing signs of collapse, as the latest Call of Duty has been marred with issues, although it still sells mightily.
Activision hasn't really developed any new licenses. They brought in Bungie to work for them recently, but there aren't any projects ready to see the light of day, not for a while.
So, we can see that they're doing something similar to what Sega did in the 90's. They've watered down their franchises so much that they've killed not only their OWN franchise but also OTHER similar franchises, like Rock Band. They've made astounding monetary gains, but at what cost?
If things start going south at Activision, how long would it take for them to start raiding the coffers of Blizzard and demanding more product from them? They could end up not only killing their own franchises, but also Blizzard's venerable franchises too.
Plus, bad management decisions happen every day. When a company is going along fine, these decisions can usually be smoothed over by other departments or solved carefully. When a company is in trouble, those decisions can create a ripple effect throughout the organization, eventually sapping companies of manpower and the ability to innovate. For instance, Sega withstood the poor Sega CD and 32X add-ons because they were healthy. They could not, however, withstand the failure of the Saturn.
So, too, if Activision finds themselves in a dangerous spot, how much faith do you have that they'll make the right decision? Right now they're fine, so when Kotick opens his fat mouth or tries pushing Tony Hawk: Shred on a public that doesn't want anything to do with it, they survive. When, say, Call of Duty collapses, will they have the ability to recover from those poor decisions?
Time will tell. But Activision would be wise to heed the warning of Sega: Over-exploit your properties at your own risk.
I'm not saying this because of recent controversies or even because Bobby Kotick, the current CEO, is a jerk. I'm saying this because of history.
I recently purchased Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection, a collection of the Sega Genesis' astounding murderer's row of games. There are 40 games in the collection, mostly released within eight years of each other, between 1988-96, and 8 more unlockable games. Some of the games are great games that I've never played (Bonanza Bros.) and some of them are horrible games that suck (Super Thunder Blade).
However, this got me thinking. 40 games in 8 years? That's nuts! That's at a clip of 5 games per year, and many of them were very solid games! That was some amazing work by Sega! How did they not continue to compete with that sort of capability? What happened?
Let's take a closer look at what they really did. Of the games in this collection, there are 2 Ecco the Dolphin games. There are 5 main Sonic series games (Sonic 1, 2, 3, Knuckles and Sonic 3D Blast), 3 Golden Axe games, 3 Streets of Rage games, 2 Shining Force games, 3 Phantasy Star games, and 2 Vectorman games. They also have Shinobi 3 in this collection, although there are no other Shinobi games. The first sequel in this group was Golden Axe 2 in 1991. The last sequel was Vectorman 2 in 1995.
Let's do the math. In a span of five years, Sega pumped out 15 sequels to their hits, at a clip of three per year. I'm not counting handheld games in this number, as a steady library of games was necessary to attempt to establish a handheld presence.
Are some of these games excellent? You bet! Sonic 2 is the best of the Sonic series, Shining Force 2 is amazing, and the Phantasy Star games were great too. But what did Sega accomplish by making so many sequels in such a short period of time? They watered down their franchises to the point that no one was interested in them anymore, and what's worse, they blew all of their great ideas in such a hurry that no more great ideas existed.
Let's compare this with Nintendo. During this time frame of 1991 to 1995, Nintendo also released sequels. They released 10 of them in Japan, and only 8 in the United States. Of this group, there were three Fire Emblem games, Super Metroid, Super Mario World (in the US it was released in 1991, Japan 1990) and Super Mario World 2, Donkey Kong Country 2 and Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past as well as Kirby's Adventure and Star Tropics 2 for the NES. I'm also not counting handheld games in this number, as Nintendo was trying to build up the library of the GameBoy.
In most of these cases, Nintendo went back to the well in order to do things they couldn't do previously. For example, Yoshi was created during the making of Super Mario Bros. 3, but they couldn't include him due to system limitations. Instead, they held on to the idea until they could do it in Super Mario World. Kirby's Adventure built on concepts they couldn't accomplish in Game Boy iterations of the game. Super Metroid became one of the greatest games ever made, and so on. The only series that was really run into the ground by excessive sequels was the Donkey Kong Country series, which started strong with the first two installments and had a miserable third game.
