The tech world has found itself in a position I don't think that it could have foresaw 10 years ago. It's now in the business of providing services for its customers as opposed to pure technical power. It's not merely enough to provide a platform for which a product can stand alone, where the merit lies in how advanced the technology has become. In this day and age, the industry leaders must tie a service into the technology for mass adoption. The new paradigm shifts are now what services a company should provide, how many services should the platform provide vs how open the platform should be to allow outside companies to provide additional services, and what is the best way to monetize the hardware and service combination. In order to stay afloat, companies must take a gamble on what the proper balances should be, being careful not to be too much like the competition. Companies that refuse to play the game and only provide the technology without additional support find themselves falling far behind, and eventually whittled down to a small company with small profits, if not out of business all together.
A prime example of the way that services are important to technology adoption is the smart phone industry. RIM's Blackberry line has been a mainstay in the smartphone industry since its inception. It provided the platform that business users needed to stay connected to their company at any given moment. Unable to keep up with the new paradigm of providing services, in this case a competent application infrastructure, RIM has seen major market share disruption, and a drop in sales. Apple's iPhone line and Google's Android system have both seen strong profits because they offer an application market on top of the hardware. This allows other companies and individuals to provide an expanded service to users based on a very flexible cost. Moreover, these applications ensure that the consumer maintains product loyalty. The more the consumer invests in their phone the less likely that they'll switch companies, ensuring that they will continue to purchase compatible hardware in the future. Google and Apple also continually update their operating systems with new features and new services to match the ever shifting hardware updates. They also copy features from each other, which multiplies the expansion of services on each of the platforms.
Apple expands the philosophy of service integration with AirPlay and iCloud. With AirPlay, Apple has created a plug and play media network. All of their devices on a wireless network can access each other. The Apple TV can play media files from iTunes, iPhones, and iPads on the attached television. Said devices only have to be allowed access to the Home Sharing Network, so foreign devices can begranted access and play media files on the Apple TV. iPhones and iPads can also be used as remote controls for iTunes and Apple TVs, and can also stream content from iTunes. With iCloud, users are able to store data and stream media from Apple servers. Data can be pushed to all hardware registered to the same account at any time, and purchased content can be streamed to users anywhere in the world. Television shows can be streamed to Apple TVs that are registered with that account, even if not on the home network. That way, users can take their Apple TV with them on vacation and not have to wait to get home to watch shows they purchased with their season pass.
This philosophy isn't limited to just the mobile realm. Microsoft recognized how important services are for hardware with Xbox Live. According to Nielson, the total percentage of console usage is Xbox 360's 26.5% vs PS3's 20.5% (Wii's is 21.8%). Take into account that more than half of the PS3's use time is not on video games, and we can see how much a service like Xbox Live affects the Xbox 360's sales figures. [Note: Microsoft has said that Xbox Live gets used an average of 40 hours/month, which means that the PS3 gets used an average of 32 hours/month] The Playstation 3's big service added is in other media, such as blu-rays and free access to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Their service added is that it's a multi-media device that can also play games. Finally, the Wii's service added is ease of adoption. It doesn't offer much in actual added value. There isn't a uniform online service, nor does it play movies (although it does have Netflix). It has high adoption rates because it's a gaming system that people who don't play games can play, and it's fun. That's the service that it offers. All offer a different service that make them stand out and get different customer bases to buy into them. The Xbox 360's focus is on the games-centric crowd. The Playstation 3's focus is on the media-focused crowd [Note: While I have no statistics, I do know a lot of men who own the PS3 because they could sell it to their wives as a blu-ray player that also plays games, which I'm sure largely affects it's sales and usage figures]. The Wii's focus is on the casual adoption gaming crowd.
Even television sets are coming with services like access to Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, YouTube, etc. Everyone must now learn to adopt new and better services to not only come out on top, but just to survive in today's market.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
A Letter to the Gaming Industry
Dear Gaming Industry,
According to the Entertainment Software Association, the average age of a gamer is 37 (who have been playing for 12 years), with the average age of frequent buyers being 41. So, why are we still advertising to ages 14-22? Why are there no gaming news outlets or stores geared towards adult sensibilities? Why must we endure ridiculous commercials for games that are rated M for Mature?
