Henroid

The Business Side of Video (Space) Games EXCLUSIVELY ON IDLE THUMBS

Recommended Posts

I don't think I'm being an asshole when I say sometimes I just want to read about video games without something making me feel bad for being in a privileged group.

 

That kind of does make you an asshole.

 

 

The whole "more severed heads than women at E3" was the worst example. Talk about sensationalist reporting. 

 

I don't have a problem with them calling it out, but that one tipped me over the edge. I was all excited for cool E3 news and analysis, then that title just brought me down and made me feel bad. I don't like feeling bad during my excitement for new stuff.

 

And that kind of confirms why it makes you an asshole (about this subject).

 

And I'm not being mean by saying it.  I'm an asshole about some things.  We're all assholes about something.  I generally think you're a pretty positive and awesome person around here.  But you're an asshole about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that kind of confirms why it makes you an asshole.

 

 

Fair enough! At least I know I'm being an asshole about that, it means I know to shut the hell up about it and think about why that is so. 

I do personally consider myself progressive, but I'm obviously missing something here that I need to take into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We talked about the severed heads thing in the E3 thread, my take was that it was an entertaining, but really random, comparison to make to call out yet again how bad the big pubs are about gender diversity on stage at events.  And the right time to call them out for that is during E3, because that's when it is relevant.  That's when it is news.  The pubs want all positive glowing press about how wonderful they all are, and don't want people writing about how shitty they are about having women on stage at their events.  The MS one was especially bad, where they had all the awkward cutaway anecdotes with a bunch of different devs and only had a single woman out of all the people they cutaway too and never actually let her answer any of their cute little questions.  They paired her with a man who answered instead. 

 

And then you had the double whammy Ubisoft announcement about how women are just too expensive to model as player characters, so they had to be cut from two games, followed by a former Ubisoft animation director crying bullshit about their excuse. 

 

So there were multiple things to legitimately write about how women were handled, treated and discussed during E3. 

 

The reason I said your response to the second one confirms that your an asshole is because you are prioritizing your desire to feel good over other people's desire not to be made to feel like shit.  I watched the E3 pressers with my 20 year-old daughter who is trying to get into the games industry.  She notices shit like a lack of women on stage, the few women there are not being allowed to speak as much, being brought on stage to talk about Sims, but not "core" games.  Places like Polygon writing about these issues, and calling out the same things that my daughter sees confirms that she's not alone.  That she's not crazy for thinking that women often get the shaft at these events. 

 

 The reality is that the percentage of content on Polygon that is about women is actually really tiny.  Like probably 1 to 2 percent of total posts tiny.  But when you say that even that small percentage makes you uncomfortable, and you wish there was less of it, what you're saying is that people like my daughter don't deserve to have a voice in the gaming press, or ought to have a quieter voice.  They don't deserve to have people writing about the same things they observe when watching something like E3.  And that's an asshole kind of thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I said your response to the second one confirms that your an asshole is because you are prioritizing your desire to feel good over other people's desire not to be made to feel like shit. 

 

This is basically what I was going to say. I guess I'd also just say that your desire to feel good should be balanced with your own conscience. Women's status in the gaming industry should make you feel bad. You shouldn't decide that Polygon's coverage of women's rights is too much because it makes light of something that rightly makes you feel bad. I think it's alright to still enjoy games despite elements of games not responsibly treating women or any other cultural class, you should just be aware of it and be discerning when something breaches your personal barrier of tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he reason I said your response to the second one confirms that your an asshole is because you are prioritizing your desire to feel good over other people's desire not to be made to feel like shit.

 

This I agree with. Asshole behaviour right there. I tend to have gut reactions to things and rationalise/think them through later. This is one where my gut reaction was particularly selfish and I should have thought about it more.

 

I think it's alright to still enjoy games despite elements of games not responsibly treating women or any other cultural class, you should just be aware of it and be discerning when something breaches your personal barrier of tolerance.

 

That's something I have trouble with. If I find something repulsive I avoid it. I rarely get into fights with people because if I don't like someone or their views I just don't interact with them. I strongly dislike the way the video game industry treats women and ethnic groups other than whites, but I don't want to stop playing games! 

 

 

 The reality is that the percentage of content on Polygon that is about women is actually really tiny.  Like probably 1 to 2 percent of total posts tiny. 

 

While this is technically true, when I looked at the 5 or so featured articles (you know, the ones at the top of the page) during E3 and 2 of them were on that issue (one of which is incredibly sensationalist), it doesn't seem that way. It felt like I was being told I shouldn't like this stuff. Again, my gut reaction was that of an asshole. Rather disappointed in myself for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem here, Griddlelol, is that you feel bad for being in a privileged group, which is a perfectly understandable reaction. I've been there, man, it is a pretty upsetting thing to discover that society is arranged to fuck over the majority of people on your behalf without asking whether that would be what you want.