Therein lies Sega's problem. For example, what does Streets of Rage 3 add to Streets of Rage? What did Golden Axe 3 add to the Golden Axe formula? Sure, they added new characters and continued the story, but no one was dying for either of those series to continue. In those cases, the property was run into the ground by repeated trips to the same well.
Take Vectorman. Vectorman was Sega's response to Nintendo's CGI characters in Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario RPG. Vectorman was a fun, if slightly unpolished game. The music was tremendous, and the level design was good. Vectorman 2 looks and plays like a cheap cash-in. It's boring and repetitive.
Sonic also suffered. Sonic 2 was great. Sonic 3 was good. Sonic and Knuckles was OK. Sonic 3D Blast was hideous. The downtick in quality is striking.
Now, let's say that Sega held off on developing these properties. Let's say that they instead waited on Sonic 2, integrating the Sonic 3 save system, the fantastic Angel Island level, and the different elemental shields into Sonic 2. Wouldn't you say that it would make one of the best games ever? Instead, some of the ideas had to wait for the inferior Sonic 3.
Sega probably thought they were doing the right thing. It would make sense to strike while the characters are hot, right? I mean, Nintendo was taking their sweet time making sequels, so pumping out sequels would distract from what Nintendo was doing and make the Genesis the more viable system, right?
That's almost exactly what happened, too. The Genesis overtook the SNES in Europe and made Nintendo look like out-of-touch old fogeys in the States. They opened the door for a new core audience that wanted more adult games, and if they had been able to keep their momentum going, they could have become the dominant company.
I'm going to bring another thread into this discussion, so keep up. A long time ago, I made a webcomic. Don't bother asking about it: It was awful. I never put it online because I started running out of ideas. Instead of creating situations with the characters I had made, I just started adding more characters to create more situations. It was totally unsustainable, and I'm glad it never came to fruition.
Sega made the same mistake, especially with the Sonic series. They blasted through all their great ideas in the first 5 games they made and ended up sitting on a great character with no gameplay ideas. What to do? Add characters!
They're still doing it, too. Instead of stopping with Sonic games, look what they've done in the last few years. Starting in 2001, we've had Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic Heroes, Sonic the Hedgehog (again), Sonic and the Secret Rings, Sonic Unleashed, Sonic and the Black Knight, and Sonic Colors. That's an average of about one Sonic game on a console per year.
Now compare Mario's main offerings since 2001. We have Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario Galaxy 2. That's it. Since they spaced out their releases, Mario is still a big deal. Most every Mario game sells quite a few copies because it's still a big deal.
Heck, let's throw Zelda games into the mix. Since 2001, we've had Wind Waker and Twilight Princess on consoles. Once again, that's it. Heck, throwing in handhelds, we have Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. That's still fewer games than Sonic.
OK, so what does this all mean? Let's look at the facts.
1) Sega watered down their franchises to the point that they are unusable. They can't revive them either, because nobody cares about them (see Golden Axe: Beast Rider).
2) They got some quick gains in their market by creating tons of games based off their franchises, but quickly lost ground to Nintendo, they of the "slow and steady wins the race" attitude.
3) While they did make some poor decisions with their management (i.e. the early termination of the Sega Saturn, among others), a game company is all about the games, and if the quality drops, they can't expect to stay in business for very long.
All right, so let's circle back to Activision. Activision has three major licenses that they keep trying to exploit: Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, and Call of Duty. Blizzard's licenses are independent of Activision, so World of Warcraft and Starcraft remain untouched. Activision has made piles of money off of these, and is one of the most powerful companies in gaming.
However, of the three major licenses that Activision attempts to exploit, Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk are almost dead. Guitar Hero has been exploited so often their name is on milk cartons. Tony Hawk has been lapped by other, more superior games that don't require ridiculous and expensive peripherals. Call of Duty is showing signs of collapse, as the latest Call of Duty has been marred with issues, although it still sells mightily.
