The Future of Games --- And Why We Keep Coming Back For More

I checked out the video that Mr. Bolos wanted to show in class today, Jesse Schell's talk at DICE 2010 on the future of games. He went in depth into the ideas that Bolos previewed to us. He gave many examples of this world that he thought would soon come to be, such as games on the back of your cornflakes, advertisments being beamed into your dreams, pedometers in shoes, a computer to keep track of how many Dr Peppers you drink in one week. I think this is quite an interesting point that Mr. Schell makes, in that many things are being turned into games and you can find games almost anywhere nowadays. Our world may very well be headed in this direction, and I wouldn't necesarily be surprised to see some of these things emerge in the near future.

Now, I'd like to switch gears for a minute. Bolos talked about how certain video games draw people in unique ways, such as Call of Duty: World at War's Nazi Zombie mode, where you essentially board yourselves up in a house, and unload on a literally endless tide of nazi zombies. However, there are a few distinct ways to get a game to sell and draw people in. One is innovation, trying to do something no one has ever done before, think Guitar Hero, Grand Theft Auto, Assasin's Creed, and Rock Band. Another is reputation, basically resting on your laurels, think Halo, Call of Duty, and Mario. Because face it, Bungie could put Halo on a shoebox and it would probably sell like, half a million copies before anyone figured out what was up. Yet another is pretty much copying an idea, and trying to do it better, or at the very least releasing that copy in between sequels of the copied. Think Dante's Inferno and Saint's Row, which are both pretty succesful yet are complete rip offs of God of War and Grand Theft Auto. So I guess my point is, it is pretty easy to figure out the sales tactics and selling points of a game and make an informed decision on whether or not it is worth your hard earned $50 or $60 bucks.

 I also found Sam Gotlieb's Cracked.com article. The article talks about why we are addicted to video games, and one point that stuck out to me went back to today's class about "experience points". It talked about how games dangle prizes in front of you, and make you "pull the lever" in terms of acquiring that prize. Whether it is a shiny new sword, a new cow in Farmville, or looking forward to picking up that weapon you've always wanted in Call of Duty... you will have to play more to get that prize. And to get that prize, in most cases, you will have to pay. Another particularly striking point. This is that companies are moving away from the once simple "here's 50 dollars" "ok heres your game. have fun", but with the onset of online play the game has changed. From games that charge 15 bucks a month, like World of Warcraft, to services like Xbox Live which  also charge you 15 bucks a month- the extra fees for the "complete experience" are everywhere. However, on Xbox Live you pay that 15 bucks you can play any game, from Need for Speed, to Halo, to Lego Indiana Jones online. And this is why Xbox Live is so expensive, Microsoft doesn't care if all of their millions of subscribers are playing just one game, they still get 15 bucks a player in subscription fees. So if you're like me, and only play Modern Warfare 2 online, with the occasional other game, Microsoft is milking us for all we're worth. However, there is another way to make money off of online services, and that is companie selling thier games in pieces, as downloadable content. For example, Bethesda Softwork's Fallout 3 sold very well. However, at first glance it would seem that the company didn't finish the game. This is because they released a total of 5 downloadable pieces, all priced at $10 a pop. Thats a total of $50 for those who downloaded all 5, and if most players downloaded at least 1, maybe more, maybe all 5... that's just a ton of money. So after reading all of that, which I doubt you did, you might think that video game developers and companies are evil... which they're not... mostly. They're just trying to get from paycheck to paycheck, and a genuine few are out to make a quality game that will make their dedicated fans very very happy. Every once in awhile a game will come along that is superb beyond belief... like Modern Warfare 2, and you will want to thank the brilliant minds that engineered that masterpiece.

P.S: So, if you have read this far, I would very much appreciate it if you commented either on the first part... where do you think our world is headed in terms of video games?/ Is Jesse Schell right, or is he criminally insane? Or the second part, what do you think about the experience points concept, subscription services/ downloadable content, video game addiction, or about modern games in general?
P.S.S: (Yes, I'm aware that I kind of sounded like a nerd that whole post... but whatevs)

Tactical Nuke Incoming? Junior Theme 10'

Well, after quite a lot of deliberation, and a bit of luck I've finally decided on a Junior Theme topic. It is on war funding, and the very high price of modern warfare. My question will be something like this: Why is military spending so high today, or why do 50% of our tax dollars go to military? To do this, I will look at where our tax dollars go exactly, and how much money the average American, and Cook County resident has lost due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. I will look at how much war has cost in the past, and compare it to the prices of vehicles and weapons today. I also plan to look to the future and talk about the experimental technology of today, specifically Predator Drones and the future of U.S nuclear armament capabilities. I will use many sources, from online articles, to war databases, to novels, to New Yorker podcasts, to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech.

