thedogbarks

It has been a difficult year for Sony. In fact it has been a difficult two years for Sony. In the last generation they were the industry leaders, and now they are in an increasingly distant third position. They continue to sell solid numbers of both game and hardware, but the other two console manufacturers are pulling away each month. This is not indicative of the quality of the PS3. Despite the nit-pickings of many bloggers it is indisputable that the PS3 has the most graphical potential of the three, and the inclusion of the Blu-Ray player also positions it as the most technologically advanced console there is. But it is in trouble, and at this point it is certain that the previous dominance it held last generation will be unattainable this generation.

Beyond the PR slip ups, the arrogance and the disregard for developers which caused its initial problems, the stumbling block for Sony is now price. With its more humble attitude and frank assessments of its position in the console war, Sony is trying much harder to court prospective developers and customers, but as the most expensive of the three it is proving to be a pretty daunting task. It is a well know fact that $200 is historically the magic price at which the most consoles are sold. The Wii is $250, you can buy an Xbox 360 for $200 and you can buy a PS3 for $400. The Wii has a unique interface, and the Xbox 360 games look pretty much the same as the PS3 ones so the average consumer will see little reason to throw away an extra $200. You can argue all day (and many will) about whether the Xbox 360 or the PS3 has the better games, but that is no longer relevant. It’s about Blu-Ray.

It is well known amongst those in the industry that the PS3 is one of the best (and one of the cheaper) Blu-Ray players available. But the general public doesn’t know that. And whether they care is also a different matter. But as recent figures have shown, and with the launch of the Dark Knight on Blu-Ray, it is rapidly gaining in popularity. What we don’t know is whether people buying are PS3 are doing so because it is a Blu-Ray player. Regardless, that is what Sony needs to focus on at this point. In the same way that DVD made the Playstation 2 the most popular machine last generation, Blu-Ray is Sony’s only real hope to gaining leverage in the market whilst being significantly more expensive than its rivals. And in the global economic recession that we are currently facing, price matters.

Sony has been slow to respond to the threat of Nintendo and Microsoft. What they need to do is to drop the price, which would be incredibly expensive for them. Failing that they need to pack in Blu-Rays with the PS3 to show the consumer what it is capable of. When it launched there were a lot of bundles that included either Spiderman 3 or Talladega Nights. Then they stopped doing it. If they had made a Christmas bundle that included the Dark Knight on Blu-Ray then the kind of sales figures they could have achieved would be significantly higher. At this point it is no longer arrogance that is holding them back, it is a lack of foresight.

Microsoft has had an excellent year in many ways, and yet they are in a strange and uncomfortable situation. Released before the Wii and Playstation 3, they had a long time to build a healthy lead. But the Wii has cruised passed them in worldwide sales, a fact that will no doubt be cause for concern at Microsoft. Both Microsoft and Sony have dealt with the Wii in the same way; by ignoring it. Neither can hope to attain similar sales to the Wii so instead they are content to fight each other in order to carve out a secure second place. And Microsoft has achieved it. They have opened up a lead over Sony which continues to grow due to its very competitive price point. And unless something changes dramatically that trend is likely to continue.

Microsoft seemingly has had a very clear strategy and has adhered to it with admirable resolve. By launching earlier and producing excellent hardcore games as well as an organized and robust online infrastructure to support them, they established themselves as the console of choice for those seeking top level competition. By buying exclusives and supporting developers, and well as being easier to develop games for than the PS3, they also made themselves popular amongst creators. And once you have a large user base the games will come. By getting exclusive Square-Enix RPGs and ensuring that Final Fantasy XIII and Tekken are going multiplatform they have taken away from Sony what many consumers will identify (incorrectly) as Sony brands. They have taken away a lot of reasons that people buy a Sony console. Recently they have begun to focus on more casual games with which they hope to eat into the Wii market (perhaps too little too late) and at $200 they have the most appealing price point.

Unfortunately I wish it was that simple. All the incredible inroads they have made into the video game industry in such a short space of time have come with their flagrant disregard for the consumers. Yes I’m sorry to bring it up again, but I’m talking about the Red Rings of Death. Xbox 360s break far more than a console should and it is shameful that this problem still exists. I’m aware that they extended warranties but that is simply not enough. They shouldn’t be able to sell you faulty hardware. With the recent introduction of the Jasper chip hopefully that problem should be a thing of the past. But it is breathtakingly disrespectful to the consumer that it has taken so long and that Microsoft has tried to deny or belittle this problem. But as people have become more invested in their 360’s more and more apologists have emerged who also try to play the malfunction off as a minor inconvenience. Whatever the product, no one should have to endure this kind of failure rate.