Activision hasn't really developed any new licenses. They brought in Bungie to work for them recently, but there aren't any projects ready to see the light of day, not for a while.
So, we can see that they're doing something similar to what Sega did in the 90's. They've watered down their franchises so much that they've killed not only their OWN franchise but also OTHER similar franchises, like Rock Band. They've made astounding monetary gains, but at what cost?
If things start going south at Activision, how long would it take for them to start raiding the coffers of Blizzard and demanding more product from them? They could end up not only killing their own franchises, but also Blizzard's venerable franchises too.
Plus, bad management decisions happen every day. When a company is going along fine, these decisions can usually be smoothed over by other departments or solved carefully. When a company is in trouble, those decisions can create a ripple effect throughout the organization, eventually sapping companies of manpower and the ability to innovate. For instance, Sega withstood the poor Sega CD and 32X add-ons because they were healthy. They could not, however, withstand the failure of the Saturn.
So, too, if Activision finds themselves in a dangerous spot, how much faith do you have that they'll make the right decision? Right now they're fine, so when Kotick opens his fat mouth or tries pushing Tony Hawk: Shred on a public that doesn't want anything to do with it, they survive. When, say, Call of Duty collapses, will they have the ability to recover from those poor decisions?
Time will tell. But Activision would be wise to heed the warning of Sega: Over-exploit your properties at your own risk.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Used Games Are KILLING THE INDUSTRY and It's YOUR FAULT
This actually made me pretty mad. Cory Ledesma of THQ has gone on record as saying that they don't care about people who purchase used games, and says the following:
1) The economy is bad. Getting ever-so-slightly better, but still bad.
2) Used game sales only happen because someone bought the original game.
3) Major publishers rarely, if ever, lower the price of new games until next year's version comes out.
It's ridiculous comments like this that send me into a froth. Consider my following story, which I have recounted repeatedly:
After being unimpressed with Super Mario Sunshine and 3D Mario games in general, I passed up Super Mario Galaxy until I could find it used for $30. I loved it so much that when Mario Galaxy 2 came out, I preordered it and picked it up on day one.
That would not have happened otherwise. I wasn't going to drop $50 on a game that I didn't think I was going to like. No one will unless they have disposable income, and fewer people have disposable income than any time in the industry's short lifespan.
Now, it's true that the companies only have one distribution level, i.e. games at retail. Unlike the movie or music industry, they don't have touring or theaters to prop up their business model.
However, whose fault is that? The fault of the consumer, so that they should have to pay to prop up your poor decisions? Or is it the fault of the business owner who is only depending on one stream of revenue? Just because publishers are only making money one way doesn't mean that the consumer needs to get punished for it.
"We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated."Consider three things, Mr. Ledesma.
1) The economy is bad. Getting ever-so-slightly better, but still bad.
2) Used game sales only happen because someone bought the original game.
3) Major publishers rarely, if ever, lower the price of new games until next year's version comes out.
It's ridiculous comments like this that send me into a froth. Consider my following story, which I have recounted repeatedly:
After being unimpressed with Super Mario Sunshine and 3D Mario games in general, I passed up Super Mario Galaxy until I could find it used for $30. I loved it so much that when Mario Galaxy 2 came out, I preordered it and picked it up on day one.
That would not have happened otherwise. I wasn't going to drop $50 on a game that I didn't think I was going to like. No one will unless they have disposable income, and fewer people have disposable income than any time in the industry's short lifespan.
Now, it's true that the companies only have one distribution level, i.e. games at retail. Unlike the movie or music industry, they don't have touring or theaters to prop up their business model.
However, whose fault is that? The fault of the consumer, so that they should have to pay to prop up your poor decisions? Or is it the fault of the business owner who is only depending on one stream of revenue? Just because publishers are only making money one way doesn't mean that the consumer needs to get punished for it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Opinions In Brief
Opinion 1: Activision Vs. Infinity Ward
First of all, Activision says that Infinity Ward heads West and Zampella were getting a little too big for their britches. I can see this happening. Not that I know West and Zampella (I don't), but sometimes people in a newly-minted successful position start making demands that they're not entitled to make.
