That is not how you send Corporate America "a message"
The X-Box 360 launch has been an excellent example of how large corporations can make us take it in the shorts, and yet we will line up for it and say thank you afterwards. Despite knowledge in advance there would be a shortage of supply, stores giving priority to pre-orders that had the most peripherals sold along with it, and just general corporate greed and avarice, there is still nary an X-Box 360 to be found on store shelves as they have all been sold.
Yes, I am sure Microsoft hears your cries of rage, and they are laughing back as they count your money.
I still plan on getting an X-Box 360 just as soon as I have time for that kind of gaming again. Being on the road is not very conducive to console gaming, unless I want to leave it at the hotel. Something I'm not quite sure I trust the maid service to leave alone considering its rarity. As such, the idea of even getting one at launch wasn't much of a priority. Still, had I pre-ordered one I probably would have just asked for a refund upon hearing of the shortage and waited for the next batch. The fact is, anyone who wants one is going to be able to buy one eventually. There was certainly not one game that looked like a "killer app" at launch, so the lengths people are going to in order to acquire a system seem just silly to me. Not only that, but I just refuse to salivate when Corporate America rings a bell.
It is not that I hate corporations, not even Microsoft. They have their place in our society. The problem is that we the consumers routinely place far too much power in their hands. Naturally they are going to abuse that scenario every chance they get. We have successfully trained Corporate America to focus on short-term profits, even to their own detriment. Microsoft being an exception, since they seem to have an eye on the future. However, Microsoft did not get so big while having any focus on customer satisfaction or customer service. So giving in to them is especially heinous.
Spending 10 hours in line to quite likely not get a system you pre-ordered, or spending $1500 on a bundle pack is probably not going to send the message you would like. However, this is America, a land where people will spend thousands of dollars on entertainment and eat Ramen Noodles for every meal. When people complain about corporations behaving badly, it doesn't take much to see how they have gotten to the place where they think they can get away with it.
Yes, I am sure Microsoft hears your cries of rage, and they are laughing back as they count your money.
I still plan on getting an X-Box 360 just as soon as I have time for that kind of gaming again. Being on the road is not very conducive to console gaming, unless I want to leave it at the hotel. Something I'm not quite sure I trust the maid service to leave alone considering its rarity. As such, the idea of even getting one at launch wasn't much of a priority. Still, had I pre-ordered one I probably would have just asked for a refund upon hearing of the shortage and waited for the next batch. The fact is, anyone who wants one is going to be able to buy one eventually. There was certainly not one game that looked like a "killer app" at launch, so the lengths people are going to in order to acquire a system seem just silly to me. Not only that, but I just refuse to salivate when Corporate America rings a bell.
It is not that I hate corporations, not even Microsoft. They have their place in our society. The problem is that we the consumers routinely place far too much power in their hands. Naturally they are going to abuse that scenario every chance they get. We have successfully trained Corporate America to focus on short-term profits, even to their own detriment. Microsoft being an exception, since they seem to have an eye on the future. However, Microsoft did not get so big while having any focus on customer satisfaction or customer service. So giving in to them is especially heinous.
Spending 10 hours in line to quite likely not get a system you pre-ordered, or spending $1500 on a bundle pack is probably not going to send the message you would like. However, this is America, a land where people will spend thousands of dollars on entertainment and eat Ramen Noodles for every meal. When people complain about corporations behaving badly, it doesn't take much to see how they have gotten to the place where they think they can get away with it.
Bioware's perpetual revenue stream
One might think from reading this post or this one that I might have something of an interest in perpetual revenue streams. That would be a correct assumption. In particular, I am interested in how publishers can make money on the same product almost indefinitely without being in the massively multiplayer market.
When you release a title like Neverwinter Nights, which is built upon the foundation of unlimited extensibility, the potential for creating more products based on that foundation should be apparent from the start. I am not going to pretend that someone in Bioware saw this potential from the start, though I would like to think so. Regardless of when it happened, Bioware has definitely seized the opportunity, and has used the power of the Internet to their advantage.
