Wrap-up day
For the final day in Industry Problems Week, we have a chat amongst the Problems Week staff. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the event. However, I am sure you will agree that they do a particularly thorough job of covering the issues. Below are the results of the conversation:
Cory: Well, the past few days have seemed a bit depressing, haven't they?
Brenden: I wouldn't say depressing, more like, "enlightening". Maybe with a hint of pessimism.
James: I agree. It's negative, but at least we can sit down and analyze the problems within the industry in a (hopefully) constructive way.
Josh: Yeah. The situation may not be that great right now, but no matter how bad things are, we've still got to be able to look at them. That way, we can see where we're headed, and maybe why we're headed there.
Cory: Well, let's start at the beginning. What can be done about the gamers? Will they always stay this ignorant?
Brenden: Will they stay this ignorant? Well, personally, I think that's just a symptom of society. It's not like Nintendo can instantly become "cool" again, which is probably what's needed.
James: Gamers are a difficult subject to tackle. On the one hand, you could argue that most gamers aren't particularly well informed (ie: the so-called "mainstream" crowd). On the other hand, we have to realize that companies like Nintendo are still catering to a market at the end of the day.
Josh: The bottom line is, gaming is becoming more and more mainstream every day, and we're seeing the direct results of that in the kinds of gamers today. This is typical behavior of the mainstream. Kangaroo Jack was the number one movie in America when it opened. People like stupid stuff, plain and simple.
Cory: Yeah, I have the feeling that however hard the industry might try, gamers won't eat anything up unless it's typical mainstream. GTA and Tony Hawk have sold WAY too much. What reason would developers have to stop making them? Gamers want them.
Brenden: Kangaroo Jack was the number one movie in America when it opened? WHAT? ... ::shakes head:: ... Anyway, I'm perfectly satisfied with where Nintendo is right now. They ARE the reason why I bought a GameCube. I need my quirky Nintendo games.
James: In terms of Nintendo's success, I really believe that Nintendo has just about everything right; a larger library of games, stronger third party support and a fundamentally good hardware (the polar opposite of N64). In my view, one of Nintendo's biggest problems is image. And how do you change image? Largely through marketing. I think we can all agree that Nintendo hasn't projected a very good image over recent months.
Josh: Well, though image and marketing are definitely two things the company could work on, I DON'T want them shifting their games focus or philosophy, as some have been suggesting lately. As Brenden said, the way they're doing things now is just great for gamers like us who bought GameCubes for that reason. And as long as they continue to remain profitable, there's no REASON for a change.
Cory: Well the thing is, marketing and game design are still connected. If you have some adorably cute game, you can't really advertise it like it's something else. I mean, the Mario sunshine commercials with the big suit. Sure, that was too much. But regardless of marketing, it doesn't stop from being a colorful and cute game. So what do you do? Market Mario less, and Metroid more? I'm not sure I like the sound of that.
Brenden: Well, like I said in my article, if it smells like an orange, tastes like an orange and looks like an orange, it's probably not an apple. They're just not "cool" in the eyes of many gamers. And while that's a pretty lame reason not to buy a console, it's true.
James: I don't think Nintendo needs to actually change the games it's making. Rather, they need to put more focus on advertising on their strengths. You can advertise games like Mario without compromising the company's image. However, Nintendo can still broaden its lineup and apply its design skills to new genres. Metroid is a good example of that. I don't think Nintendo needs to change its design philosophy as such. Rather, it just needs to focus more on getting the word out about how great these games are. And frankly, lame commercials (or a lack of commercials at all), won't do that.
Brenden: James, more marketing isn't going to help that much. I think Nintendo understands where they stand in terms of older gamers.
James: The thing is, what we're talking about is Nintendo's success. Now, for me personally...I think that as long as Nintendo are profitable, that's okay. However, in terms of becoming more successful or fixing image problems, we need to think about the strategies that Nintendo can use. Marketing is a huge part of it; and this is the one area where Nintendo really isn't doing well. Another part of that is, of course, expanding the lineup in terms of genre and content. Nintendo has been doing that. But once again, they need to get the word out. RE and Metroid Fusion were never marketed here.