It's as if the entire industry still thinks of games as mere toys. How do you expect games to become a legitimate entertainment if you don't take yourselves seriously? As much as I like Avatars, and the fun they can bring, why are all of the consoles only pitching their ideas to children, teenagers, and young adults? Granted, most adults don't have time or desire to spend their money on digital items that don't mean anything, but image if you created that market.
Granted, there are some games that are trying to break the mold by telling a story that doesn't have to appeal to young adults, but there are still plenty more that are geared towards the young. I'm not saying that the industry has to stop making games for teenagers, just start to realize that not everyone who play video games are teenagers. Even if it's the just the way it's advertised, any game can have an emotionally charged trailer that appeals to adults.
Still, as much as I'd like to say that the games are the answer, sadly, they're not the problem. I enjoy a lot of the games that seem to be geared towards younger audiences. Sometimes it's the uniqueness, the gameplay, the setting, or the fact that games that appeal to young adults more sell well, so they have more money put behind them. Adults seem to find value in a wider variety of entertainment than children do, so the industry doesn't feel the need to gear anything towards adults. No, I feel the problem with the perception is not the games themselves. It's in what outsiders see of them. Those perceptions come from video game stores, magazines, websites, and advertisements.
While there is no need to change the product that is produced currently, in order to bring gaming into an established and legitimate realm of entertainment, the industry as a whole must present itself in a mature light. It also wouldn't hurt to realize that gamers are much older than you realize, and that you don't need to be simple or stupid to bring in a new audience. Your current customer base is already trying to introduce your product to the masses. You just need to create a reason for them to want to play.
Sincerely,
An Adult Gamer
According to the Entertainment Software Association, the average age of a gamer is 37 (who have been playing for 12 years), with the average age of frequent buyers being 41. So, why are we still advertising to ages 14-22? Why are there no gaming news outlets or stores geared towards adult sensibilities? Why must we endure ridiculous commercials for games that are rated M for Mature?
It's as if the entire industry still thinks of games as mere toys. How do you expect games to become a legitimate entertainment if you don't take yourselves seriously? As much as I like Avatars, and the fun they can bring, why are all of the consoles only pitching their ideas to children, teenagers, and young adults? Granted, most adults don't have time or desire to spend their money on digital items that don't mean anything, but image if you created that market.
Granted, there are some games that are trying to break the mold by telling a story that doesn't have to appeal to young adults, but there are still plenty more that are geared towards the young. I'm not saying that the industry has to stop making games for teenagers, just start to realize that not everyone who play video games are teenagers. Even if it's the just the way it's advertised, any game can have an emotionally charged trailer that appeals to adults.
Still, as much as I'd like to say that the games are the answer, sadly, they're not the problem. I enjoy a lot of the games that seem to be geared towards younger audiences. Sometimes it's the uniqueness, the gameplay, the setting, or the fact that games that appeal to young adults more sell well, so they have more money put behind them. Adults seem to find value in a wider variety of entertainment than children do, so the industry doesn't feel the need to gear anything towards adults. No, I feel the problem with the perception is not the games themselves. It's in what outsiders see of them. Those perceptions come from video game stores, magazines, websites, and advertisements.
While there is no need to change the product that is produced currently, in order to bring gaming into an established and legitimate realm of entertainment, the industry as a whole must present itself in a mature light. It also wouldn't hurt to realize that gamers are much older than you realize, and that you don't need to be simple or stupid to bring in a new audience. Your current customer base is already trying to introduce your product to the masses. You just need to create a reason for them to want to play.
Sincerely,
An Adult Gamer
Thursday, August 18, 2011
My moral shift because of videogames
Study Shows Why We Like to Game
Players like to role-play, research finds.
