Archive for the 'video games' Category

Why the Hate On Sony?

Another attack on Sony. This time the Sony Ericsson Eshop online store in Canada.

There’s a lot of talk about word-of-mouth, and the internet giving customers a participating role in the lives of their favorite brands.

What about the internet giving ‘hackers’ a role in brands that offend them?

Are these the actions of a Bad World? Or the results of bad PR moves by Sony?

I have some issue with hardware manufacturers taking freedom from consumers to do as they wish with purchased products.

From where I’m sitting, it looks like Sony picked a fight with hacker communities when they went back on their word and told us that the PS3 couldn’t have Linux installed on it. Then Sony took legal action against people who cracked the hardware and software of PS3 systems.

I take issue with Apple’s control over iOS devices, and I take issue with Amazon’s control over Kindle devices. That’s one of the things I’ve always loved about the openness of PCs and PC gaming.

But, I also believe people should pay for games they enjoy, and developers should make reasonable efforts to protect their properties from theft. Reasonable, being the key word.

With some exception, piracy has been shown to do little damage to game and music sales. In some cases, piracy has benefited the bottom line of some games – like Minecraft.

There’s the old saying “let sleeping dogs lie.” Sony picked a fight with a sleeping dog, and now the brand is getting bitten hard. To make matters worse, they’re flip-flopping on their messaging. Their CEO is blaming the cruelness of the world, where some hostile people have taken offense to Sony’s hostility.

Now the biggest losers are Sony and their loyal customers, who’s account data are being stolen. It’s time for Howard Stringer to own up to Sony’s failures. They need to issue apologies to their loyal customers and developers. They have some relationships to rebuild. While they’re at it, maybe they should open the system up to Linux installs again.

I sure hope Sony does something right and the attacks stop, so I can enjoy my PS3 and the PSN without concern for my account information.

Gamification, or Rewriting the Games of Life

Gamification is turning into a real buzzword. Developers, marketers and your own uncle are working game mechanics into everything. Our social lives becoming increasingly intertwined with our digital networks like Facebook and Twitter, and they’re becoming increasingly intertwined with games.

I’ve already established that I’m a life long gamer. As a gamer I’m a believer in using games to educate, advertise and engage. I once wrote about advergaming, and I still think it’s a good use of interactive software. The gamification of websites and software holds a lot of potential for building customer loyalty and adding an element of fun for people who want to learn more about what you’re doing or selling. Renée Warren wrote an interesting post about gamification and the rise of social gaming online.

But as a gamer I’m a little alarmed by the gamification of our lives.

I’ve always viewed life as a sort of collection of games. Games have always attempted to model life in some way, through story telling, physics engines, life-like graphics or challenges based on real-life ideas.

Life has it’s own mechanics that we all figure out and play with or against. We follow rules like the norms for socializing; we greet people, we converse, we make plans, all within some context laid out by pre-existing conditions.

These mechanics are continuously rewritten by society, organically – but what happens when the mechanics are hijacked and developers, marketers, and our uncles who decide we should be awarded badges for behaviour that doesn’t quite fit with the mechanics of life?

I was listening to a recent CBC Spark interview discussing games and how they’re becoming ubiquitous within our lives. Particularly considerations to make when games have powerful addictive elements.

What do you think? Should games be intertwined with every aspect of our lives because they can? Or should we consider how games are being designed and the impacts they have in a greater context?

Starcraft sales in South Korea

My buddy Parker Mason posted this neat infographic about Starcraft and the recent launch of Starcraft II over at BlogCampaigning. If you’re interested in video games I recommend checking it out!

Online Schools - Starcraft

Source: Guide to Online Schools

Milo the virtual boy

Peter Molyneux and the folks at Lionhead Studios take another leap with AI in games.

Makes me want to get an Xbox 360 just to try it out.

Super Mario Bros. Crossover

So, I saw this video, and my first impression was that it was a video edit, not an actual game.

Then I learned that I could actually play Super Mario Bros. as Megaman or Bill.

This game’s first version went live earlier in the spring of 2010, but I’m just learning of it now… Guess I’m out of the loop.

But if you’re just learning about it now, I’m glad I was able introduce you.

Now go play, have fun, be awesome.

http://supermariobroscrossover.com/

Sometimes experience is everything

It’s been ages since I’ve posted anything about video games, and I really miss it…

A few months ago I bought a new video game called Just Cause 2. It’s an Eidos game released under Square-Enix (Square acquired Eidos in spring ’09). The  game stars a secret CIA operative, code named Scorpio, tasked with destabilizing a small island dictatorship. You cause chaos by destroying government property and embarrassing the military.

