Media Aware

2006-06-14T15:04:00.000-04:00

Does Gaming Influence Behaviour?

There are some good discussions going around regarding state bills about restricting the sale of M rated games to minors. I'm not going to spend the time to write an article that states all the same facts that have been written about on news sites and blogs all over the internet. I'm instead going to comment a little on the influences (if any) that gaming has amongst gamers besides entertainment.

If any of you have seen the posts that I've left on Joystiq as well as other sites on this topic, you undoubtedly know my position on this subject. I don't want games subject to undue scrutiny or censorship from the government of any counry, least of all the US where the removal of content will affect all western markets. I don't believe for a second that gaming causes violent behaviour and I certainly don't believe it to be harmful. I personally do not enjoy ultra-violent games and I never would let my children play them. I also don't enjoy slasher films or media of any kind. At the moment though the ESRB does as good a job as possible regulating and rating games according to their content. The only censorship that occurs now comes from either the developers, publishers or the console manufacturers themselves. In other words, the free market decides what content is suitable for inclusion and parents are given the responsibilty to choose the appropriate rated games for their children.

For those that don't know what happens when a game is sent to the ESRB for rating, I will explain. The game's developer and publisher sit down and compile the most offensive content in the game and present that to the ESRB for rating. The ESRB then put together a panel of gamers and non-gamers that review the content and profer up a rating. If content is found later that is found to warrant a higher rating, the game can be re-rated or recalled or both. In the case of Rockstar's infamous Hot Coffee scandal with GTA: San Andreas the game was recalled and the offensive code was removed from all copies sold from that day forward. This was a water-shed case because it punished the publisher and developer for code that was left in the game, but could not be accessed without a third-party hack. A similar situation occured recently with The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion wherein the characters clothes could be removed. The game was also re-rated to AO (Adults Only) until modified versions were released to stores.

Pundits and self-proclaimed experts like Jack Thompson would like all people to believe that games, specifically violent ones, cause violent behaviour. I would argue that a couple of ways. For one, people have been violent a long-time and video games have only been around for the past 30-odd years. Also, does it not hold to reason that an inherently violent person is more likely to get enjoyment out of a violent game. That may be the better explanation for school shooters owning copies of GTA or some other such game then the 'Game Made Me Do It' excuse. That doesn't mean that everyone who plays a violent game is a violent individual, but perhaps those who are would get more enjoyment out of killing hookers and police officers than stomping on mushrooms. Just a guess. By the same token people who like to race their cars may get more enjoyment out of racing games. Therefore street racing isn't caused by games either (an hypothesis I've heard put forth by Police Sergeants on the news). It holds to reason that the games we buy and the books we read are a reflection of what we like. Some people just like violence. Others like racing cars.

When listening to people like Jack Thompson speak about games it is important to remember that there are other links to violence that he doesn't make mention of. The biggest of these is that more violence has been perpetrated by Christians throughout the history of the world than will EVER be brought about by people that have ever even seen a video game.

2006-06-09T09:21:00.000-04:00

Filler Post (so sorry)

Been a crazy a couple of weeks at work for me so I'm gonna make a quick post here of a video I saw last night. this is a pretty crazy video of some insane Tetris action.

2006-05-23T13:05:00.000-04:00

Joystiq Etiquette: A Few Rules For Gaming Blogs

Since E3 I've been visiting Joystiq more often than normal in order to partake in some good discussions. Some of these, though, have been marred by a few bad commentors. I've decided to post a few proposed rules for Joystiq etiquette. While it may be a pipe dream, maybe some will catch on.

1.) Do not constantly claim Anti-Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo bias ad-nauseum in Joystiq.

- Repeat after me, Joystiq is a blog. Their job is to post a topic and commentors then post their thoughts on the topic and discussion ensues. This is not a news media outlet. While there is news reported on, not every topic has to be such. They can be opinion posts as well. Just because you disagree doesn't make it a conspiracy on Joystiq's part to bash other consoles.

2.) Do not just call someone a fanboy or troll without first explaining why you think so.

-A quick comment discussing their post is enough to not make you seem like an idiot. If you disagree with someone, put your point-of-view down in writing and argue your views. Calling someone a fanboy or troll is just dismissive and doesn't help the discussion at all.

3.) Do NOT type in L33T.

-L33T may be the most annoying thing to read ever. Yes, yes it was smart and clever once. Now it is among the most aggravating things to be found online. And 'teh' is not a word. Since when do we glorify typos?

