Phil Peters
It completely baffles me that the games industry can still manage to exist under the weight of its own incompetence. Between game budgets ballooning to astronomical levels, consumer un-friendly practises like day-one DLC and always-online DRM it is a bloody miracle that we are still able to play games at all.
Over the weekend Square Enix ‘dismissed’ their president Yoichi Wada and announced a ‘major restructuring’ of its business, citing the reason for this to be “weak sales of big console titles”. Now I hear you say fair enough Phil, that’s business.
NO.
This is the games business, so you can rest assured that even if it sounds reasonable it is still immensely fucked up.
Square Enix had the nerve to suggest that the sales of Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution, and Tomb Raider were in part the reason for this shake-up because they sold far fewer copies than the forward projections Square Enix had set. Now I’m all for ‘optimism’ on the part of business, but if selling 3.5 million copies of Tomb Raider is a disappointing result, then it isn’t the game’s fault, it’s your business sense.
Sleeping Dogs sold ~1.75 million copies, which for a new IP coming out towards the end of a console cycle should be a great result, especially considering it was nearly cancelled altogether a bunch of different times. Similarly, Hitman: Absolution sold an extremely modest 3.6 million units, which is approximately three times as much as the previous instalment in the franchise had sold (as far as I can tell from a little bit of Googling). And last but not least, Tomb Raider sold 3.5 million copies IN ITS FIRST MONTH. And it is important to point out that none of these sales factor in digital sales either, all three of these games enjoying a very positive reception on PC, so take that into account as well. What is really absurd is that between the three of them the average review score was 83% on Metacritic, so they are not only selling well, they are very well made games, so long term sales are likely to be a factor.
This general practise of blaming the gaming public for “not buying the game enough” is pretty disgusting if you ask me. If you think that your game is good then yes, of course it will sell well, especially if it is a part of a beloved franchise like Tomb Raider or Hitman. But be realistic about your sales projections and adjust budget accordingly. If you come out and say, like EA did, that Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million copies to get another sequel, you are not building hype, you are holding the franchise hostage. If you are going to double down on a game budget-wise then prepared for your risk to NOT pay off. There is a reason that people don’t bet their entire life savings on one game of football. Be reasonable and be sensible, and stop blaming everyone but yourselves for your failure to make money. That is my message to you Square Enix.
And don’t even get me started on EA.
This is done in a number of ways. The first and most common is to release post-launch downloadable content, creating an environment where consumers are encouraged to keep a game with the promise of more good content. This has been the most successful measure as it rarely ever screws over the end user, you and me. The idea of DLC is not a new construction, in more ancient times, before the internet, expansion packs where sold as separate smaller and cheaper retail products to add to the value of your original purchase. And really, in the end this whole argument comes down to a value proposition. Is the value of the game being traded in towards the next purchase worth missing out on future products. If the answer to that is yes, then we move on to other forms of “incentives”.
This last week again, suffers from the Summer season curse. American summer that is. Not a lot to speak of in terms of new releases but a lot of talk about upcoming releases.
The best received game of the last week was Sleeping Dogs from publisher Square Enix. Now Sleeping Dogs has had, what they call in the business, a “troubled development”. It was originally slated to be a sequel in the True Crime series set in Hong Kong, but for some reason a couple of years ago, Activision lost faith in the game and sold off the rights to Square Enix, and thus Sleeping Dogs was born. The reviews are generally very positive, and might actually be something I look a picking up. The environmental interaction based melee combat has been highlighted in particular, and after checking up on some of the gameplay footage I’ve gotta say my interest has been piqued. Who knows, perhaps Sleeping Dogs may end up as a real sleeper hit (get it? Sleep! Man I’m funny).
I guess it was a good week for games that had trouble coming out, as Darksiders II has finally been plopped out from the bowels of THQ after a number of setbacks and delays. The reviews across the board seem to be “good for fans of the series, and pretty good for anyone sick of what they’re currently playing”, or something to that effect. It’s pretty well known at this point that THQ are experiencing cash flow difficulties, so hopefully Darksiders can sell a few copies because THQ actually look like they give a shit about the games they produce. Unlike some other publishers.
BUT PHIL, WHY NOT GOLDENEYE! WHY NOT MARIO KART 64! AND WHAT ABOUT PERFECT DARK?!?! Quiet dissenting fools, Pokémon Stadium is the best multiplayer game on N64. For this event, completely ignore the battling (who ever actually played that anyway), for the mini games are what made Pokémon Stadium great. Whether it’s Lickitung’s sushi train or the oft enraging Metapod harden, nothing brings out the competitive spirit like the original. In this event, a mini game is chosen at random and the loser is immediately knocked out, because Pokémon Stadium is serious shit.
Easily the most fun racing game on PS1, CTR tried to emulate the success of Mario Kart for N64 and for the most part, succeeded wonderfully. 12 year old me loved going over to my friend with the PS1’s house to sit and play CTR for hours on end. Best multiplayer game on PS1 in my opinion and an easy selection for addition to the next Olympics.
The main man responsible for the blocking of legislation before now involving R18 was the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. As if South Australia didn’t already have a bad enough rep. Mr Atkinson had 5 primary counter-arguments regarding a move to R18 that on their own sound perfectly reasonable, but like all politicians, and ironically children, his reasons were in no way comprehensive and lacked substance when examined at all. So, allow me to outline and systematically debunk them in the typical Bucket fashion; using fact, research and razor sharp wit.