Brenden: But marketing costs money. Like any company, they want to expand and broaden their horizons, so to speak. In Nintendo's case, they cater more to the family oriented types and don't have a major grasp on the adult gamer.
Josh: Well, the bottom line is, Nintendo can change slightly in the interest of reaching a larger audience while still retaining its basic philosophy. No matter what the industry changes into, Nintendo can continue making its own rules. As long as it continues to adapt appropriately enough that it doesn't fall behind the times.
Brenden: Nintendo marketed the hell out of Metroid Prime over here from what I can tell. And while it did sell well, it wasn't anywhere near what a Madden, GTA or Tony Hawk could do. Maybe there's a way for Nintendo to market it's product without sacrificing it's philosophies, but changing an image isn't that easy. Look at Disney. They tried and failed miserably. Nintendo knows what they're good at and they stick to it.
James: In Australia, EA cut the price of its GameCube games because it was frustrated with Nintendo's unwillingness to compete with Microsoft and Sony. When I say unwillingness, I'm saying that there was a total lack of effort on the part of Nintendo. This did include marketing, but it also included very basic forms of marketing (not just glitzy TV commercials). For example... Nintendo focused very little on point of sale promotion for several games over here. And most games were totally neglected when it comes to marketing. Sony's image for being "mature" may certainly come partly from game lineup. However, one can't deny that Sony initially created this image primarily via clever marketing. The question is whether or not Nintendo needs to change its image. For me personally, I'm comfortable with Nintendo. As long as they are running profitably, I don't care what image they have; if I can still buy games like Mario and Zelda, I'm happy. But at the same time... The bottom line is that we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want Nintendo's image to "improve", more effort will be needed in terms of communicating with the audience.
Cory: Well this is an interesting problem Nintendo has. Their fans love their games, regardless of appearance. Well, more or less. And we'll keep buying the Marios and Zeldas, regardless of appearance, since we know how great they play. Nintendo fans rely very heavily on first party software, while Sony and Microsoft fans rely moreso on third party software. That's just the way it is. Sony and Microsoft don't make very many good games, let alone very many games at all. So if Nintendo succeeds with their 1st party software and their innocent image, do they really need to embrace a "darker" or more third-party-infused philosophy? Nintendo is succeeding fantastically, in at least a financial sense, with the image they have right now. They're only being PERCEIVED as unsuccessful.
James: I agree with you, Cory. The question is really "does the company's image need to change?" If they are remaining financially successful and still satisfying all types of gamers (mature and younger), does it really matter? I think most would agree that fundamentally, it doesn't matter.
Brenden: I'm in agreement as well. It doesn't NEED to change.
James: I don't think I've ever been happier with Nintendo's variety. I can play games like Mario and then I can play games like RE. As a 'cube owner, I have it all. I don't need GameCube to be outselling PS2 to enjoy these games.
Brenden: Exactly.
James: As long as Nintendo maintains such variety, I personally am not worried about their image whatsoever.
Brenden: When you're enjoy the games, you can turn a blind eye to how well the other consoles are doing.
James: I think that GameCube is really righting the wrongs of the N64 in a big way; both content-wise and technologically.
Cory: Being a "video game fan" can actually be classified into being a Nintendo fan or a Sony / Microsoft fan a lot easier than it could in the past. Since both camps are offering very different things. And are both being successful in their own ways.
James: Perhaps despite the problems we've talked about this week, we can still agree that Nintendo is still servicing our desires as gamers. And that is surely a positive thing; Nintendo is still living up to its own history of innovation.
Brenden: Very true James. I'm happy because I'm enjoying my game purchases. Remember when Eternal Darkness came out here and everyone thought it was great? Then about a month later we got the sales in and learned that it wasn't doing so well and all of sudden, a bunch of people didn't like it as much? I couldn't understand it myself. The success of a game shouldn't determine it's overall enjoyment level. As gamers, the only thing that should matter is whether we're enjoying the game or not.
James: Perhaps the biggest problem with Nintendo's image is that games like Eternal Darkness become casualties. ED didn't sell as well as it should have. I think we can all agree on that one.
Cory: Yeah, it's unfortunate that people make a connection between a game's sales and how good of a game it is. ED is a prime example of this fallacy. But can we agree that it would have sold at least double that amount had it debuted on the PS2?