The Automaker's Folly

The last time we were in the classroom, we were talking about branding, and Sam brought up an interesting point. This was how certain car companies, create other brands, if they want to take the company in another direction. For example, Toyota released its youth oriented Scion division in 2002. And Nissan came out with its Luxury Infiniti brand about 20 years ago, and finally Honda owns the 'on the rise' Acura brand. Anyway, these automakers had a good enough reason to create a whole new company, but sometimes a car company just wants to release a single car without going through the trouble of coming up with a whole new deal. For example, Sam brought up the Hyundai Genesis in class, which has its own website, and a distinct lack of Hyundai badges. Hyundai wanted to release a luxury car, but didn't have enough reason, or money, or motive to create a new company. If you look at the sedan version, from the front it looks quite like a Mercedes C Class, but is much less expensive. A second example, is Nissan Motor Company. They released their 911 GT3 beater- the GT-R (pictured at top) in 2007. It is an incredibly fast and powerful car, which is unlike the Nissan we all know, makers of the mid range Maxima, Sentra, and Altima. And if you look closely at it, you will be hard pressed to find a Nissan badge on it. There is a small one on the back, but on the wheel and front you will find the sleek red GTR insignia. Yet another example is the Chrysler 300, which looks strikingly like a Bentley Mulsanne. (See if you can tell the difference!) From Mercedes' AMG division, to the Chevrolet Corvette, to the Audi R8, the examples of this trend in car companies are bountiful. What do you think about branding in cars or in general?

Marketing and Advertising Video Games: Is it worth the time?

I stumbled upon a very interesting video today, called The Marketing Machine it was on how and why
publishers put money into advertising certain games, and how they go about doing it. They talked about one game in particular quite extensively. It was the title Dante's Inferno, an action spinoff of Dante Alighieri's poem, The Divine Comedy. Anyway, long story short it was apparently a mediocre game but the producers decided to put out a comercial for it during the Super Bowl. The four industry specialists in the video discussed why this was either a good or bad idea. Allegedly, some think it was a good idea because it obviously reached alot of people, and sold half a million copies in February, making it one of the best sellers of the month. On the flip side, it may have not been a great decision because, how many people who are interested in a game like Dante's Inferno are going to be watching the Super Bowl. You're not really reaching you're target audience, but it may reach so many people that it won't matter. I thought this was an interesting discussion, and it really shows how advertising extends and is important to all types of products. I doubt any of you have any opinions of thoughts on this, but if you do I'd love to hear you share.

Free

The topic that I think I'm going to write my Junior Theme on is why things are free these days. I will be reading a book entitled Free, by Chris Anderson. I've only just started but it is already quite interesting to me. In it he talks about how the most effective price is often no price at all. From services like Flickr, and Animoto who give the basic package away for free but charge for the premium version, to companies that offer free services and installations like Comcast then charge monthly. The examples go on and on, from free trials for videogames to free samples for food, the concept of no price is boundless. Many people say "there is no such thing as a free lunch", but Anderson argues that it is in fact a very important marketing tactic. He also talks about how the concept of free stretches far back into history. It is an interesting topic that I'm looking forward to writing about it. What do you think about the concept and marketing strategy of 'free'?

Ads- Audi is Rewriting the Rule Book

All the talk of commercials and advertisements in class today reminded me of a commercial I saw last week, while watching TV. It is a new Audi commercial, and it caught my attention. Audi claims they are "breaking the spell", and beating their main rivals (Lexus, Mercedes- Benz, and BMW) at their own stereotypes. They claim they are growing faster than any of their competitors, as well. The commercial depicts a kid looking at a ferrari poster, saying "I've been told to desire a red Italian sports car", a suburban mom standing next to a Lexus RX, two businessmen getting into their Mercedes Benzes, an old man and his wife at a golf course standing next to their Lexus GS, and a short guy and his wife standing in front  of their enormous house with a red convertible BMW. However, it ends with an Audi R8, (their esteemed supercar which they are quite proud of) roaring its massive V8 engine as it pulls up outside the boy from the first scene's house. I actually think this is quite an effective ad, in that it tries to separate itself from its competitors, which are truthfully associated with stereotypes. But I don't necesarily agree with the whole 'lets attack our competitors' stance that Audi is taking. What do you think about thsi commercial, and the direction that Audi is seemingly headed in?

Sly Fox - Nas

A couple weeks ago, when Doc Oc and I were discussing rap music, (as we often do), he mentioned a song to me, called Sly Fox by Nas. I looked it up a few days later, and was surprised by what I heard. I thought it would be your run of the mill rap song, but it was far from that. Nas makes a statement in his song that is essentially completely against Fox news, about how the network has a "secret agenda", and is "always watching". Fox is often referred to as highly liberal and Republican, and some think they often work to help the Republican party in their campaigns and such. Regardless of what you think of Nas, or of Fox news, he is making a very bold statement, and putting himself out there in a way. He is sayingwhat he believes, and is trying to expose Fox news to an audience that might not be completely familiar with their political bias. One verse in particular strikes me as very true:

"They say I'm all about murder-murder and kill-kill

But what about Grindhouse and Kill Bill?

What about Cheney and Halliburton? (Halliburton?)

The backdoor deals

On oil fields

How's NaS the most violent person?"

I like the point he makes is that many people often blame rappers for promoting violence in the youth of America, but Nas says that despite what anyone says, violent in the more mainstream media is worse. Fox produces motion pictures such as Grindhouse and Kill Bill, and that is in some ways, worse damage than anything a rapper could do.