The story is compelling, but short, and not very robust. The voice acting is laughable, but adds value through comedy. The character you play is absurd in his super-human capabilities. I’ve played games that had all of these features before, and they suck.

But Just Cause 2 is amazing! I’ve found it’s the ultimate game for wasting a couple of minutes here and there at home. It’s also incredibly fun to sit down with a buddy or two and pass the controller around while laughing hysterically.

What did the game do right? It’s a fantastic game experience. The physics engine is so well made that it allows you to experiment in totally ridiculous ways. As I mentioned, the story and voice acting are poor, but make the game quite funny. I’m glad they didn’t make it too serious, because it wouldn’t have been as much fun to play.

There’s so many things you can do in this game, and almost all of them end in you shouting “I can’t beleive this game lets me do this!” It’s a huge virtual playground. A physics laboratory.

And the experience is amazing if you like to muck around with physics in a game. Or if you like to share a few absurd laughs with friends.

Here’s a “Race Mission” where you have to pilot a vehicle through a series of check points. In this race, you don’t use a vehicle, but rather base jump from a skyscraper. What other game lets you do that!

I finished of the video with a little highway chaos, and then shooting some bubbles using an easter egg “weapon”.

Anyways, experience is important when making games, designing apps, writing stories, organizing events, and so much more. Have you played any games that had little going for them apart from a fantastic gaming experience? Have you used any applications that you’ve used over a similar app simply based on the UI and user experience?

Setting and timeline

If you’ve read my blog for a while, you may know that I’ve been anxiously awaiting the launch of StarCraft II since the game was announced in May 2007.

Now, I just read on Wikipedia that StarCraft II is being set four years after the events of the first StarCraft installments. Why would Blizzard set it four years after when releasing the sequel 12 years after the first?

Anyone else find this odd? Why not set the new story 12 years later, and have some correlation with the time that’s passed? I’m 12 years older than when I planted my first Spawning Pool on a field of creep. Why has Jim Raynor gotten away with growing only four years older? How are we supposed to relate to him? (joking)

I am curious to know what you think of this. I like when game and movie sequels are set the same number of years in the future as it’s been since the original was released (in real-world years). It’s a nice touch.

EA, when will you learn?

I really don’t have a real problem with EA’s twitter contest at Comic-Con, titled “Sin to Win“. I don’t think it’s a good campaign, but I’m not offended. Booth Babes already allow themselves to be objectified in exchange for money. The social and ethical implications of this exchange are not what I write about here.

That said, I don’t see the appeal of taking my photo with a booth babe just to show my friends that a hottie touched my shoulder. What I’m saying is, I’m obviously not their core audience on this contest. (read: I’m not 14 years old).

EA has a lot of product lines, and some of them target kids and women as their core audiences. So why alienate one demographic while trying to draw on another?

Also, if you’re counting on your audiences’ parents to buy Dante’s Inferno for them, why are you encouraging them to sin? Even if it’s just a little bit of sin. Even if only 1 in 1000 parents are turned off by this contest, why do it? When I’m sure you could come up with something equally creative and engaging with better optics.

Rockstar Games could probably pull off a stunt like this. Maybe EA shouldn’t have tried.

On the other hand, the “Storm in a Teacup” might get them broader coverage than some other safe “politically correct” contest would have. Maybe that’s what they’re going for. What do you think?

The fanboy factory

One part of marketing and public relations is developing relationships between customers and a brand. If successful a community of customers will form around a brand. Within that community you will find “fanboys/girls”. I’m going to use the term fanboy through this post, not to exclude, but to simplify.

Fanboys are a brand’s unpaid zealots. You find them all over the internet, on blogs, forums, IRC chat. They talk about how much they love x, y or z.

Some companies are exceptionally good at manufacturing fanboys. Apple, Nokia, Sony, and Blizzard Entertainment are a few examples of tech and gaming brands which do this.

I’m a bit of a Samsung fanboy – I always recommend their products, though not to the exclusion of other quality brands. I’ve had good experiences with several Samsung products and trust that they’ll be a good experience for others.

I’ve been thinking about what these brands do differently to generate this kind of fan support and I came to a couple of conclusions.