 

The way women and non-Caucasian ethnic groups are treated is not your fault. It's systemic, which means that everyone, even the victims, carries it around with them to some extent. No-one gets out unscathed. What that means is there's no divide between goodies and baddies, with you stuck permanently on the shitty side, even though that's how it feels. There's three sides: the bigots, who try and smear this shit all over everything, the people who are still carrying it and haven't noticed, and the people who are trying to wash it off. So long as you're trying to wash it off yourself, and are willing to do a bit of hosing and give a signal boost to the most affected people now and then, you're doing all you need to. 

 

This became a coprophilic metaphor really quickly.

 

Anyway, what's important is that you're aware and thinking of it. You'll screw up, it's inevitable, because you grew up in a culture that tried to train you to constantly screw up without even realising it, and no-one fully escapes it once it's gotten into their heads. The people who get angry about this stuff have screwed up plenty of times as well.

 

I hope this helps with the problematic elements of the games you like as well; it's everywhere, and the best you can hope for is to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Colin Campbell's piece on the Minecraft EULA situation.

 

As expected, it is pretty one sided and focuses exclusively on how these changes are supposedly going to bring an end to a bunch of these "wonderful" Minecraft servers and put people out of jobs.

 

What's most disappointing about this piece for me is that it seems to completely gloss over the fact that these servers are still free to charge whatever server fees they want (as long as they are the same for everyone), they are allowed to put ads on their servers to generate revenue, and they can still charge for cosmetic items. The fact that all of the testimonials in this article boil down to "this is a bad change and will kill our business" without any real explanations as to why these other sources of revenue aren't viable makes it really hard for me to sympathize with these people. If I am supposed to take this article seriously, it would have been nice to at least have one of these people quoted in the article go a little bit more into detail regarding exactly how their current business model works and specifically why they wouldn't be able to adjust that model to comply with the EULA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Colin Campbell's piece on the Minecraft EULA situation.

 

As expected, it is pretty one sided and focuses exclusively on how these changes are supposedly going to bring an end to a bunch of these "wonderful" Minecraft servers and put people out of jobs.

 

What's most disappointing about this piece for me is that it seems to completely gloss over the fact that these servers are still free to charge whatever server fees they want (as long as they are the same for everyone), they are allowed to put ads on their servers to generate revenue, and they can still charge for cosmetic items. The fact that all of the testimonials in this article boil down to "this is a bad change and will kill our business" without any real explanations as to why these other sources of revenue aren't viable makes it really hard for me to sympathize with these people. If I am supposed to take this article seriously, it would have been nice to at least have one of these people quoted in the article go a little bit more into detail regarding exactly how their current business model works and specifically why they wouldn't be able to adjust that model to comply with the EULA.

 

I think that's an overly harsh estimation of the piece.  It definitely favors the servers in this case and I agree that seeing a more complete description of a business model would help understanding greatly.  But the article does mention several times that servers can charge fees for subscription and cosmetic items, it just tries to emphasize that these aren't enough to support the current size of most servers (I assume, I know nothing about the Minecraft server community).  And it does pose a valid question of what changed at Mojang to cause the enforcement now when it does seem like they've been aware of it for longer.

 

I have no particular sympathy for most of these servers either because they were building on top of another person's creation.  One could argue that the creator has some obligation to support his community, but he also has an obligation to his game and his intent for the game.  A business that bases itself off of (mostly) someone else's work should be prepared for any changes that that work undergoes, including stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the article does mention several times that servers can charge fees for subscription and cosmetic items, it just tries to emphasize that these aren't enough to support the current size of most servers (I assume, I know nothing about the Minecraft server community). 

 

My problem with it is that they don't go anywhere with that fact beyond just mentioning it offhand (and iirc they never brought up the fact that they can place ads on their servers as another option to generate revenue). My beef here is that this is the second article from Polygon focusing squarely on how this negatively impacts the Minecraft community without any attempt to present the other perspective. There is just nothing of substance that convinces me that this is the problem people are making it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally question just how big or important some of these servers are.  It seems like a bunch of us had never even heard of these guys, and we are all pretty wired into the gaming world.  But now they are coming out of the woodwork claiming how big and important to Minecraft they are. 

 

Not saying it is impossible, but it certainly feels like a pretty big inflation of their size/importance to me.

 

Also, that Polygon piece is objectively bad journalism.  It's got way to many weasel words to get out of the fact that there aren't enough facts to actually back up what he was writing.  They also sidebarred Notch's response, rather than running his words in-line with the server owner's quotes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, that Polygon piece is objectively bad journalism.  It's got way to many weasel words to get out of the fact that there aren't enough facts to actually back up what he was writing.  They also sidebarred Notch's response, rather than running his words in-line with the server owner's quotes. 

 

Yes! Thank you for saying what I was trying to get at in a much more concise and coherent way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the piece is not especially well written.  I dislike articles that are mostly quotes and that's what a lot of this one was.  Like I said, it does favor the servers a lot and seems to have little from the dev side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally question just how big or important some of these servers are.  It seems like a bunch of us had never even heard of these guys, and we are all pretty wired into the gaming world.  But now they are coming out of the woodwork claiming how big and important to Minecraft they are. 

 

Not saying it is impossible, but it certainly feels like a pretty big inflation of their size/importance to me.