Since Neverwinter Nights was released in 2002, there have been two expansions released and many different versions of the game. Over time, Bioware began selling premium modules on their website. Right now you can buy Pirates of the Sword Coast, which has not seen retail release, for $9.99. Ten bucks is a small enough sum that I'd be willing to pay it, and enough money that Bioware doesn't even have to sell that many to make money. Add to the fact that this is for a download, and they have also eliminated packaging and distribution costs. Everybody wins, well except for the regular distribution channels.Even then, Bioware has managed to do seven retail releases involving Neverwinter Nights, keeping their title in the public eye. The latest, Neverwinter Nights Diamond Edition includes all the premium modules except for the very latest, both expansions, as well as previously released modules that were included on their website for free. All this for $30, it's practically a steal. The best part, all of the product included has been marketed and sold already, so most of what they are selling has already generated revenue, and possibly a profit.
The downside, as I mentioned yesterday, is that Neverwinter Nights was a title that needed time to mature. This revenue stream was largely dependent on a product that was going to rely on some consumer patience to be successful. Even so, I think that Bioware is demonstrating how you can offer a product, keep it on the market, and still retain a varied play experience by means of built-in extensibility. This may be one avenue of keeping the PC gaming market alive.
When you release a title like Neverwinter Nights, which is built upon the foundation of unlimited extensibility, the potential for creating more products based on that foundation should be apparent from the start. I am not going to pretend that someone in Bioware saw this potential from the start, though I would like to think so. Regardless of when it happened, Bioware has definitely seized the opportunity, and has used the power of the Internet to their advantage.
Since Neverwinter Nights was released in 2002, there have been two expansions released and many different versions of the game. Over time, Bioware began selling premium modules on their website. Right now you can buy Pirates of the Sword Coast, which has not seen retail release, for $9.99. Ten bucks is a small enough sum that I'd be willing to pay it, and enough money that Bioware doesn't even have to sell that many to make money. Add to the fact that this is for a download, and they have also eliminated packaging and distribution costs. Everybody wins, well except for the regular distribution channels.Even then, Bioware has managed to do seven retail releases involving Neverwinter Nights, keeping their title in the public eye. The latest, Neverwinter Nights Diamond Edition includes all the premium modules except for the very latest, both expansions, as well as previously released modules that were included on their website for free. All this for $30, it's practically a steal. The best part, all of the product included has been marketed and sold already, so most of what they are selling has already generated revenue, and possibly a profit.
The downside, as I mentioned yesterday, is that Neverwinter Nights was a title that needed time to mature. This revenue stream was largely dependent on a product that was going to rely on some consumer patience to be successful. Even so, I think that Bioware is demonstrating how you can offer a product, keep it on the market, and still retain a varied play experience by means of built-in extensibility. This may be one avenue of keeping the PC gaming market alive.
Neverwinter Nights is the new Unlimited Adventures
Way back in 1993, SSI released a "game" called Unlimited Adventures. For those not familiar, SSI was the company who produced the reknown "Gold Box" Dungeons & Dragons Computer Role-Playing Games. I personally spent many hours with these games and was a big fan. What Unlimited Adventures promised to do was allow you to create your own adventures using the same game engine and a "user-friendly" interface to do it with.
This sounds like a great idea in theory, the problem was that this is 1993, before the Internet was really popular. The idea of creating an adventure and swapping it with others likely meant loading it onto a disc and transporting the physical media to another person. Which means you had to know someone else who actually knew what the Gold Box games were and also had their own copy of Unlimited Adventures. The other problem was that creating an adventure was a serious time investment, so even if people were going to create their own adventures it was going to take more than the usual 30 day shelf life that most games have with a gamer. Since there was nothing substantial to play with the actual game, except for a fairly hollow quest that was thrown together so it could be called a "game", it left little to do for people who were not interested in creating quests themselves. The title quickly tanked and faded into obscurity.
Fast forward to 1995. Windows 95 is being adopted at a rapid pace and the World Wide Web becomes relatively simple to connect to even for the average person with little technical exposure. All of a sudden, people who owned Unlimited Adventures had an audience via the Web! Modules were created and swapped, art was designed, people formed communities on who to create adventures. There were mailing lists and use groups established, quite a few websites popped up. I dusted off my copy and began playing other people's modules. The title finally became worth owning, but it took two years to really mature. Unlimited Adventures is a great example of what the consequences are for being ahead of your time.