That being said, the way that Activision mishandled the situation was outrageous. If Infinity Ward is to be believed, they withheld money, which is really the whole point of making a game. You can make the "games are art, man!" argument all day, but the point of all of it is to do something you love and get paid for it. If Activision withheld that monetary benefit, they negated the entire point of Infinity Ward's work.
Watch yourself, Bungie. That's all I'm saying.
Opinion 2: The 3DS
Most of the objections to the 3DS are about a few things: The price and the feeling that it's a bandwagon product.
First, no one knows the price yet. Knowing Nintendo, they're not going to price this out of the hands of their consumers. That's not their style. Look at the Wii. Instead of making a $300+ system with HD, their focus was on affordability. 50 million Wiis later, and it's safe to say they learned that lesson in a big way. So, can we stop whining about the price?
Second, it's not like Nintendo just crapped out the 3DS after watching Avatar. Their hardware process is a long and arduous route. They spent a lot of money in R&D trying to determine whether or not this was a good way to go, and I think it'll succeed amazingly.
My major problem with 3D is always the glasses. 3D without glasses and hopefully at a proper price point? I'm in.
--
I can't think of any other news that jumps out at me right now, but if I think of anything else, it'll get a mention here for sure.
First of all, Activision says that Infinity Ward heads West and Zampella were getting a little too big for their britches. I can see this happening. Not that I know West and Zampella (I don't), but sometimes people in a newly-minted successful position start making demands that they're not entitled to make.
That being said, the way that Activision mishandled the situation was outrageous. If Infinity Ward is to be believed, they withheld money, which is really the whole point of making a game. You can make the "games are art, man!" argument all day, but the point of all of it is to do something you love and get paid for it. If Activision withheld that monetary benefit, they negated the entire point of Infinity Ward's work.
Watch yourself, Bungie. That's all I'm saying.
Opinion 2: The 3DS
Most of the objections to the 3DS are about a few things: The price and the feeling that it's a bandwagon product.
First, no one knows the price yet. Knowing Nintendo, they're not going to price this out of the hands of their consumers. That's not their style. Look at the Wii. Instead of making a $300+ system with HD, their focus was on affordability. 50 million Wiis later, and it's safe to say they learned that lesson in a big way. So, can we stop whining about the price?
Second, it's not like Nintendo just crapped out the 3DS after watching Avatar. Their hardware process is a long and arduous route. They spent a lot of money in R&D trying to determine whether or not this was a good way to go, and I think it'll succeed amazingly.
My major problem with 3D is always the glasses. 3D without glasses and hopefully at a proper price point? I'm in.
--
I can't think of any other news that jumps out at me right now, but if I think of anything else, it'll get a mention here for sure.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Some EEDAR Analysis:
From EEDAR:
Core Games on Wii Continue To Struggle
No More Heroes 2: Desperate Struggle has scored top reviews averaging a 90 (out of 100) since its release. However, sales came less than 30,000 units for its first week (January 26, 2010 release). Given that the game is more targeted to the traditional core gamers (who tend to be more attached to the Xbox 360 and PS3) this is yet another sign that the Wii is a difficult device for third party publishers to succeed on with M Rated titles. Other titles that have failed to perform despite strong review scores on the Wii include Dead Space: Extraction (ERTS) and MadWorld (Sega). Of course, all three titles did have low marketing budgets, which is likely the wrong strategy to use when attempting to target the Wii consumer, even if you are targeting the “core” market. (Italics ours.)
This is what I've been hammering on. It's like publishers are just expecting that core games will sell on the Wii without any promotion. Here's the thing: They'll promote the crap out of Modern Warfare 2 and Dante's Inferno, ensuring huge sales. Then they say, "See? Games sell on the 360 and PS3." Then they don't promote Wii games, and then they say, "See? Games don't sell on the Wii."
OF COURSE THEY DON'T SELL IF YOU DON'T PROMOTE THEM!