1. A well established brand

All of the examples I listed have been around a while. They’re well-known, household names. Blizzard is extremely well known among gamers.

2. A Consistent User Experience

All four of the examples I used have a pretty consistent and positive user experience. They’re all known for quality and user support.

3. Cross-platform integration

This applies more to Sony and Apple than the other two; though Blizzard’s Battle.net is a well established multiplayer platform that they’ve used for their games over a decade. Sony and Apple have created a family of products that all work together. Apple computers have seamless support for iPods, Apple TV, AirPort networking devices, etc. Once you get one, you’re locked in.

Sony has done similar things with home theatre, PS3, audio players, and more.

Integrating with a lifestyle

It really struck me as amazing when I was checking out iTunes 8.1 and discovered that the new iTunes DJ (replacing the Party Shuffle smart playlist) supports integration with the iPhone and iPod Touch over WiFi, letting partiers request songs directly over their handheld device.

It’s really not a necessary feature. At a small house party it’s not a big deal to go over to the computer and queue up a song. At big parties I don’t know of many professional DJs using iTunes. They tend to use higher-end professional software, in conjunction with turntables and CD players. However, the feature is really cool!

If you read my blog, you’ll know I’ve got my eye on a buying a smartphone and I’ve been excited about the Palm Pre since it was anounced. This feature is making me take another look at the iPhone. Not to mention all the neat looking games appearing on the iTunes App Store.

What are your thoughts on how fanboys are created by brands?

PC Video Cards: Why get the biggest and baddest?

My evolution as a gamer began on the PC, and I’ve always favoured the PC as my platform of choice. I’ve tried to keep up with advancements in PC hardware. At least since I started configuring and assembling my own systems 10 years ago. The first one I assembled was an AMD K6-2 450Mhz, with the help of a friend.

Since then, I’ve configured four desktop computers for myself, and at least as many for friends and family. The computer I used the longest was based on an MSI K7T266pro2 motherboard with an AMD AthlonXP 1600+ processor. For over five years and most of my university career, this computer served me very well and satisfied my gaming needs almost until I replaced it. To keep it running the latest titles I upgraded the video card. My old MSI motherboard was home to four different video cards. I never bought the best card available, but the card that offered the best gaming value.

The PC video card market is now saturated with setups ranging in price from $50 to over $1000. The average North American home computer buyer probably spent less than $1000 on their entire system in 2008. Consider a video card that will play all of the current games reasonably well will cost about $200. Why would anyone spend over $1000 on the latest quad-SLI video card setups from either nVidia or ATI?

There are a couple of reasons one might spend this money on their graphics setup.

  1. The products exist
  2. PC gamers take great pride in their computers
  3. Competition exists both in gaming prowess and computer power
  4. Some people have more money than brains

Seriously, read some reviews like this one on [H]ard|OCP, my favorite source for computer hardware news and reviews.

A high-end, dual-chip video card like the ATI Radeon HD 4870 offers the ability to connect two of them together, but the real-world gaming performance on a quad-SLI setup isn’t noticably better than a single board. You’re essentially throwing away $600 buying that second top-of-the-line video card. Remember, $200 will buy you a card that will probably play everything set for release in the next 2 years acceptably. You can upgrade that value-end card three times for the price of the high-end.

The conditions that make it desirable to own a high-end card have been established mostly by the industry, and partly by gamer culture (which is in turn influenced by the industry). Gamers want the prettiest graphics their money can buy. They want status in the geek heirarchy (i.e. bragging rights). They want to make a statement.

Part of the appeal of owning a gaming PC over a console is the ability to customize. Buy a PS3, and it’s basically the same as every other PS3. Customization is a form of personal expression and freedom. Spending a buttload of money on your PC hardware makes a clear statement to your fellow gamers – you’ve got cash to spend. That said, if you don’t have the skill to go along with your $5000 computer, you won’t be taken very seriously by other gamers. They’ll probably stick you with label #4 that I listed above.

To wrap up, much like the market created for premium luxury automobiles, designers of graphics processors have created a niche market for high-end video cards. Most of us know that it’s enough to drive a Chevy Malibu, but we’d still buy a Cadillac if we had the opportunity.

If you had the cash to spare, would you spend it on Quad-SLI?


Add Me

Add to Technorati Favorites View Rick Weiss's profile on LinkedIn

Delicious

Flickr Photos

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

More Photos
Support Wikipedia

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.