And there is sadly another example of misleading consumers. The Arcade unit could be some as a fantastic deal and an opportunity for people to get into games at a very low price. For those who know exactly what they are getting and use it accordingly they are indeed getting a great deal. For those less well informed they are being misled. What you won’t see on the Arcade unit box is that it cannot play every game for the 360. Yes the number of games is minuscule, but even so it is somewhat deceptive. The promise of having netflix is also unusable without a hard drive which the Arcade unit does not have. Both Sony and Microsoft have been responsible for causing consumer confusion with multiple SKUs of their console. Nintendo only has one. In the last generation they were disrespectful to their consumers by quickly and callously cutting off support for the Xbox after the launch of the 360. It is sad that we as consumers are so quick to forgive.

So what about the future for the Xbox? Well even more so than Sony and Nintendo they will have their eye on the next generation as their console is significantly older. They have a massive opportunity to shape the games industry by coming out first and with the amazing way in which Xbox Live has developed it will be a treat to see how that service evolves. What they have achieved within the space of two consoles is incredible and it is clear they will be a dominant force in the industry in the future. But do they take on the elephant in the room? Will they go after Nintendo and try to appeal to the mass market, adopting the ‘Blue Ocean’ strategy? Or will they try to crush Sony in the competition for the best system for hardcore gamers. It is very difficult to do both. I suspect the latter will be more likely, the next machine being a very powerful machine with a traditional control method, but that will prove to be an even more integral entertainment hub than before. If they feel that they can knock Sony out of the game, then there will only be one other competitor. Whilst I am very excited to see what Microsoft can bring to consumers, I do so with a sense of foreboding. I can only hope that they will have more respect for the consumer than they have done this generation.

Two years after its launch the Wii has continued to surpass everyone’s expectations. Before its release many in the industry predicted that the Wii would fail due to its dated technology and strong competition from the already established Xbox 360 and PS3. And whilst at $250 it was the cheapest of the three consoles, it still seemed unlikely that it could compete with the superior capabilities of the other two consoles without becoming even cheaper and appealing to the ‘impulse purchase’ market.

Well here we are two years later. By September 2008 the PS3 had sold 16.84 million consoles, the Xbox 360 has sold 25 million up to November 2008 and the Wii had sold a staggering 34.55 million by September 2008. In November in North America alone it sold more than 2 million consoles. And it is still in short supply. Nintendo can’t keep up with demand. People still want a machine that is essentially, on last generation technology. Why?

Well as difficult as it may be for those in the industry to fathom, Wii could be on its way to establishing itself as a separate form of entertainment. Try to think of a brand which has truly universal appeal; including all age ranges and cultures. It is pretty difficult to come up with more than a handful. But Wii has that universal appeal. Once they have established sufficient motor skills, very young children can play and it also taps into the massive elderly market that no other console has a chance of attracting. It’s called the ‘Blue Ocean’ strategy in which you try to appeal to everyone. So is it really possible for the Wii to attain a similar status to television? As crazy as it sounds it does have a chance. Whilst many bemoan the lack of quality software, many will simply use Wii Sports as their bowling/ golf/ boxing/ baseball/ tennis simulator, or Wii Fit as an alternative to costly gym membership. Separate from the Playstation, separate from the Xbox 360, the Wii has emerged as a new genre, ‘game entertainment’. Realistically speaking, it wouldn’t be surprising if Nintendo never made another hardcore game again. Whilst it is sad for a gamer like myself to see a dearth in quality titles from a company that I have always liked, it isn’t for people like me anymore. The hardcore gamer has been left behind in favor of the soccer mom. Whilst I appreciate the fact that I can buy old Nintendo classics on the Virtual Console, Nintendo has an incredible library of games that still mysteriously remain absent. And having them charge so much for their most dedicated fans to repurchase games that we have purchased so, so many times already (I have three versions of Mario 64 now and the last three Animal Crossings I purchased seem remarkably similar) shows little sentiment for loyalty. Nintendo has left behind its base. It has gone into the ‘Blue Ocean’.

So it does have a chance but there are a number of interesting choices that Nintendo will have to make from now on. Whilst it has surpassed the idea that it is merely a fad, that isn’t to say that its popularity won’t decline. People could get tired of the Wii and it certainly doesn’t have the experience and depth of the television industry to support it. As of now it is impossible to imagine how consumers will react. And what do Nintendo do when it comes to making the next iteration of their console? Will it be called the Wii 2? Or will they go with Wii HD, to align it more closely with the transition that the television industry is making. Will people want a Wii HD or will they be content will playing Wii Sports forever? Nintendo are undoubtedly considering these factors (they must be doing something because they certainly aren’t using their resources to make decent games) so it will be fascinating to see how the lifecycle of the system plays out and how they adjust to the next generation. Specifically will they change the Wiimote, the method of interaction? If they change it then essentially they will be playing into people’s desire for new technology. The conservative, but conceptionally bolder move would be to stick with the Wiimote, as if to say to the consumer that like the television, the Wii is an entertainment device, rather than a video game console.