Core Games on Wii Continue To Struggle
No More Heroes 2: Desperate Struggle has scored top reviews averaging a 90 (out of 100) since its release. However, sales came less than 30,000 units for its first week (January 26, 2010 release). Given that the game is more targeted to the traditional core gamers (who tend to be more attached to the Xbox 360 and PS3) this is yet another sign that the Wii is a difficult device for third party publishers to succeed on with M Rated titles. Other titles that have failed to perform despite strong review scores on the Wii include Dead Space: Extraction (ERTS) and MadWorld (Sega). Of course, all three titles did have low marketing budgets, which is likely the wrong strategy to use when attempting to target the Wii consumer, even if you are targeting the “core” market. (Italics ours.)
This is what I've been hammering on. It's like publishers are just expecting that core games will sell on the Wii without any promotion. Here's the thing: They'll promote the crap out of Modern Warfare 2 and Dante's Inferno, ensuring huge sales. Then they say, "See? Games sell on the 360 and PS3." Then they don't promote Wii games, and then they say, "See? Games don't sell on the Wii."
OF COURSE THEY DON'T SELL IF YOU DON'T PROMOTE THEM!
Even for traditionally "core" games, they promote them like crazy! How large is the Madden marketing budget? How large was the marketing for Halo 3? It just baffles me, it really does.
January 2010 NPD Results
Via Kotaku and GoNintendo:
01. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii) - 656,700
02. Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360) - 572,100
03. Wii Fit Plus (Wii) - 555,700
04. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Xbox 360) - 326,700
05. Mario Kart Wii (Wii) - 310,900
06. Wii Sports Resort (Wii) - 297,600
07. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3) - 259,000
08. Army of Two: The 40th Day (Xbox 360) - 246,500
09. Just Dance (Wii) - 191,900
10. Darksiders (Xbox 360) - 171,200
U.S. consumers dropped $597.9 million on video games during the month of January, down 12 percent from January 2009, when software sales reached $682.6 million.
Jan 09 to Jan 2010 just for comparison’s sake…
Wii: 679,200 / 465,800
NDS: 510,800 / 422,200
X360: 309,000 / 332,800
PS3: 203,200 / 276,900
PSP: 172,300 / 100,100
PS2: 101,200 / 41,600
01. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii) - 656,700
02. Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360) - 572,100
03. Wii Fit Plus (Wii) - 555,700
04. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Xbox 360) - 326,700
05. Mario Kart Wii (Wii) - 310,900
06. Wii Sports Resort (Wii) - 297,600
07. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3) - 259,000
08. Army of Two: The 40th Day (Xbox 360) - 246,500
09. Just Dance (Wii) - 191,900
10. Darksiders (Xbox 360) - 171,200
U.S. consumers dropped $597.9 million on video games during the month of January, down 12 percent from January 2009, when software sales reached $682.6 million.
Jan 09 to Jan 2010 just for comparison’s sake…
Wii: 679,200 / 465,800
NDS: 510,800 / 422,200
X360: 309,000 / 332,800
PS3: 203,200 / 276,900
PSP: 172,300 / 100,100
PS2: 101,200 / 41,600
So what do we learn? The Wii is still ahead, but demand has slowed considerably. 360 and PS3 demand is up though, so that can't be blamed on a slow economy. PS2 demand is waaaaay down. I think last year was the PS2's last gasp, and we'll see new systems off the shelf shortly.
Also, people, I'm begging you: Stop buying Just Dance. Please.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Nielsen Ratings For Consoles
Nielsen and NPD just released a comprehensive report of gaming numbers and statistics. You can read it here. There are lots of pretty charts and graphs, but also some interesting points. Here's one:
Consoles tend to be used similarly in three distinct groups. The first group includes the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. These two consoles have the highest active user percent measures of any other console Nielsen measures. They also have the highest average usage days and daily average number of sessions. The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 have more features and functions than other consoles Nielsen measures. The next set of consoles which have similar primary usage characteristics are the PlayStation 2 and the Xbox. Primary users in the set play at least once a week for more than an hour. The average usage days and daily average number of session are almost identical for users of both the Xbox and PlayStation 2.