How does this compare to Neverwinter Nights? Well, the Internet is in broad use now thanks to easy access to the World Wide Web, so it never had to jump that hurdle, right? The game was highly anticipated, and I believe it was also highly sold if memory serves. Yet there was a great deal of disappointment with the title. The included campaign was considered to be subpar compared to previous Bioware offerings and the creation tools turned out to be too complex for just anyone to start making an adventure. A lot of the promises that were made in regards to the game appeared to be unreachable, and many people, myself included, abandoned the game when it appeared to not live up to its promises.
Neverwinter Nights, released in 2002, is a great example of what can happen when you rely on users to provide the content. What the game really needed was time, and it has had that. Like Unlimited Adventures, Neverwinter Nights eventually enjoyed its own renaissance. The game matured, the community started offering content, and the publisher discovered a new revenue stream. (More on that in a following post). Unfortunately, how do you tell the public "Just wait, this will be a killer game in about a year or so." That is not going to sell a lot of copies. If I knew the game wasn't really going to be worthwhile for another year after I bought it, I would have just waited and picked it up cheap. You can't market a game like that, at least not in any current business model. The potential is there for a great game, but without time to discover its potential, it cannot succeed.
Unfortunately, this is not limited to simply the D&D franchise. Other games have tried this approach and failed. Relying on user content is a dodgy prospect at best, and failure is far more likely. The real down side is that titles like Neverwinter Nights are a great way to jump start community involvement and innovation. It could very well be a training tool for aspiring designers and developers. Without these games, we lose an important aspect of the gaming community. However, if you can't quantify this in a dollar amount, bankrolling such endeavors will be the greatest challenge any of these games will ever face.
This sounds like a great idea in theory, the problem was that this is 1993, before the Internet was really popular. The idea of creating an adventure and swapping it with others likely meant loading it onto a disc and transporting the physical media to another person. Which means you had to know someone else who actually knew what the Gold Box games were and also had their own copy of Unlimited Adventures. The other problem was that creating an adventure was a serious time investment, so even if people were going to create their own adventures it was going to take more than the usual 30 day shelf life that most games have with a gamer. Since there was nothing substantial to play with the actual game, except for a fairly hollow quest that was thrown together so it could be called a "game", it left little to do for people who were not interested in creating quests themselves. The title quickly tanked and faded into obscurity.
Fast forward to 1995. Windows 95 is being adopted at a rapid pace and the World Wide Web becomes relatively simple to connect to even for the average person with little technical exposure. All of a sudden, people who owned Unlimited Adventures had an audience via the Web! Modules were created and swapped, art was designed, people formed communities on who to create adventures. There were mailing lists and use groups established, quite a few websites popped up. I dusted off my copy and began playing other people's modules. The title finally became worth owning, but it took two years to really mature. Unlimited Adventures is a great example of what the consequences are for being ahead of your time.
How does this compare to Neverwinter Nights? Well, the Internet is in broad use now thanks to easy access to the World Wide Web, so it never had to jump that hurdle, right? The game was highly anticipated, and I believe it was also highly sold if memory serves. Yet there was a great deal of disappointment with the title. The included campaign was considered to be subpar compared to previous Bioware offerings and the creation tools turned out to be too complex for just anyone to start making an adventure. A lot of the promises that were made in regards to the game appeared to be unreachable, and many people, myself included, abandoned the game when it appeared to not live up to its promises.
Neverwinter Nights, released in 2002, is a great example of what can happen when you rely on users to provide the content. What the game really needed was time, and it has had that. Like Unlimited Adventures, Neverwinter Nights eventually enjoyed its own renaissance. The game matured, the community started offering content, and the publisher discovered a new revenue stream. (More on that in a following post). Unfortunately, how do you tell the public "Just wait, this will be a killer game in about a year or so." That is not going to sell a lot of copies. If I knew the game wasn't really going to be worthwhile for another year after I bought it, I would have just waited and picked it up cheap. You can't market a game like that, at least not in any current business model. The potential is there for a great game, but without time to discover its potential, it cannot succeed.
Unfortunately, this is not limited to simply the D&D franchise. Other games have tried this approach and failed. Relying on user content is a dodgy prospect at best, and failure is far more likely. The real down side is that titles like Neverwinter Nights are a great way to jump start community involvement and innovation. It could very well be a training tool for aspiring designers and developers. Without these games, we lose an important aspect of the gaming community. However, if you can't quantify this in a dollar amount, bankrolling such endeavors will be the greatest challenge any of these games will ever face.