4.) SPELL-CHECK!!!!

-Please read over your post before you submit it. Please check for grammar and spelling errors. I know you'll miss one or two along the way, but at least you'll catch the majority.

5.) Punctuation is your friend.
-As almost an addendum to the above rule is punctuation. It is very difficult to read a post, that may or may not contain a good thought, that is one long sentence with no periods and no commas.

6.) Use capitalization only when necessary.

-This is really 2 rules in one. Posts written in all caps are harder to read than sucking molasses through a straw. The only thing harder to read is when posts are written with NO capital letters at all. You people make my eyes hurt.

I hope these rules will help. If you have any suggestions of new rules that should be added, leave a comment and I'll look into adding them to the list. This is supposed to be a little fun and a little tongue-in-cheek. Those who have seen the comments on Joystiq recently will know what I mean.

2006-05-10T16:24:00.000-04:00

Sony and Nintendo E3 Conferences: Compare and Contrast

I've decided that I would compare the E3 conferences by Sony and Nintendo since they are the two console manufacturers releasing a new product this year. I have sat back and watched both courtesy of Gamespot. Both companies had a lot to accomplish here and both fell short, however I feel that Nintendo let people leave with a good feeling regarding the Wii while Sony allowed the gaming press to walk out of their conference grumbling about a ridiculous price and a shameless knock-off controller.

Sony:

Sony started the conference of badly with a long delay while people waited in line and listened to bad music. When they started the actual show they showed some neat stuff including video of Gran Turismo (their marquee racing title). While showing that they are addressing the problem of load times I have to wonder if that 3 seconds was true or not. I've heard people express the fact that since all the demos were running off of development kits we can't really be sure that the load time announcement was accurate enough. There were some compelling videos, though most were CGI and not gameplay events. Metal Gear Solid 4 looked great in the trailer, but what does it really look like? Then the announced the controller's changes and gone was the boomerang that incited so much harsh criticism after last year's E3. In comes the Dual Shake controller. Basically they kept the Dual Shock controller intact, until 2 weeks ago when they realized that people were expecting a major controller announcment akin to Nintendo's at TGS. That's when they decide to add in motion sensing hardware. They also got rid of the rumble feature, though they say that's because it interferes with the motion sensing. If that were true how did Nintendo manage to keep a rumble feature in theirs? Well, the real reason rumble has gone the way of the Dodo for Sony is a little lawsuit that they lost when they stole someone else's rumble technology. The next major announcement by Sony was the PS3's pricing structure (a.k.a. the Xbox 360's pricing structure). There will be two sku's, one at US$499 and one at US$599. Here's the catch though, whenyou purchased the 'core' Xbox360' you could add in the functionality that you were missing, not so with the PS3. This is awful news for anyone that owns or plans to own an HDTV in the near future and wants to game in HD. Remember when Sony said that the future of gaming is High Definition? Yeah, me too. If you buy the $499 system from Sony you get not only a smaller hard drive and other limitations, you also lose the HDMI output port. The kicker is that the hardware is not upgradeable. You won't even be able to appreciate Blu-Ray because they will be downscaling the resolutions on the movies if you use component cables. This means that even if you don't own an HDTV now, if you buy one in the future you won't be able to take advantage of true HD with the $499 system. That is a mistake, and not clarifying that is a PR mistake on par with Sony Rootkit fiasco.

Nintendo:

Nintendo for the most part did everything right. They started of the show with Shigeru Myamoto (Nintendo's resident lunatic-genius) conducting an orchestra with the Wii controller. It was a great way to start. Show off the functionality because that's all that matters beyond current-gen graphics according to Nintendo. They showed off the games, which were for the most part exciting. Any of us with an ounce of reality knew that the graphics weren't going to compete with PS3 and Xbox360. All that displacement mapping stuff was just wishful thinking. At the end of the day, though, who CARES? The games look like a ton of fun. Excite Truck came right out of the blue, but that looks great. Project H.A.M.M.E.R. also looks awesome. The prerequisite Mario, Zelda and Metroid games all looked great. I'm also looking forward to Red Steel to offer a different perspective to First Person Shooters. You can't just shoot everything that moves now. The DS announcements were great. I was pretty excited to hear that Starfox and Diddy Kong Racing are going to be DS titles. Even the Tennis game at the end of the conference looked like fun experience if a little simple. At the end of the day the only thing that they dropped the ball on was a price announcement. If they had come out with a $200-250 price announcement with two controllers and Wii Sports a day after the Sony $599 announcement they would have blown everyone away and people would have forgiven the lack of next-gen graphics immediately. They can of course stll announce that before the end of E3 and shock everyone, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