 

Also, that Polygon piece is objectively bad journalism.  It's got way to many weasel words to get out of the fact that there aren't enough facts to actually back up what he was writing.  They also sidebarred Notch's response, rather than running his words in-line with the server owner's quotes. 

 

It blows my mind that people are letting their young children (young enough at least to not understand the value of $100) play on these giant pay-to-win servers. I have never had a problem finding a small to mid-sized server that doesn't charge when I want one and, if I have fun, I'll kick in a donation. These giant servers sound like a nightmare.

 

Edit: Also, I have no sympathy for someone who is making money off a game and didn't read the EULA. If they really think theyr'e getting cheated, they should take it to court. I'd love to see an EULA challenged in a real court case, regardless of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamasutra asks an important question.

 

Is YouTube killing the traditional games press?

 

This kinda got lost in the Minecraft talk. The answer is yes, adapt or die. Giantbomb and Gamespot have both managed to find a combination of video and traditional press that's working out great. Heck, most newspapers have moved on to having a digital presence of some sort, why shouldn't the gaming press have to adapt as well.

 

Also, the gaming press was dying before Youtube got big. How many magazines closed their doors in the last decade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think YouTube is a success because it's a higher fidelity format of delivering raw information about a game. Formats have superseded each other in terms of this fidelity:

  • Magazines + printed media - screenshots printed in ink
  • Gaming websites - screenshots presented natively in pixels
  • Modern gaming websites - reviews presenting small bits of gameplay video with commentary over top
  • YouTube - longform gameplay video with commentary

Each subsequent format delivered more and more of what the game is, and I think that's why YouTube and to some extent Twitch are winning so big lately. As always, the previous form can keep relevance if they provide some kind of context for that raw information, but I think there's something essential about getting that sort of stream of consciousness of watching someone play a game versus a game being described to you.

 

Not to mention each subsequent form of media has seemingly brought content at a faster and faster rate to consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what they'll think of next? Maybe something like a small portion of the game - say, the first level or two, or a chunk in the middle of the game that demonstrates the game at its average high point - that consumers can play for themselves!

 

i know it's a completely different thing but i found it sorta amusing, since the trend was, as you pointed out, to deliver more and more of what the game actually IS to the end-consumer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might seem a little silly, but that is one thing that I felt the XBox Live Indie Games market did well: Every single game on there has to have a demo. I love being able to at least experience a little of what a game has to offer before I purchase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might seem a little silly, but that is one thing that I felt the XBox Live Indie Games market did well: Every single game on there has to have a demo. I love being able to at least experience a little of what a game has to offer before I purchase it.

Also true of the OUYA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OnLive + Mad Catz = You Win!

 

also

 

Mad Catz + OnLive = AWESOME

 

thus

 

You Win! = AWESOME

 

W0G6q3t.png

 

I really need to unsubscribe from OnLive's dumb newsletter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, there's no evidence that brands are commutative. OnLive + Mad Catz does not necessarily equal Mad Catz + OnLive.

 

Re: demos: the thing that's being missed here is that YouTube reviewers measurably drive sales, and the evidence from demos is that they actually depress sales. With a YouTube reviewer, developers can usually ensure that it'll be played by someone who's going to give it a fair shake to get enough material for their video. Most consumers won't.

 

Edit: this is highly recommended viewing. It's an amazing dissection of media narratives and internet fame through the lens of Phil Fish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that pewdiepie is making any money to begin with is enough to make me want to ragequit life. What an annoying human being that person is.

 

Anyway Phil Fish yet again makes it harder for people who were on his side to stay on his side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys think people should be able to upload full-length movies to youtube as "let's-views" with their commentary over the top? Stream them on twitch?

 

Granted, I don't really know where I fall on this, as I watch a ton of twitch and mostly hate our current copyright system.

 

I expect that a ton of studios would be ecstatic at the exposure, and willing to grant license to streamers / lets-players to provide what amounts to free publicity, but there's also probably a set of studios (maybe ones that do more story-driven stuff) that are going to lose sales if people can watch full playthroughs online. I know that I have put off buying The Forest and just watched people stream it on twitch instead. Maybe without the availability of protracted playthroughs the developers would have 15 more dollars.

 

I imagine that there's a similar dynamic with Gone Home and Walking Dead. Maybe there will be with Firewatch as well?

 

(DEFINITELY NOT A SOLID AND COMPLETELY THOUGHT-THROUGH OPINION HERE)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The video covers this pretty admirably.

 

Only the stuff that fits into the media narrative of Phil Fish as egotistical blowhard with no time for the little people is newsworthy. Plenty of other developers have said the same kinds of things, but it's not news when they do it. Plenty of people on forums have said the same kinds of things and the same kind of way, but apparently Phil's problem is that he doesn't use the power that was thrust into his hands, that he is clearly uncomfortable with, and that he cannot give back without also ending his career.

 

That video is highly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever noticed that Phil Fish uses a picture of Andy Kaufman as his Twitter avatar? Increasingly as time passes, I kind of suspect that his entire presence in the games industry has been one elaborate prank.

 

 

Side note on Youtube and gaming: remember how Reggie said last week that Nintendo has no plans to allow Wii U streaming because they think that just watching a game would be boring?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now