A hidden gem of a game
I'll probably go into more detail later, but I wanted to share a game I recently started playing that actually has been sitting on my hard drive for a few months now.
The game is called Mount & Blade. It's something of a cross between an RPG and a real-time strategy game. Most of the combat is focused on fighting from horse-back, though nothing prevents you from going at it on foot. Right now the game is in beta, but as it nears completion they continue to up the price. When the game is completed they will charge $25 for it. Last I checked, they are asking for $14. The best part, the complete game is actually free, but you are limited to level 6. I like this, as it allows the player to explore the entire world and yet still gives some incentive to pay.
I'll probably go into greater detail tomorrow. Definitely check out the game though.
The game is called Mount & Blade. It's something of a cross between an RPG and a real-time strategy game. Most of the combat is focused on fighting from horse-back, though nothing prevents you from going at it on foot. Right now the game is in beta, but as it nears completion they continue to up the price. When the game is completed they will charge $25 for it. Last I checked, they are asking for $14. The best part, the complete game is actually free, but you are limited to level 6. I like this, as it allows the player to explore the entire world and yet still gives some incentive to pay.
I'll probably go into greater detail tomorrow. Definitely check out the game though.
Carnival of Gamers VIII is up!
Well, it's time for the Carnival of Gamers #8 - Hosted by Aeropause, which just happens to fall on my birthday this time.
This is also my cheesy excuse for meeting my writing requirement. I know I have Star Wars Battlefront II waiting for me when I get back to Texas tonight. Unfortunately, I will likely spend the night working.
This is also my cheesy excuse for meeting my writing requirement. I know I have Star Wars Battlefront II waiting for me when I get back to Texas tonight. Unfortunately, I will likely spend the night working.
Growing up as a gamer
On November 3rd, 2005 I will be 32 years old. I am married, I have two children, a house, two cars, and a career. I have a college degree and am looking at going back for my masters sometime in the next few years. Also, I am a gamer.
My first game that I can remember was Space Invaders in the arcades. Getting an Atari 2600 back in the day was a major event in my young life. I could go on for many pages as to what has changed and how much has, surprisingly, stayed the same. Maybe games didn't have the graphic realism they do today, but we had our violent games back then and there was concern over how much graphic violence we were being exposed to. Yet, like many gamers growing up today, most of us turned out all right.
The "Atari generation" is all grown up now. They are all in their early 30's or about to enter them. We have an entire generation of gamers that have spent a good portion of their lives exposed to video games. Oddly enough, the perception that video games are "for kids" persists despite many people like me. When I hear complaint about mature titles, I shake my head in exasperation. Don't these people realize that those games are made for people like me? Not that I am going to assume that all game publishers are all that socially conscious, but I would assume that the target audience of mature rated titles would actually be adults. There is no intention of corrupting today's youth, the intent is merely to distract today's adults.
I'm a gamer, an adult, and a parent myself. The media acts as though people like me don't exist, that I am not part of the equation. I've been engaged in this hobby longer than the media has been aware of its existence. Just leave my hobby alone. I plan to retire someday, and when I do I want to sit down at my 300ghz PC (which will be out-of-date by then), my Playstation 24, my Nintendo Novelty Box, or my X-Box 11520 and not worry about anything other than what I'm going to play with the grandkids.
My first game that I can remember was Space Invaders in the arcades. Getting an Atari 2600 back in the day was a major event in my young life. I could go on for many pages as to what has changed and how much has, surprisingly, stayed the same. Maybe games didn't have the graphic realism they do today, but we had our violent games back then and there was concern over how much graphic violence we were being exposed to. Yet, like many gamers growing up today, most of us turned out all right.
The "Atari generation" is all grown up now. They are all in their early 30's or about to enter them. We have an entire generation of gamers that have spent a good portion of their lives exposed to video games. Oddly enough, the perception that video games are "for kids" persists despite many people like me. When I hear complaint about mature titles, I shake my head in exasperation. Don't these people realize that those games are made for people like me? Not that I am going to assume that all game publishers are all that socially conscious, but I would assume that the target audience of mature rated titles would actually be adults. There is no intention of corrupting today's youth, the intent is merely to distract today's adults.
