Come with me, if you will, on a trip back in time.
A trip back to the wild and murky days of early- to mid-October, 2004.
A mysterious time when "reports estimate" that the PSP will be between $250 and $300 (or, alternatively, "under $300" or "between 25,000 and 30,000 yen").
A time when, depending on who you ask, either there are "hints of delay," questions of "another delay" or "analysts forsee[ing] delay" of the PSP, possibly to November, 2005 (or, if you asked Sony, no delay).
Seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
Just because the conventional wisdom was wrong this time doesn't mean that these sources were wrong to report it. But this should serve as a reminder to never simply assume the conventional wisdom as correct without further review.
Kudos, then, to Business Week for challenging the status quo and examining the case for a lower than expected PSP price point days before the announcement (as picked up by TVG, Gaming Horizon, Spong et al).
Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the election's conventional wisdom will be, eh?
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Quote of the Moment
"Video games are so mainstream it's beside the point to convince you that they are mainstream."
-Jonathan Simpson-Bint, president of gaming magazine publisher Future Network USA, in yet another article trying to convince people that gaming is mainstream.
-Jonathan Simpson-Bint, president of gaming magazine publisher Future Network USA, in yet another article trying to convince people that gaming is mainstream.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
San Andreas Shakes Things Up
You've known this day would come for months now. You've been guessing at the name even longer. Pre-release hype has practically assured it will be one of the best selling games of all time. Now, it's finally here. What do you do to cover the release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Well...
- If you're GameSpot, you accompany a standard release story (which describes the game, "for those who have just awakened from a two-year coma") with prominent links to a review, a bunch of movies and screen shots on the top of every page of the site.
- If you're IGN, you cap off weeks of endless features and news tidbits with... a one paragraph news story announcing the release. Oh, and a sizable set of images, movies and a large review on your part, as well.
- If you're CNN/Money, you take a different angle and discuss the surprising effect the release is having on Take-Two's stock. (You may also be surpised that GameSpot posts a similar story four minutes later)
- If you're MTV, you do an interesting experiential piece that captures the breathless anticipation and first sleepless night spent with the game.
- If you're the local TV news you comment on the throngs of people assembled to buy the game and touch on the violence issue.
- If you're Reuters, you also touch on the violence issue while discussing the sales and business impact of the game's release.
- If you're an Xbox-exclusive site, you either ignore it or quickly mention it before returning to breathless Halo 2 anticipation.
- If you're GamesIndustry.biz, you post the press release and leave it at that.
- If you're a site I didn't mention, you probably at least mentioned it.
- If you're just a gamer, you're probably too busy playing the game to read any of this.
Monday, October 25, 2004
The Ombudsman Asks: Your First Time
It's Monday, so it's time once again to turn the spotlight on you as... The Ombudsman Asks:
This week's question: What was the first exposure to video game journalism?
Were you an early adopter of magazines like Replay? Were you one of the many that made Nintendo Power the most popular children's magazine for a time? Did you get a free subscription to Sega Visions for registering your Genesis? Were you attracted to the glossy covers of an early Next Generation and immediately hooked?
Feel free to elaborate on your early game mag experiences. Was your first from the newstand or a subscription? Was it a gift or a personal purchase? What struck you about the magazine? What annoyed you? Do you still have the magazine? If so, does the content hold up after all these years (if you don't, do you think the content would still be fresh)?
I'll get the conversation started: My first video game magazine was a copy of Nintendo Power Volume 7 (July/August 1989, Mega Man II cover). It was a gift from my favorite aunt on a trip to visit assorted relatives in New York. I was all of seven years old at the time. I clearly remember her handing it to me as we walked to the car to leave for home. It was already dark out, so I had to squint to read under the passing highway lights. My gradnma (sitting next to me) said I would damage my eyes. I didn't seem to care.
My favorite part was the Super Mario Bros. 2 tip book, which was a huge help in conquering my favorite game of the time. Unfortunately, it was only part one of the tip book, so it only helped with the first half of the game. I remember liking the Howard & Nester comic too, although I couldn't remember the content until a quick Google search just now.
Before long, I was a loyal subscriber to NP, starting with Volume 19 (Strategy Guide #4: 4-player Extra). I had no four-player games (nor a multitap), so I never even opened it, instead keeping it as a mint-condition monument to my newfound obsession. It's currently sitting in my parents' basement, (till in near-mint condition), along with hundreds of game magazines that have come to my door since (in much worse condition). I won't let my parents throw any of them out.