All in all I think Nintendo had a great conference while Sony's was below par. On a personal note adding motion technology to the dual shock was the dumbest, most shameful thing I've heard in console gaming ever. In the end it is the PS3 gamers that suffer with a function they'll never use because it isn't implemented properly, doesn't include an accelerometer. Also, I can't imagine playing anything but a racing or flying game using the two-handed controller motion sensing technology.

2006-05-08T13:05:00.000-04:00

Sell Gasoline at Domestic Price

This was taken from the comment section of the Toronto Star daily newspaper from an issue last week. It was sent to me by a colleague wishing to be known as Humpty Dumpty. Below is my comment on it.

RE Cheap gas fuels fracas in Caracas
May 2.
A litre of gasoline in Venezuela is the cheapest in the world, costing its citizens only 3 cents. This is not remarkable considering the country is rich in oil deposits and, as such, it reasonably follows that its people should benefit from such an abundant fuel heritage.
What is remarkable if not nefarious is that by comparison Canada is even more awash in oil, with one of the two largest deposits on the entire planet at the tar sands. Yet, its citizens pay through the nose for gasoline and derive no special cost advantage whatsoever from having an even richer natural endowment of oil that Venezuela.
It's high time the Canadian people demanded a fairer deal for themselves from their own resource before it's too late and they wake up one day to find it depleted. At the very least, there should be one made-in-Canada price at the pumps for its own citizenry versus another for export to the world, if only to acknowledge the fact our oil is a national not a corporate heritage.
Karen Pepperall, King City

While I acknowledge Ms. Pepperall's opinion that gasoline and petroleum products should be considerably cheaper in an oil-producing country with a volume comparable to Canada's, it should be noted that Canada is a country many times the size of Venezuela and is not a voting member of OPEC. Venezuela as a high ranking member in OPEC is very powerful in terms of setting its own internal standards with respect to domestic sales of Petroleum.

It is also important to remember that their is probably a very large disparity between the number of cars on the road in Venezuela and in Canada. It is also important to remember that there is a difference between a direct and indirect benefit. Canadians enjoy one of the world's strongest economies. This is mainly due to Canada's export business, of which oil factors very heavily. Estimated production in the Alberta oil sands will likely be near 800,000 barrels/day, almost all of which will be exported. Currently in Alberta there is negative unemployment rate, meaning their are more jobs available than there are people to fill them. This is certainly due to the booming oil prices and the ever expanding Oil Sands projects.

Canada, of course, has a bad history of exporting their oil and then importing oil for the domestic market which I'm sure is also a reason we're paying near $1/L.

2006-05-08T08:35:00.000-04:00

Nintendo at E3. What I Expect.

First of all, let's cover what we already know. We know that the Revolution is now called the Wii. We know that it will launch prior to US Thanksgiving with 20 launch titles for the lowest price of all 3 next-gen consoles. We all know about the controller, which was the subject of much consternation just after its release at the Tokyo Game Show 2005 much like the name change.

What we don't know is when it will be released specifically, for what price and which games will be among the 20. There's also the matter of the last trick up they're sleeve.

I expect a date to be announced (specifically 3) that will shock a few of us. I think they will release in early July in Japan, the region that needs the least hype. This will be followed by a late August/early September release in North America and November in Europe and Australia. I think this will happen for a couple of reasons. We know that they don't think it is necessary for a full global launch a la Microsoft since they want to avoid massive shortages. The problem is that they don't want to release alongside PS3 and have to compete for hype and shelf space. Sony has promised a November launch as well and may be hard pressed to get that done, but Nintendo will want to avoid the possibility and will adjust their schedule accordingly. They also want to try to build up their business in Europe, an expanding market, where late releases and shortages have hampered them greatly over the years.

I expect the Wii to release at around US$250.00 which equates to around CAD$300.00. This is a low-enough price for a second system which is what they'd like to push for. If even half of the gamers who buy 360's or PS3's buy a Wii for a totally different experience then they will outsell the Gamecube's performance in leaps and bounds.