Brenden: Well, as journalists and gaming enthusiasts, we can definitely look at how well games sell and other business related items. There just needs to be a separation between the two. Of course we can agree on that. Look at the size of the PS2 userbase and the userbase itself.
James: Definitely. Eternal Darkness, in terms of quality, should have sold up there with GTA. The fact that it didn't demonstrates that the "mainstream" audience really isn't in touch with Nintendo.
Brenden: That's pushing it. I would never say that much. Cory said "double". Which amounts to about 300'000 if I remember correctly.
James: And I think we can all argue that GTA isn't as groundbreaking as many other games released last year, despite the fact that many are probably much higher quality. I'm saying "up there with". I don't mean to imply any exact numbers, but I do feel that in terms of quality alone, sales like that are deserved. Of course, if quality truly drove game sales, the sales charts would look remarkably different.
Cory: it's just a matter of what people expect from a company. Nintendo could make the most violent game ever, and it wouldn't sell. Because no one EXPECTS it from them.
Brenden: Cory! Precisely! Look at Conker's Bad Fur Day. There was even a mother who bought the game for her kid thinking it was fine. While completely ignoring the warning labels of course... and that's another discussion for later.
James: Definitely; that's a case of being ignorant of the ratings system.
Cory: Yep. Cute and innocent games don't sell on PS2, violent games don't sell on the Cube. So developers don't make them for the systems they don't sell on. It's just good business sense.
Brenden: Couldn't have said it better myself.
Cory: If you want both, you'll just have to buy both. It's an expensive pastime, this gaming fiasco!
James: Expensive and overly complex. X_X
Brenden: And if you want to import both?! ::looks at empty wallet::
Cory: So I guess when it comes down to it, most of the "problems" in the industry are just perceived by gaming enthusiasts. If Sony and Nintendo could just play nice and stick to their respective niches, everyone would be happy.
James: That's true, but the problems with journalism, for example, go way beyond what gamers themselves may perceive.
Brenden: Where does that put Microsoft?
James: That puts Microsoft in Sony's camp I think; but always in a secondary position.
Cory: I don't think I should comment on where it would "put" Microsoft. Children may be reading this transcript.
Brenden: So things suck. But then again, they don't. It's all a matter of how you look at it. Maybe we see the industry as something that needs to be fixed because it doesn't fit the mold we think it should fit. And maybe that's not a bad way to look at it. All I know for sure is that I see problems and I'm here to write about them, whether people agree with me or not.
Cory: Yeah, we may have a problem with how things are being run, but we have to be careful about how we express it. The gaming media has quite a bit of sway, and if we aren't objective about it we can make the gamers think that something's happening that actually isn't.
James: That's true. And that's why it's so important to analyze the gaming media. One of the biggest problems is that there are no real editorial controls on the Internet. That in itself isn't so much a problem, it's more the fact that misinformation becomes very widespread. Just look at the whole Megaton thing. That spread out of control, largely due to online gaming media. I think the key is that it's important to have a sense of responsibility about what you publish. It's fine to make mistakes, but it's important not to deliberately mislead.
Cory: Yep. And another thing, gamers often can't discern between industry problems and GAME problems. If a company is doing poorly in the industry, they may stop enjoying their games as much. Those two things really shouldn't affect one another, but many gamers can't make the distinction. As reporters on the condition of the industry, we have to make sure that the gamers know the difference.
James: Exactly. In my view, it's important primarily to be honest about what you are writing. Don't say one thing and then be subversive about the true message that you're conveying. And don't falsify or editorialize your news coverage. My article deals with all of this in more detail, of course. But these are the most important aspects, I think.
Cory: It's like Brenden said. We may be upset about things, but it isn't necessarily as important as we think it is.
James: When faulty journalism hurts a share price based on a rumor, that's a major problem. But as far as actual gaming/publisher problems go, I am in agreement.
I would like to thank all of those who came out to read this material every day. We hope you enjoyed it immensely. Remember, we encourage feedback on the special so we can respond to your thoughts. Send all thoughts here. Good night everyone!
N-Sider Staff