This week's question: What was the first exposure to video game journalism?
Were you an early adopter of magazines like Replay? Were you one of the many that made Nintendo Power the most popular children's magazine for a time? Did you get a free subscription to Sega Visions for registering your Genesis? Were you attracted to the glossy covers of an early Next Generation and immediately hooked?
Feel free to elaborate on your early game mag experiences. Was your first from the newstand or a subscription? Was it a gift or a personal purchase? What struck you about the magazine? What annoyed you? Do you still have the magazine? If so, does the content hold up after all these years (if you don't, do you think the content would still be fresh)?
I'll get the conversation started: My first video game magazine was a copy of Nintendo Power Volume 7 (July/August 1989, Mega Man II cover). It was a gift from my favorite aunt on a trip to visit assorted relatives in New York. I was all of seven years old at the time. I clearly remember her handing it to me as we walked to the car to leave for home. It was already dark out, so I had to squint to read under the passing highway lights. My gradnma (sitting next to me) said I would damage my eyes. I didn't seem to care.
My favorite part was the Super Mario Bros. 2 tip book, which was a huge help in conquering my favorite game of the time. Unfortunately, it was only part one of the tip book, so it only helped with the first half of the game. I remember liking the Howard & Nester comic too, although I couldn't remember the content until a quick Google search just now.
Before long, I was a loyal subscriber to NP, starting with Volume 19 (Strategy Guide #4: 4-player Extra). I had no four-player games (nor a multitap), so I never even opened it, instead keeping it as a mint-condition monument to my newfound obsession. It's currently sitting in my parents' basement, (till in near-mint condition), along with hundreds of game magazines that have come to my door since (in much worse condition). I won't let my parents throw any of them out.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Edge Gets Edgier?
While scanning the latest press releases on Games Press the other day, I was surprised to see a post announcing a redesign of Edge Magazine (Registration required, and if you don't have one, you should definitely get one. If not, the rest of this post gives a good feel for the contents anyway).
This provides an interesting window for a Yank like me into the machinations of one of Great Britain's most lauded (and sometimes most derided) magazines without paying almost $115 for a subscription. I've never read an issue of Edge, so I can't tell you for sure if its "videogame magazine for grown-ups" branding fits or if it's just a tad full of itself. But I can tell you that this press release makes me believe the former.
The release starts off with some standard boilerplate about how Edge has been "internationally respected" and "award winning" since its launch in 1993. It goes on to mention how Edge is "the only videogame magazine ... that reflects the full scope of gaming's present, past and future," and is uniquely positioned "to address its widening cultural impact." While the first part might be arguable, that second part sounds much more appealing to me than another magazine filled with glowing previews and uninspired reviews.
After a bit about the visual part of the redesign, the release goes on to announce a change in Edge's mission statement, from 'the future of electronic entertainment' to 'videogame culture.' First of all, the fact that the magazine has something as lofty as a mission statement is impressive to an admitted Edge-neophyte like myself. I find it hard to imagine many American magazines declaring such a thing. Secondly, Edge's new statement reflects what they call an aggressive pursuit of "all that is interesting in gaming and imaginatively assessing its wider significance." All I can say is, it's about time.
The release also announces a new 'Time Extend' feature for the magazine, which will "follows significant titles after the pre-release hype and the post-release criticism have died down, examining the influence they had on the people who played them and on the games that followed." Many magazines are already doing something similar with increasingly popular "retro" sections, but the way Edge phrased their description here makes me think this could be a little more relevant.
After mentioning in passing that Edge has included editorials since 1999, the release announces two new writers, one a former Grand Theft Auto designer who will give "an insider's perspective on game development," the other a world traveller who will "investigate online communities and the fascinating culture that has rapidly grown around them." American magazines, which have been much slower to incorporate outside editorials, could take note at the variety of perspectives reflected in just these two names.
The release finishes with a comment from the editor that "Edge readers are knowledgeable, dedicated and highly demanding consumers," something that seems either too ludicrous or too embarrassing for most American magazines to claim.
From my outsider's perspective, I got the impression from this press release that Edge is a magazine that takes videogames very seriously and is dedicated to exploring new ways of exploring all aspects of the world of video games, two things I'm definitely in favor of. Then again, I still haven't read the magazine, and a self-laudatory press release probably isn't the most impartial way to find out about a magazine.
Still, if what they say is accurate, maybe paying $115 for a subscription isn't so ridiculous after all.