I'm a gamer, an adult, and a parent myself. The media acts as though people like me don't exist, that I am not part of the equation. I've been engaged in this hobby longer than the media has been aware of its existence. Just leave my hobby alone. I plan to retire someday, and when I do I want to sit down at my 300ghz PC (which will be out-of-date by then), my Playstation 24, my Nintendo Novelty Box, or my X-Box 11520 and not worry about anything other than what I'm going to play with the grandkids.
Top 5 reasons I won't by an X-Box 360 at launch
#5 - Limited selection of launch titles
Seriously, by just waiting half a year there will be a much better selection out there and I won't have to subject myself to the rabid horde of zombies that populate every store in the United States during the holiday season.
#4 - Current game titles are about to get real damn cheap
Any game I've had my eye on for the X-Box is about to go down. Some will hold their price, but the launch of the next-gen console will put huge downward pressure on the prices for games on the console I already own.
#3 - Why pay full price when the suckers will do it for me?
You think the X-Box 360 will stay at $400 forever? I'll let the early adopters pay all the money. After it drops $50 or $100 I'll pick it up and there will be plenty of titles available. Who cares about playing games right at release? I can get the same game experience and for less money.
#2 - What? I look like I'm made out of money?
I have a mortgage, two cars, two kids, and a wife. Yeah, coming home one day with a new $400 game console is going to go over well with the wife.
#1 - But honestly....
I'm gone four days of the week travelling a distance of just over a thousand miles, one way. Aside from some remote work on Friday, I spend every waking moment with my wife and kids. So whenever I have time for games again, I look forward to having an X-Box 360 in my house. It looks like a great console, but the timing of its release couldn't be any worse for me. It used to be I never had any money for gaming. Now I never have any time.
Seriously, by just waiting half a year there will be a much better selection out there and I won't have to subject myself to the rabid horde of zombies that populate every store in the United States during the holiday season.
#4 - Current game titles are about to get real damn cheap
Any game I've had my eye on for the X-Box is about to go down. Some will hold their price, but the launch of the next-gen console will put huge downward pressure on the prices for games on the console I already own.
#3 - Why pay full price when the suckers will do it for me?
You think the X-Box 360 will stay at $400 forever? I'll let the early adopters pay all the money. After it drops $50 or $100 I'll pick it up and there will be plenty of titles available. Who cares about playing games right at release? I can get the same game experience and for less money.
#2 - What? I look like I'm made out of money?
I have a mortgage, two cars, two kids, and a wife. Yeah, coming home one day with a new $400 game console is going to go over well with the wife.
#1 - But honestly....
I'm gone four days of the week travelling a distance of just over a thousand miles, one way. Aside from some remote work on Friday, I spend every waking moment with my wife and kids. So whenever I have time for games again, I look forward to having an X-Box 360 in my house. It looks like a great console, but the timing of its release couldn't be any worse for me. It used to be I never had any money for gaming. Now I never have any time.
Jack Thompson's Christianity
Being somewhat out of it the past couple of months, I have had plenty of exposure to the antics of Mr. Thompson without getting into the fine-grained details. However, after a few references to Mr. Thompson being "Bible-whipped" I started to take a look around.
Mr. Thompson is apparently very proud of his Christianity and likes to put it at the forefront of some of his tirades or defending what indeed appears to be a crusade for him.
I think it might shock Mr. Thompson to find that some of us who play video games are indeed Christians ourselves. I don't necessarily limit myself to any particular rating. In fact, I praised the gameplay of the Punisher, which hardly follows Biblical principles of "turning the other cheek" if you know what I mean. While Mr. Thompson might wonder how I can reconcile my religious beliefs with such a game, I myself would wonder how he could do the same whilst bearing false witness, judging unrighteously, and failing to find forgiveness in his heart for his enemies. In other words, Mr. Thompson should not try to remove the speck from mine eye while he has a plank in his. Yes, that is another Biblical reference.
I don't make a big deal about my religious beliefs, but I am not shy about them either. As a Christian I believe that I am not supposed to "hide my light" as it were. At the same time, I have taken to heart that many of Jesus' teachings dealt with the Pharisees, the modern and very public religious figures of his day. Many of which seem to be Mr. Thompson's role models. Men who professed their holiness and yet did very little to act holy. It is one thing to proclaim your religious beliefs, and quite another to actually act upon them.
As the old song goes "And they will know we are Christians by our love..."