The above article is what started me on this blog entry in the first place. It's a small article, with the one it's referencing likely to go into much more detail, but the article hits a key point. Videogames can give us the ability to play out our moral focus in a consequence free environment. This allows us to do as we please, see the repercussions, and change how we would act based on that end result. We can play through multiple times and see how various decisions affect each other, and change our behavior accordingly. This isn't just with games that have a morality system, but with almost any game. Playing a round of Call of Duty utilizing teamwork vs going it alone shows us how we work best. Playing Splinter Cell sneaking around vs all out assault show us the value of subtlety vs brashness, and shows us the best times to use each. World of Warcraft can show us if how we best help others, and in what ways we can best contribute to the group. All of these styles are reflective of who we actually are, which is why we do best when we play in a way that is self-reflective.
I don't exactly have the same moral compass that most have. I'm not sure why, but I don't. When I played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for the first time, I reveled in it because it gave me a chance to play the game as I would and see how my moral compass was currently working. Every time that I played as if it were me, I would end up in the middle on the morality scale. It also gave me an opportunity to see how things would turn out if I went all good or all bad. To this day, I play morality system games the first time around as I would (inFAMOUS games aside, since it hinders you if you don't choose to be all good or all bad), and also play good and bad, then one more time as I would knowing the potential outcomes.
Why does this matter? Simply put, I've noticed my moral compass shift because of how I play games. At one point, I admired Captain America because he did what he felt was right, regardless what others, including his government, thought. I still admire him for those traits, and more, but now I feel a connection with him, because I do what I feel is best, regardless of moral standing. Sometimes this puts me in negative moral standing, but in the end it's more than self serving. I do what I feel is best for me or the group as a whole. If I have the choice to save a city or an ally, I weigh his life against all. If I save him, will he be the missing cog in saving the world/universe, or even our squad? Are those millions of lives lost worth the one? I may choose to save my ally, knowing that it will be better in the long run, but I may get a negative reaction from the game. It's a choice I live with, as if it happened in real life, because it's one that I know that I would have made, had the situation been real.
In real life, I take the same principle and apply it. Do I fight for opportunities for a troop? Instead of lives, it's reputation, but it can have a massive impact, too. If I fight for the one troop, and they end up doing more harm than good, then my ability to get my superiors to help another is greatly hindered. I can't save everyone, either. Maybe, I have three troops that all want something. I may not be able to get them all what they want, but helping one means the other two can't, and vice versa. Sometimes helping the one has a greater impact than the two. I have to make the decision, which can potentially affect their careers in the long run, but I have to decide what's best.
Through video games, I've found myself being able to pick up on other traits that I had always admired, but couldn't quite integrate. As weird as it sounds, playing Legend of Zelda games has really helped me become a more courageous person. Playing as Link and helping the Zoras escape their frozen tomb, or aiding a young girl in her insect collection, has gotten me to do more of what I should do. I'm now much more likely to stand up to a bully for a friend than I ever would have. Even if I don't actually think it, there's always an air of, "What would Link do?" (WWLD) Even when thinking about characters not from video games, like Dick Grayson (Robin/Nightwing), James Buchanan Barnes (Captain America's Sidekick, Bucky), or Lucius Vorenus (from HBO's Rome), I've been able to integrate the traits that I admire from them because of the way that I play video games.
In the end, I've found myself doing more good than harm. If there was a light to dark bar right next to my head, would I be all good? No. I'd say that at best, I'd be half way from neutral to full good, but my motives are better. Considering my natural disposition, that's really good progress.
Players like to role-play, research finds.
The above article is what started me on this blog entry in the first place. It's a small article, with the one it's referencing likely to go into much more detail, but the article hits a key point. Videogames can give us the ability to play out our moral focus in a consequence free environment. This allows us to do as we please, see the repercussions, and change how we would act based on that end result. We can play through multiple times and see how various decisions affect each other, and change our behavior accordingly. This isn't just with games that have a morality system, but with almost any game. Playing a round of Call of Duty utilizing teamwork vs going it alone shows us how we work best. Playing Splinter Cell sneaking around vs all out assault show us the value of subtlety vs brashness, and shows us the best times to use each. World of Warcraft can show us if how we best help others, and in what ways we can best contribute to the group. All of these styles are reflective of who we actually are, which is why we do best when we play in a way that is self-reflective.