This provides an interesting window for a Yank like me into the machinations of one of Great Britain's most lauded (and sometimes most derided) magazines without paying almost $115 for a subscription. I've never read an issue of Edge, so I can't tell you for sure if its "videogame magazine for grown-ups" branding fits or if it's just a tad full of itself. But I can tell you that this press release makes me believe the former.
The release starts off with some standard boilerplate about how Edge has been "internationally respected" and "award winning" since its launch in 1993. It goes on to mention how Edge is "the only videogame magazine ... that reflects the full scope of gaming's present, past and future," and is uniquely positioned "to address its widening cultural impact." While the first part might be arguable, that second part sounds much more appealing to me than another magazine filled with glowing previews and uninspired reviews.
After a bit about the visual part of the redesign, the release goes on to announce a change in Edge's mission statement, from 'the future of electronic entertainment' to 'videogame culture.' First of all, the fact that the magazine has something as lofty as a mission statement is impressive to an admitted Edge-neophyte like myself. I find it hard to imagine many American magazines declaring such a thing. Secondly, Edge's new statement reflects what they call an aggressive pursuit of "all that is interesting in gaming and imaginatively assessing its wider significance." All I can say is, it's about time.
The release also announces a new 'Time Extend' feature for the magazine, which will "follows significant titles after the pre-release hype and the post-release criticism have died down, examining the influence they had on the people who played them and on the games that followed." Many magazines are already doing something similar with increasingly popular "retro" sections, but the way Edge phrased their description here makes me think this could be a little more relevant.
After mentioning in passing that Edge has included editorials since 1999, the release announces two new writers, one a former Grand Theft Auto designer who will give "an insider's perspective on game development," the other a world traveller who will "investigate online communities and the fascinating culture that has rapidly grown around them." American magazines, which have been much slower to incorporate outside editorials, could take note at the variety of perspectives reflected in just these two names.
The release finishes with a comment from the editor that "Edge readers are knowledgeable, dedicated and highly demanding consumers," something that seems either too ludicrous or too embarrassing for most American magazines to claim.
From my outsider's perspective, I got the impression from this press release that Edge is a magazine that takes videogames very seriously and is dedicated to exploring new ways of exploring all aspects of the world of video games, two things I'm definitely in favor of. Then again, I still haven't read the magazine, and a self-laudatory press release probably isn't the most impartial way to find out about a magazine.
Still, if what they say is accurate, maybe paying $115 for a subscription isn't so ridiculous after all.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Review: The Video Game Revolution
At the very beginning of KCTS' "The Video Game Revolution," the host talks about the difficulties of making a documentary about video games that will appeal to gamers and non-gamers alike. He pledges that the non-gamers (who he calls 'older folks') will come to understand why videogames are important, both as a business and a cultural force. He promises the gamers (the 'young folks') will get a look at the hottest new games and a historical look at important games selected by expert gamers.
This all-inclusive goal is luadable, but it results in a somewhat schizophrenic presentation, that fails to cover either audience perfectly.
This is especially apparent in the first half of the two hour program. During this portion, the narrator takes us on a whirlwind tour of videogame history, blazing through subjects from the great video game crash to the explosive success of the Sony PlayStation with amazing speed. To their credit, the filmmakers struggled to mention as many industry-defining games, companies and moments as they can, often including interesting and nostalgic video clips from bygone eras. Unfortunately, this extensive breadth forces the film to gloss over the details of many events that simply require more explanation to be useful. The legal battles over Teris rights barely rate thirty seconds of explanation, roughly the same amount of time used to show a classic Nintendo Tetris commercial.
Perhaps more time could have been devoted to these necessary details if the film didn't constantly jump back and forth between the historical narrative and random bits of gamer culture and life. Short segments about a blind Pokemon player, a professional video game restorer, the GDFest gaming convention and more are squeezed in with the historical bits with strained segues that eat up even more time. Some of these segments are interesting, but they're so short and badly introduced in the hsow's first half that all they manage to do is destroy the viewer's focus. By the time we come back from a contemporary look at the Tokyo Game Show to talk about the rivalry between the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, many viewers may be wondering exactly how the two are related.