I do not wish to be a hypocrite, I do not wish to condemn Mr. Thompson's actions, even though I do honestly disagree with his methods. I think the idea of protecting children is noble, but I believe the problem is not linked to publishers or retailers. When a large majority of minors playing violent videogames are being purchased by said minor's parents, I think the problem is not going to be solved by punishing the makers and sellers. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't punish me because somebody is too lazy to figure out what a big "M - Mature" sticker means. The ESRB is about the simplest system to ever be devised, anyone claiming it is confusing or hard to understand is either an idiot or just looking to shift blame. Granted, nothing says those two are mutual exclusive.
More to the point, gamers are not a bunch of godless heathens trying to lure in ten year olds into our sordid hobby. Some of us are indeed Christians ourselves who are appalled at children playing Grand Theft Auto Vice City. Except in my case I am appalled at the parents who buy the game for their kid while I watch a sales clerk desperately trying to talk the parent out of it. Yes, this happens, and I see it all too often just as a customer. Point is, don't throw out the "I'm a Christian" rhetoric as some kind of justification for a misguided campaign against those who have committed no wrong.
I may not personally agree with the content of Rockstar's titles, but I respect the right of individuals to choose how they spend their time. That, I believe, is what the true Christian approach is. It is not ok for me to participate necessarily, but it is also not kosher for me to condemn. If you want to play a game named after a felony, that is your right and your choice. I will neither support nor condemn it. At the same time, parents getting up in arms over games they themselves purchased for their kids and Mr. Thompson attempting to represent these groups as some sort of guardian angel is not something I have to respect. Jesus was impressed by those that led a holy life, not those that proclaimed a holy life. That's a lesson that many holy rollers need to learn.
I don't lead a perfect life myself. Then again, it's that knowledge that demostrates why I nor any other Christian has a right to condemn anyone else. A harsh word stirs up anger but a kind word turns away wrath. I am hardly a Bible scholar and yet I seem to have a deeper understanding of what is "Christ-like" behavior than Mr. Thompson does.
Mr. Thompson is apparently very proud of his Christianity and likes to put it at the forefront of some of his tirades or defending what indeed appears to be a crusade for him.
I think it might shock Mr. Thompson to find that some of us who play video games are indeed Christians ourselves. I don't necessarily limit myself to any particular rating. In fact, I praised the gameplay of the Punisher, which hardly follows Biblical principles of "turning the other cheek" if you know what I mean. While Mr. Thompson might wonder how I can reconcile my religious beliefs with such a game, I myself would wonder how he could do the same whilst bearing false witness, judging unrighteously, and failing to find forgiveness in his heart for his enemies. In other words, Mr. Thompson should not try to remove the speck from mine eye while he has a plank in his. Yes, that is another Biblical reference.
I don't make a big deal about my religious beliefs, but I am not shy about them either. As a Christian I believe that I am not supposed to "hide my light" as it were. At the same time, I have taken to heart that many of Jesus' teachings dealt with the Pharisees, the modern and very public religious figures of his day. Many of which seem to be Mr. Thompson's role models. Men who professed their holiness and yet did very little to act holy. It is one thing to proclaim your religious beliefs, and quite another to actually act upon them.
As the old song goes "And they will know we are Christians by our love..."
I do not wish to be a hypocrite, I do not wish to condemn Mr. Thompson's actions, even though I do honestly disagree with his methods. I think the idea of protecting children is noble, but I believe the problem is not linked to publishers or retailers. When a large majority of minors playing violent videogames are being purchased by said minor's parents, I think the problem is not going to be solved by punishing the makers and sellers. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't punish me because somebody is too lazy to figure out what a big "M - Mature" sticker means. The ESRB is about the simplest system to ever be devised, anyone claiming it is confusing or hard to understand is either an idiot or just looking to shift blame. Granted, nothing says those two are mutual exclusive.
More to the point, gamers are not a bunch of godless heathens trying to lure in ten year olds into our sordid hobby. Some of us are indeed Christians ourselves who are appalled at children playing Grand Theft Auto Vice City. Except in my case I am appalled at the parents who buy the game for their kid while I watch a sales clerk desperately trying to talk the parent out of it. Yes, this happens, and I see it all too often just as a customer. Point is, don't throw out the "I'm a Christian" rhetoric as some kind of justification for a misguided campaign against those who have committed no wrong.