In terms of games, I think we'll see a lot of the marquee franchises showing up rather than staggered throughout the first 2 years. The reason is that Nintendo knows that they will have to set the bar as high as possible in their games so that developers don't make games for the Wii like they did for the DS at launch. Games that treat the functionality of the controller as a gimmick will be bad for the future of the console. More and more I feel that the DS was more than just a risky type handheld. I think it was a dry-run of the Wii launch and life-span. If that's the case, then things are looking up. They will have learned from their mistakes with the DS and the Wii will be something special indeed. Expect among the launch titles (in no particular order);

-Mario 128
-Twilight Princess (now a full Wii title - see Time Magazine article)
-Super Smash Bros.
-WarioWare
-Red Steel*
-Metroid Prime 3
-Elektroplankton-type title
-Miyamoto's new IP
-Raid Over The River*
-Madden 2007 (for US launch)*
-Animal Crossing
-Pikmin
-Nintendogs Wii version
-Kid Icarus

add to this several surprises from E3 this week and up until launch and you have a pretty good list. I'm excited for the system and already have a list of Virtual Console games to download. What games are you looking forward to?

2006-05-01T11:09:00.000-04:00

You've Got Be Kidding Mii. Nintendo's Console Named Wii

I've had the weekend to digest the news, tell a couple of friends and as Perrin Kaplan, Nintendo of America's (NOA) VP of Corporate Affairs, requested "live with it, sleep with it, eat with it, move along with it..." and frankly I still don't like it. I'm not sure what the idea behind it was, but the name Wii (pronounced 'wee') is awful.

For those that don't know yet, Nintendo announced last week that their new video-game console, code-named Revolution since E3 last year, now has an official name.....and it is Wii. This is Nintendo's bold step toward the future and a massive change in the gaming culture, and they named it after a child's word for urine or genitalia. Now I'm sure they didn't name it Wii because of those connotations, but didn't someone from NOA have stood up at the board meeting or teleconference and said...."uhh guys, maybe we should think a little harder about this?"

I'm actually very disappointed by this. All signs had pointed to Nintendo turning a corner in terms of their marketing with the hiring of Reggie Fils-Aime and taking a strong approach to bringing their future consoles to market.

The name doesn't evoke a strong response it terms of it's sound, it doesn't imply any type attitude or mean anything, without an explanation. That is the kiss of death. If you want your product to evoke a visceral response, which Nintendo should, the name should mean something. Wii doesn't mean anything. Maybe it's just Nintendo's new-found love affair with all things Apple. Kaplan has been dropping quotes on gaming sites all over trying to defend the name by referring to Apple's iPod, Virgin Airlines, Amazon and Google and their names.

The worst, absolutely the worst, part of the name is that you have to explain to people how it's pronounced. What were they thinking. Did they have focus groups or was this just an idea that resulted from a Japanese boardroom session that got pushed through. We'll see soon enough. If NOA executives start jumping ship, we'll see.

After all that, let me clarify that a name doesn't make a console bad. The games are what defines the system. I will still buy the console because I have great faith in Nintendo's games. However, the name will hamper the sales of the system. One of the biggest issues with the Gamecube was it's image. The 'cool' kids didn't want one, they wanted a PS2. Now, if you think they'll want a Wii more than a PS3 or an Xbox 360, you're sadly mistaken. It's great to try to expand the gaming market, but you should never do it at the expense of your current market, especially when it is a pretty loyal one.

2006-04-26T10:04:00.000-04:00

In-Game Advertising: The New Revenue Stream in Gaming

"Our revenue streams are going to become more complex," Harrison said on Wednesday at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California. "We can also see a much more vital revenue stream from in-game advertising." - Sony to Release Online Gaming Service in November, Bloomberg - March 24, 2006

The above quote was something I read while scrolling through coverage of GDC 2006. As I was happily looking for any new information written regarding the new Nintendo console, code-named Revolution, I saw an article featuring this quote. It unsettled me a little and I wasn't sure why. I know that in-game advertising is and has been abound for years now. After thinking on it for a while I finally realized what my problem was with it. They were being up-front about it. In-game ads used to be treated like a drug-addicted sibling; there, but not likely to be acknowledged in front of company. This was a straight-up affirmation of these ads as a major revenue stream.

Anyone who's played a sports game in the past 5-10 years knows that in-game ads are there. In fact, I saw the screens for SEGA's new Virtua Tennis game (pictured above) and counted at least a half-dozen brands visible in one screenshot. This has always been okay because the sports themselves are so permeated with advertising that it makes the game that much more realistic.

