Alright, so here I am, the night dragging on as I'm at this very moment deciding to do a bit of multitasking and post up my thoughts on something that's been on the mind quite a lot lately while simultanously making sure I don't burn my dinner and keeping from yelling at the neice and nephew to just shut up as they play their asses off. In fact, just getting off of 1up for a second, it's one of their news peices that's inspired me to finally talk this shit through. I'm talking about, of course, the video game industry, or as I sometimes like to jokenly call it, the "toys industry", though it of course doesn't QUITE have it's Toys R' Us yet...
Nor do I think it wants to, as I and I'm sure a hell of a lot of people feel that same way. Who wants people to equate gaming to a toy shop-around? No hands? Didn't think so. That said, reading what the new PoP's producer Ben Mattes (the game being one of course I DIE INSIDE to get my hands on;..one day soon my Prince) had to say about his thoughts on the sales of PoP and disappointing sales of Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and a few other big innovative original IPs this year, I couldn't help but be caught by this following line: "Whether this means we didn't totally succeed in our risk taking or whether our industry in fact has a stronger appetite for the familiar then it wants to admit remains to be seen". Though it's not a completely 'stooped in truth' line, it does hold some merit, so uh, let's try and see where he's coming from, and how exactly that even comes close to making games seem like the toy industry in atleast one important aspect (but just for shits and giggles, let's check on that food eh?).
Okay, the food's coming along well, but enough on that. Now back to the point; I do have to agree with Ben on atleast one point. That the industry's had many repeats of original, genuinely inspired and innovative new games come out that have just come short of retail expetations or just straight up bombed. The assertion that "hey, there's all these hardcore gamers always clamoring for something new" and yet when the "new" arrives it's outright ignored,...well honestly at times it seems like that's the case and if so it's completley hypocritical. Of course, there are always a multitude of different reasons why people don't jump into a new product, as it could be simply out of fear or (more often than not) lack of cash to spend around (I know that's the case with me personally). To that end (and not saying Ben's alluded or implied the following in any way), asserting that the lack of sales for these new games is solely on a hypocritical group of customers is a bit inappropriate, b/c the majority of them (eh, us I suppose) are willing to get these games if circumstances permitted. And to that end, I don't think it's actually anything to do with the industry being non-desirable of new gaming experiences when it puts on the facade that it wants them, b/c that desire is not a facade at all, and truthfully everything that's considered "mainstream" and par for the course these days was at some point or another new and innovative, though admittably it can seem like the industry gets stuck in "moods" where certain types of shit is more desirable than others. So in other words, that argument's moot.
In all honesty, taking a look at the stuff that's now considered staples of the industry yet when first out were something new and risky (GTA, MGS, Halo in a sense but admitablly Golden Eye and Perfect Dark helped that out plenty, Gran Turismo, even Madden) have become the successes they are today b/c they either came out (albiet luckily) at a time when the industry was stagnant and the right product at the right time was garunteed big success, or clever marketing and good word of mouth helped surmount it's claim to fame. Take GTA III for instance, a sequel admittably to a duo of games that were never THAT popular to begin with and while interesting in gameplay never quite nailed it down. That game came out in holiday season '01, right when MGS2 was due, and everyone knows for a good while which of those two games was getting the hype-up. Yet out of nowhere, GTA III's popularity skyrocketed, and with that comes increased sales. Now, seeing as how it was coming out when two arguably much more anticipated games were due (MGS2 and DMC), it should've tanked right? B/c new games (and yes I'll say it again, technically GTA III was a sequel but to the console gamer, and in particular PS2 owners, neither of the other two games really meant a shit to them, so it was new enough) are supposed to fail during retail in the face of strong sequels and whatnot, correct? Well that isn't quite what happened at all.
All that said, just how does that connect with what Ben said? Well for me, I think it proves that the industry is open for new ideas to succeed, if the right variables are taken into account. And sure, the industry of 2001 is quite different than today, but a lot of the fundamentals are still in place. So what are the variables then? Well, for one, or should I say the biggest variable at work, is that a lot of new games that aren't sequels and deserve their sales are simply released at the WRONG time of year, right up to where the big sequels are released. Stuff like GTA III proved that a new (or in it's case new-ish) property could still succeed big in that time of year, if the right variables were around, i.e timing and luck. And more breathing room from competition. The industry itself has matured quite a lot since 2001, and part of that maturity's brought about more games, more big releases, and thus more overall competition. GTA III benefitted from having relatively few (compared to what we see today) big sequels to go up against; as far as my knowledge serves me, only MGS2 and DMC were big talk at that point. That's two games (and yes, I'm leaving the launches of the Gamecube and Xbox out of this though honestly they were further competition in a sense). This year alone, the holiday season had the release of Gears of War 2, Fallout 3, Fable 2, Farcry 2, and Guitar Hero World Tour. That's five games, and not nearly even all the big sequels. What's more, despite my own best wishes, I'm sure the number will likely only increase next year insofar as big sequels released between Sept.-Dec's concerned, but more to the point. I think that if game publishers FINALLY (and by so I mean collectively, not just a scant handful) began realizing that, "Hey,there's this month called January, and another called Febuary, and a few more called March and April and shit like them that we could bring these products out in", then a lot of these new original games could thrive a LOT better (and with atleast decent marketing of course) simply because they wouldn't have to worry about something like Gears II to go up against. And if they actually did that, then maybe it could finally move the industry just a LITTLE bit further away from being likened to the toy shopping season as far as the oblivious mainstream press is concerned.
But why hasn't that happened yet? Welp, even with the industry maturing, I think that some of the older relics have yet to be worked out. We've seen plenty of old game design relics gone the way of the dodo, and business relics (hey remember when you couldn't even get your fucking name mentioned in the game, even after all the 40+s you pulled for it?) that were primitive even at their prime are now dead at last, but I think that perception of publishers thinking games only sold well in the holiday shopping season months is more or less alive and well, and slowly-SLOOOOOOOOWLY-dying out as well. Yet was that shit even true? Well, it was in a sense. Keep in mind that when the NES, SNES and Genesis were around as the kings, the average gamer was more or less a kid or a young teenager. They didn't have jobs back then, so they were at the mercy of their parents. And the parents, seeing that their kids were, well, KIDS, playing games, equated the games to toys, and figured that Christmas time would be the best way to get the kids the games and systems they really wanted (everything being on sale helped a shitload of a bunch as well). That was then. Nowadays, most gamers are older than even me, and they can afford to buy games at any time more or less, which, obviously, means that they probably get a paycheck other than between September and December (or ele the job force would suck a hell of a lot). Why won't publishers just wise up and spread the goodies out the course of the year, and take a lesson from Hollywood that's actually worth learning? Mmm, guess the publishers are more immature than their audience in that sense.
Going into '09, it seems like more publishers are actually wising up and taking the chance to offer their product during some of the time gamers would normally be catching up to finishing shit from half a year back and stuff brought over the holidays. With it being no secret that games are getting shorter (on average) in lenght and more lenient in terms of what defines failure and death to the player, we're in turn getting more time open to play more games at points where we normally wouldn't. While I doubt the majority of the big sequels will EVER honestly start releasing at a new timeframe, all of that vacant space from New Year's to Labor Day suddenly becomes a lot more tempting for the new IP to fill up. And with that, Mr. Mattes, I offer my own wish for the industry as a whole to fully mature, and give all the new original stuff that honestly deserves some great sales that exact opportunity. Leave the Christmas holidays to the established players on the block, but the rest of the year? It's free game for the newbies. Let 'em have their fun. This is John here, signing off. Later and g'nite.
No comments:
Post a Comment