The history is also filled with little inconsistencies and factual errors that most casual gamers won't notice but experienced players will wince at. A video of Pong is shown as the starting point for gaming before the controversy over "the first gamer" is acknowledged later in the program. Shots of classic games like Q-Bert, Punch-out!! and Goldeneye are accompanied with video of updated versions, not the originals. The discussion of the SNES mentions that the system shipped with a sequel to The Legend of Zelda which actually came out months after the system's release. Computerized animations of "Dungeon Siege II" are implied to be gameplay movies. The kinds of errors are don't totally invalidate the historical facts, but they do get pretty annoying.
This is not to say that the documentary doesn't have its good points. On the contrary, once the muddled history is mostly out of the way, the second half allows the filmmakers time to give viewers a broad understanding of some of the deeper cultural and social issues involved in gaming. Segments on the gender gap, gaming violence and gaming addication cover both sides fairly through extensive and well-editted interviews. Shorter pieces on military simulations, LAN parties, professional gaming teams and online gaming romances are concise and good at capturing the human side of the issues. Bits of interviews with industry spokesmen like Nolan Bushnell, Henry Jenkins and Seamus Blackley and journalists like Steven Kent and Rusel DeMaria provide surprisingly lucid quotes on the business, cultural and even philosophical aspects of games.
But in the end, watching "The Video Game Revolution" is like digging through a bargain bin full of used games, where the gems of interest are somewhat obscured by the massive wastes of time. I can't help but think that a short series of hour-long shows, each dealing with one of the many issues crammed into this documentary, could have been a bellweather for intelligent game discussion on TV. As it stands, the two-hour documentary is an over-ambitious and only somehwat successful attempt to fit a very large subject into a very small package.
This all-inclusive goal is luadable, but it results in a somewhat schizophrenic presentation, that fails to cover either audience perfectly.
This is especially apparent in the first half of the two hour program. During this portion, the narrator takes us on a whirlwind tour of videogame history, blazing through subjects from the great video game crash to the explosive success of the Sony PlayStation with amazing speed. To their credit, the filmmakers struggled to mention as many industry-defining games, companies and moments as they can, often including interesting and nostalgic video clips from bygone eras. Unfortunately, this extensive breadth forces the film to gloss over the details of many events that simply require more explanation to be useful. The legal battles over Teris rights barely rate thirty seconds of explanation, roughly the same amount of time used to show a classic Nintendo Tetris commercial.
Perhaps more time could have been devoted to these necessary details if the film didn't constantly jump back and forth between the historical narrative and random bits of gamer culture and life. Short segments about a blind Pokemon player, a professional video game restorer, the GDFest gaming convention and more are squeezed in with the historical bits with strained segues that eat up even more time. Some of these segments are interesting, but they're so short and badly introduced in the hsow's first half that all they manage to do is destroy the viewer's focus. By the time we come back from a contemporary look at the Tokyo Game Show to talk about the rivalry between the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, many viewers may be wondering exactly how the two are related.
The history is also filled with little inconsistencies and factual errors that most casual gamers won't notice but experienced players will wince at. A video of Pong is shown as the starting point for gaming before the controversy over "the first gamer" is acknowledged later in the program. Shots of classic games like Q-Bert, Punch-out!! and Goldeneye are accompanied with video of updated versions, not the originals. The discussion of the SNES mentions that the system shipped with a sequel to The Legend of Zelda which actually came out months after the system's release. Computerized animations of "Dungeon Siege II" are implied to be gameplay movies. The kinds of errors are don't totally invalidate the historical facts, but they do get pretty annoying.
This is not to say that the documentary doesn't have its good points. On the contrary, once the muddled history is mostly out of the way, the second half allows the filmmakers time to give viewers a broad understanding of some of the deeper cultural and social issues involved in gaming. Segments on the gender gap, gaming violence and gaming addication cover both sides fairly through extensive and well-editted interviews. Shorter pieces on military simulations, LAN parties, professional gaming teams and online gaming romances are concise and good at capturing the human side of the issues. Bits of interviews with industry spokesmen like Nolan Bushnell, Henry Jenkins and Seamus Blackley and journalists like Steven Kent and Rusel DeMaria provide surprisingly lucid quotes on the business, cultural and even philosophical aspects of games.
But in the end, watching "The Video Game Revolution" is like digging through a bargain bin full of used games, where the gems of interest are somewhat obscured by the massive wastes of time. I can't help but think that a short series of hour-long shows, each dealing with one of the many issues crammed into this documentary, could have been a bellweather for intelligent game discussion on TV. As it stands, the two-hour documentary is an over-ambitious and only somehwat successful attempt to fit a very large subject into a very small package.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)