In Need For Speed: Most Wanted, I could cruise around in my branded car with branded parts used for upgrades and find several Castrol Syntenc lube shops or even a few Burger Kings in the city. Neither of these served any purpose in the game since neither outlet was functional (at least the Castrol shops are topical in a driving game). In online PC games we are starting to see ads that change over time on in-game billboards. Companies are buying virtual billboard space just like along any major highway in North America.

"While examples of branded games go as far back as the Atari 2600, "advergames" have become very popular in the last ten years, first as web-based games and now as both casual games and product/ad placement in commercial games. Advertising in games is a growing yet little questioned area of gaming. Are games only capable of carrying positive advertising messages? Or can they also enact dissatisfaction and criticism against corporations? Anti-advergames are to detract from or call into question a set of products or services for expressive, cathartic, social, or political purposes." Persuasive Games Press Release regarding their anti-ad game Disaffected

Persuasive Games has developed their own game, Disaffected, that challenges its players regarding in-game advertising. While a laudable way to try to get your point of view accross, it will probably not be overly effective. Gamers are too used to in-game ads by now and developers have claimed it as an effective revenue stream.

It is an interesting topic to debate the merits of. I, for instance, don't think it should be universally banned or expunged as some anti-advertising crusaders would like, but I would like to see it used creatively and subtley in order to enhance immersion in the game. Game sales are declining in most quarters, and developers are seeing costs multiply exponentially due to technological advances. In many cases the only way to be able to put together some great games, that aren't developed by EA, is too rely on new forms of gaining revenue. There are however games that I would hate to see advertising included in. For instance I think that I would have a hard time accepting Donkey Kong promoting Chiquita bananas or Sonic the Hedgehog sporting swift, new Nike running shoes. At some point the developers will have to draw the line, but we should give them enough credit to decide where that line is.

SEGA's Virtua Tennis Screenshot taken from Team Xbox

2006-04-24T13:36:00.000-04:00

Opinion: How Has News Media Changed?

Over the past few years or so I've noticed a few things about the news. Number one, you can't trust them for unbiased fact and they don't even hide that fact. I'm speaking mainly of the all news stations based in the United States. Normally I'd like to stay local and not pick on my friends south of the 49th parallel, but since CNN and FOXNews are both seen in Canada as well, I feel I can speak to the matter.

When CNN tells me they're "the most trusted name in news" and FOXNews says they're "fair and balanced" that implies to me that their competitors, namely each other, are not. Since both tag lines mean more or less the same thing, either one's lying or they both are. People will then tell me that these are slogans, that they don't need to be true. It's just Marketing and Branding. That leads me to my next problem.

Branding of a product occurs when they're is something to be sold. These News organizations are the main source for current events for some people. What troubles me is that the're just trying to sell space to advertisers, and viewers are the currency. They're not selling 30 sec. of space during Bill O'Reilly's show, they're selling almost 2 million eyeballs on the T.V. during that time. So if, for the sake of argument, company X is a major advertiser and company X's product fails and injures someone. Does their advertising dollars make that broadcast more or less likely to report the story. Selling advertising, or anything for that matter, during a news broadcast does a couple of really scary things. It breeds censorship (not active, but passive) and it breeds bias in the reporting. Ask a proffessional journalist, not a talking head on a T.V. News show, what the two most frightening things are to them in their field. I bet those two words come up more often than not.

2006-04-24T10:36:00.000-04:00

Well, here we go. After a lengthy debate over at Joystiq regarding the thwarted school shootings last week I've started my own blog at rockinrobbie's suggestion. Will anyone read it? Who the hell knows. I hate feeling like the last person to join the trend. I'm a Marketer, I'm supposed to be first to these things, if not dreaming them up.

Well, here's what to expect from my blog. A fair bit of gaming talk, especially the marketing side of the business. I will state from the beginning that I started gaming in the early 80's so that should tell you where my loyalties and biases lie. Also expect a fair bit of devil's advocate articles concerning politics and the media and what I think is right or wrong with both. I don't shy away from controversial topics (see the joystiq debate above), but I will always think before I write. I hope someone enjoys this or at least considers my opinions.

My name is based of course from Butters' Alter Ego in South Park. I've been using this for every thing I need a username for in the past 3 years or so.