The third set of like used consoles are the Wii and GameCube. The Wii and GameCube have similar, and the smallest numbers in terms of daily average number of sessions, average usage days, and active user percent. Predominant users of the Wii and GameCube are likely to use these consoles at most once a week and for fewer minutes and the fewest number of sessions compared to the other two groups of consoles.However, here's another quote:
Figure 4 shows the usage minutes for all tracked consoles each month from January 2008 to January 2009. Looking at the total usage minutes across all consoles for 2008, PlayStation 2 with the largest installed base still leads all other consoles. However both the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 usage minutes are both trending down for the year. Xbox usage minutes are also trending down for 2008. The Xbox 360, Wii and GameCube usage minutes are trending upward. (Italics ours)Interesting stuff. It's weird that the Wii is sold the most but used the least. However, here's another quote from a noted analyst:
Why, according to this, only 6% of Wii owners ACTIVELY use their Wii! That's hilarious! More people actively use their Gamecube than the Wii! See, the Wii is a fad after all. Cut and dried, right?
Take a look at the top number on the graph. Only 11% of 360 owners actively use their 360 and only 10% of PS3 owners actively use their PS3. Now, let's do a little math. There are 50 million Wii owners. 6% of that number is 3 million. There are 30 million 360 owners. 11% of that number is 3.3 million. There are 20 million PS3 owners. 10% of that number is 2 million. In other words, almost the same amount across the board use their system regularly. The gap in percentages is not that great, but the graph (and the way people are reading it) makes it look like "OMG A HUEGE GAP!"
Friday, January 15, 2010
Let's See How Well They Did: Dec 2009 (NPD Predictions)
What use are predictions if we can't analyze them afterwards? First, here were the predictions from Michael Pachter and EEDAR for the month of December:
Pachter
Wii- 3,200,000
PS3 - 1,400,000
Xbox 360 - 1,350,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 650,000
DS - 2,450,000
EEDAR
Wii - 3,000,000
PS3 - 1,450,000
Xbox 360 - 1,490,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 350,000
DS - 2,800,000
Here were the final numbers from NPD:
Wii - 3,810,000
PlayStation 3 - 1,360,000
Xbox 360 - 1,310,000
PlayStation 2 - 333,2000
PSP - 654,700
Nintendo DS - 3,310,000
What can we discern from this? First, PACHTER IS A WIZARD. He called most of the squishy middle. Second, everyone underestimated the sales of the Wii and DS again. I think they did it because these numbers
trump 2008's numbers, and they assumed that there was no way they could beat the 2008 numbers in such a down economy. They were wrong.This month's winner: Pachter. We'll keep tracking this, because it's
important to know who to trust in this industry.
Pachter
Wii- 3,200,000
PS3 - 1,400,000
Xbox 360 - 1,350,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 650,000
DS - 2,450,000
EEDAR
Wii - 3,000,000
PS3 - 1,450,000
Xbox 360 - 1,490,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 350,000
DS - 2,800,000
Here were the final numbers from NPD:
Wii - 3,810,000
PlayStation 3 - 1,360,000
Xbox 360 - 1,310,000
PlayStation 2 - 333,2000
PSP - 654,700
Nintendo DS - 3,310,000
What can we discern from this? First, PACHTER IS A WIZARD. He called most of the squishy middle. Second, everyone underestimated the sales of the Wii and DS again. I think they did it because these numbers
trump 2008's numbers, and they assumed that there was no way they could beat the 2008 numbers in such a down economy. They were wrong.This month's winner: Pachter. We'll keep tracking this, because it's
important to know who to trust in this industry.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Penny Arcade Explains It All (Again)
"The Wii was either "innovative" or "gimmicky," depending on your perspective, an evergreen topic that still springs up now and again. There is a similar cleave between things that are Homage and things that are Derivative, though this one can get complicated quick. In such scenarios, it's nice to have a quick rule of thumb to sunder any lingering ambiguities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