I don't exactly have the same moral compass that most have. I'm not sure why, but I don't. When I played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for the first time, I reveled in it because it gave me a chance to play the game as I would and see how my moral compass was currently working. Every time that I played as if it were me, I would end up in the middle on the morality scale. It also gave me an opportunity to see how things would turn out if I went all good or all bad. To this day, I play morality system games the first time around as I would (inFAMOUS games aside, since it hinders you if you don't choose to be all good or all bad), and also play good and bad, then one more time as I would knowing the potential outcomes.
Why does this matter? Simply put, I've noticed my moral compass shift because of how I play games. At one point, I admired Captain America because he did what he felt was right, regardless what others, including his government, thought. I still admire him for those traits, and more, but now I feel a connection with him, because I do what I feel is best, regardless of moral standing. Sometimes this puts me in negative moral standing, but in the end it's more than self serving. I do what I feel is best for me or the group as a whole. If I have the choice to save a city or an ally, I weigh his life against all. If I save him, will he be the missing cog in saving the world/universe, or even our squad? Are those millions of lives lost worth the one? I may choose to save my ally, knowing that it will be better in the long run, but I may get a negative reaction from the game. It's a choice I live with, as if it happened in real life, because it's one that I know that I would have made, had the situation been real.
In real life, I take the same principle and apply it. Do I fight for opportunities for a troop? Instead of lives, it's reputation, but it can have a massive impact, too. If I fight for the one troop, and they end up doing more harm than good, then my ability to get my superiors to help another is greatly hindered. I can't save everyone, either. Maybe, I have three troops that all want something. I may not be able to get them all what they want, but helping one means the other two can't, and vice versa. Sometimes helping the one has a greater impact than the two. I have to make the decision, which can potentially affect their careers in the long run, but I have to decide what's best.
Through video games, I've found myself being able to pick up on other traits that I had always admired, but couldn't quite integrate. As weird as it sounds, playing Legend of Zelda games has really helped me become a more courageous person. Playing as Link and helping the Zoras escape their frozen tomb, or aiding a young girl in her insect collection, has gotten me to do more of what I should do. I'm now much more likely to stand up to a bully for a friend than I ever would have. Even if I don't actually think it, there's always an air of, "What would Link do?" (WWLD) Even when thinking about characters not from video games, like Dick Grayson (Robin/Nightwing), James Buchanan Barnes (Captain America's Sidekick, Bucky), or Lucius Vorenus (from HBO's Rome), I've been able to integrate the traits that I admire from them because of the way that I play video games.
In the end, I've found myself doing more good than harm. If there was a light to dark bar right next to my head, would I be all good? No. I'd say that at best, I'd be half way from neutral to full good, but my motives are better. Considering my natural disposition, that's really good progress.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Comics and Books: Mutually Beneficial
When I say Comics and Books, I'm not distinguishing between comic strips and books, or the difference between comic books and graphic novels I'm saying that comic books and literary works have the potential to help each other out. Quite simply put, each has something that the other needs. Comics are easy to digest, and have the potential to capture broader audiences. Books have legitimacy, and have literally thousands of years of some of the best stories ever conceived.
Comics, unwittingly, were the architect of their own demise. Between the hokey comics of the Golden and Silver Ages of Comics, and the over-the-top muscles, boobs, edginess, and bad plot lines of the 90s, Comics are not seen as a legitimate. This is a perception issue, as Comics have also brought up some serious social issues. Green Arrow's sidekicks have both had their issues. The first Speedy had a heroin addiction, and the second Speedy contracted HIV when she was a child prostitue (before she became Speedy, of course). Tony Stark was an alcoholic, and had to address that in, "Demon in a Bottle." The Watchmen was allegorical of the dangers of when people in power go unchecked, obviously with the powers being literal, but that is how Comics best illustrate man's weaknesses. Even less obvious are things like the tumultuous relationships fathers have with their sons represented quite aptly through Bruce Wayne and his three sons, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, each with their own own play on that father/son relationship. But perceptions are that, and perceptions are sadly stronger than reality.