Video games have always interpreted death in a very liberal sense. It is not so much an ending as it is in impediment or an inconvenience. In a similar sense ‘lives’ are also defined in a number of ways depending on the creator’s vision. At its essence these terms are a form of making the experience easier or more difficult. A lot of the early video games such as Pac Man and Mario owe their system of a relatively small number of lives to the arcade philosophy. If you die you can try again. But whilst on consoles this means the only thing you have lost is your time, in arcades paying more would allow you to continue from where you left off. It was how they encouraged you to spend more. Since then the concept of lives has changed considerably although some games still adhere to the old system.

With this in mind it is interesting to consider the criticism of games such as Ubisoft’s reinvention of the Prince of Persia franchise. Much of this criticism is centered on the idea that it is too easy. Whilst this is indeed a valid criticism from the perspective of reviewers, it is specifically the criticism that you cannot ‘die’ that seems somewhat naïve. In the game, if you are about to die your companion will always save you, whether that means she pulls you up to prevent falling into an abyss, or intervening when and enemy is about to finish you off. In both scenarios the player is punished by taking them back in the level, or regenerating the enemy’s health. Either way you lose something.



So why has this become an issue? Of course video games used to be more difficult than they are now, and you can’t die in a traditional sense but why is that necessarily a bad thing? One of the aspects of Prince of Persia that ahs been praised is its seamless nature. The character traverses the environment in a fluid smooth motion and the way in which he physically interacts with the companion character is very natural to the point where she in no way impedes your progress, an impressive feat in modern games. The punishment system is merely an extension of that.

As games have moved towards more mature and involving narratives, the concept of death has proved to be more and trickier as a plot device. If the basic plot revolves around your character surviving to the end then how can your failure as a player be explained? Many games simply ignore this. Your character dies, you ‘come back to life’ and you get another chance. It is an uncomfortable marriage of convenience between the internal logic of the plot and ‘video game’ logic. It is something that the player endures, or turns a blind eye to in order to be drawn into the game.

Even games which have tried to address the issue have solutions which stretch the suspension of disbelief. Take 2K’s Bioshock for example. Whilst the narrative was very impressive, it’s approach to ‘lives’ was very flawed in terms of the plot. When you activated Vita Chambers, you would instantly return to them once you died, with full health restored. The explanation of this was that your DNA was taken, cloned and therefore you were resurrected after your death. Of course this leads to so many plot holes that I will not even begin to discuss here.

Life and death in videogames has always and will always be the elephant in the room as a narrative device. I’m not advocating that all games attempt to find a way to express them as internal logic. But certainly Prince of Persia should be praised for its unique way to attempt to deal with the paradox of a main character’s death, rather than derided for it.

Censorship is a thorny subject for everyone, and sadly that issue has surfaced once more in Playstation Home. Whilst there are a lot of censorship issues in video games, censorship of the people who use them is an even trickier prospect than the contents of the games themselves. This is not exclusive to games, but rather to any internet interaction. But whilst the internet chat rooms can be controlled with delicate moderation, much of it is still a lawless environment where expletives, racial slurs, sexual harassment and homophobia run riot. The problem for people who provide the services for online interaction is that they must show some degree of responsibility in policing them in order to make their services usable by children, or anyone not wishing to be subjected to this kind of language.

Nintendo has dealt with this through a rather heavy handed but effective way. Unless you know the person with whom you wish to communicate, well, you can’t. Their solution is ‘Friend codes’, 16 digit codes that need to be inputted in order to communicate with the console that the number is assigned to. Unless you have your friend’s codes, you can’t contact them. In addition to that some games require additional codes in order to play specific games. Whilst many feel this to be unnecessarily draconian, nonetheless it does ensure that users are better protected. If you are going to be abused you can be sure that it will be by someone you know.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 have pretty similar systems in place which mean that when you are playing an online game you can chat with the other users. If that person is someone you no longer want to hear screaming at you, you can choose to mute them or block any interaction with them, or to report them. This system is of course very flawed but it gives some form of control to the individual users and essentially relies on gamers being discerning about what they personally choose to censor.

And then we come to Playstation Home. This is essentially a three-dimensional chat rooms with all the benefits and problems that that entails. Recently it was patched and an interesting change that was made is that the use of voice chat has been disabled. So whilst Home is about communication, for now Home has gone silent. As someone who only uses text, I am certainly relived that I will no longer be subjected to hearing the chatter of a mass of preteens as I wander around, but this is clearly a short term solution. Home was meant to be about the future and the omission of voice chat is clearly a step in the wrong direction for something which aspires to be the future of online interaction. How they deal with it will be very interesting to observe. What can you do about people giving their opinions? Should you censor what people say? Well, as contrary as it is to my usual stance on censorship I do feel that there should be some protection for children. Whether Sony has the technical ability, resources and delicacy to handle this issue may be the difference between whether Home succeeds, or becomes a rallying crying for politicians to have more stringent control over games.

As a closing thought let me relate what some video games journalists were discussing. When he tried to a message to his friend in Home he wanted to say ‘You can also text.’ It appeared on screen as ‘You c** **so text.’ See which letters were asterixed to work out what Home was censoring. Oh and he also tried to type ‘Merry ******mas’.