People today want their literary works in easier ways to digest them. They want the to have what they are doing pop out at them. While there are some incredible works of fiction out there, they sadly don't have the attention of as many people as they should. Adding the artwork of a skilled hand can add volumes to the pages, and can make things much easier to consume. Think of what Dante's Divine Comedy, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, or Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility could become when combined with art. It doesn't have to be that elaborate. Right now, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is being converted into Comics, as had Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. It could also help bring other books into the lime light, such as Christopher Rowley's Bazil Broketail. New life could also be brought to works that are not fiction, like Plato's The Republic, or historical works like Joseph J Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington. That has the potential to bring to life works that would otherwise go unnoticed.
The next question is how it would best be distributed. A monthly book is more expensive in the long run, but is easier to digest at a time. Graphic Novels seem fitting, but most books easily surpass 300 pages of solid text. A Graphic Novel would be at least triple that, if not 5 times that size. Graphic Novels that are 1500-3000 pages long seems quite a bit excessive. That would also cost a significant amount of money to produce and distribute. It might be viable with eBooks, which would reduce a lot of the costs, but the point is to increase circulation and legitimacy, not push it to a currently niche market. Perhaps a compromise is in order. A twice monthly book with chapter releases every so many months, and a full chronicle at the final is probably what is best. That way, the smaller bites can be released at a faster rate for cheaper at a time, and popularity of the bi-monthly can determine the speed and quantity of the chapter books are produced, with the full book released as a special edition for only the most die-hard fans. It would be best to start out with a few popular books to gain attention to the concept, and to gauge where the market lies.
Comics, unwittingly, were the architect of their own demise. Between the hokey comics of the Golden and Silver Ages of Comics, and the over-the-top muscles, boobs, edginess, and bad plot lines of the 90s, Comics are not seen as a legitimate. This is a perception issue, as Comics have also brought up some serious social issues. Green Arrow's sidekicks have both had their issues. The first Speedy had a heroin addiction, and the second Speedy contracted HIV when she was a child prostitue (before she became Speedy, of course). Tony Stark was an alcoholic, and had to address that in, "Demon in a Bottle." The Watchmen was allegorical of the dangers of when people in power go unchecked, obviously with the powers being literal, but that is how Comics best illustrate man's weaknesses. Even less obvious are things like the tumultuous relationships fathers have with their sons represented quite aptly through Bruce Wayne and his three sons, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, each with their own own play on that father/son relationship. But perceptions are that, and perceptions are sadly stronger than reality.
People today want their literary works in easier ways to digest them. They want the to have what they are doing pop out at them. While there are some incredible works of fiction out there, they sadly don't have the attention of as many people as they should. Adding the artwork of a skilled hand can add volumes to the pages, and can make things much easier to consume. Think of what Dante's Divine Comedy, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, or Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility could become when combined with art. It doesn't have to be that elaborate. Right now, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is being converted into Comics, as had Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. It could also help bring other books into the lime light, such as Christopher Rowley's Bazil Broketail. New life could also be brought to works that are not fiction, like Plato's The Republic, or historical works like Joseph J Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington. That has the potential to bring to life works that would otherwise go unnoticed.
The next question is how it would best be distributed. A monthly book is more expensive in the long run, but is easier to digest at a time. Graphic Novels seem fitting, but most books easily surpass 300 pages of solid text. A Graphic Novel would be at least triple that, if not 5 times that size. Graphic Novels that are 1500-3000 pages long seems quite a bit excessive. That would also cost a significant amount of money to produce and distribute. It might be viable with eBooks, which would reduce a lot of the costs, but the point is to increase circulation and legitimacy, not push it to a currently niche market. Perhaps a compromise is in order. A twice monthly book with chapter releases every so many months, and a full chronicle at the final is probably what is best. That way, the smaller bites can be released at a faster rate for cheaper at a time, and popularity of the bi-monthly can determine the speed and quantity of the chapter books are produced, with the full book released as a special edition for only the most die-hard fans. It would be best to start out with a few popular books to gain attention to the concept, and to gauge where the market lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)