I may not personally agree with the content of Rockstar's titles, but I respect the right of individuals to choose how they spend their time. That, I believe, is what the true Christian approach is. It is not ok for me to participate necessarily, but it is also not kosher for me to condemn. If you want to play a game named after a felony, that is your right and your choice. I will neither support nor condemn it. At the same time, parents getting up in arms over games they themselves purchased for their kids and Mr. Thompson attempting to represent these groups as some sort of guardian angel is not something I have to respect. Jesus was impressed by those that led a holy life, not those that proclaimed a holy life. That's a lesson that many holy rollers need to learn.
I don't lead a perfect life myself. Then again, it's that knowledge that demostrates why I nor any other Christian has a right to condemn anyone else. A harsh word stirs up anger but a kind word turns away wrath. I am hardly a Bible scholar and yet I seem to have a deeper understanding of what is "Christ-like" behavior than Mr. Thompson does.
Jack Thompson files complaint with the Justice League.
Original image and concept via PvP Online -
Scott Kurtz, more than a mere webcartoonist, has recently discovered that Jack Thompson has further escalated his crusade to bring down the dastardly villians of Penny Arcade.
Disclaimer -
I uploaded the image here, so this is not leeching off of PvP. I would have just linked to the original post, but I haven't quite grokked Mr. Kurtz's news posting system yet.
Scott Kurtz, more than a mere webcartoonist, has recently discovered that Jack Thompson has further escalated his crusade to bring down the dastardly villians of Penny Arcade.
Disclaimer -
I uploaded the image here, so this is not leeching off of PvP. I would have just linked to the original post, but I haven't quite grokked Mr. Kurtz's news posting system yet.
License Revoked!
The movie industry and the video game industry share a very important concept. That concept is that ideas are actually a kind of property. A great deal of money is actually generated around this concept. There are such a thing as franchises, where a series of games or movies is continually generated in order to acquire revenue.
This is but one similarity between the two industries, but it's an important one. The idea that you can have an Intellectual Property (IP) is paramount to either. After all, if you don't own your ideas, what is stopping anyone else from making money off of it? The odd dichotomy here is that you'll see companies defend their IP vigilantly from outside forces, but are less picky about when money actually changes hands. Thus we see bad movies made based on good games, or bad games based on good movies. The problem is that in not demanding a certain level of quality, they are actually devaluing the one thing that makes the transaction viable. If I were in the car rental business, I wouldn't simply let customers return cars in horrible shape. After all, my livelihood is dependent on having vehicles that people will actually want to rent. Devaluing my assets hurts me. When movie or game makers devalue their property, they hurt themselves.
The whole game to movie to game cycle has been going on for awhile. Unfortunately, the reputation has formed that movies based on games are going to be bad and games based on movies are going to also be bad. It doesn't matter what the quality of the source material was. Of course, trying to translate from one entertainment media to the next is tricky, but we've also seen many instances where it can be done well. The consequence has become for any license to ascend beyond it's meager expectations.
Let's face it, this is a business and business is about making money. At the same time, I firmly believe that maximizing profits is always a good thing. For instance, a game based on a movie license shouldn't be just a promotional tie-in. A well-done game can be a moneymaker unto its own. A good example are the Spider-Man games and how they tied in with the movies they represented. This is in addition to the general expectation that movies and games based on comic books will also be bad, though this has been less true in recent years. You can make a mediocre game and write it off as marketing for a movie. You can make a movie and write it off as promoting a brand. I would think a savvy business move would be to turn the license into a multi-media, multi-platform franchise of its own. Take Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, a game that was probably better than the movie franchise it represented! Not only that, but it is essentially "canon" material for the Riddick "universe". Although that's a little too synergistic in my opinion, it certainly is a step in the right direction. Even if the movies do poorly, there is potential there to have a series of games.
Indeed, if you're managing your ideas properly they should grow beyond the medium they originated from. A good example is Lord of the Rings of the Harry Potter series. Both started out as books and look at what has happened since then. Indeed, Lord of the Rings has actually had some decent games based on its material as well, though I admit it's had a fair share of bad ones.
If ideas are indeed valuable, then they should not be sold cheaply. It makes little sense to protect them fiercely and yet whore them off cheaply. After all, ROI (return on investment) is the primary concern in most business transactions. Shouldn't that always be the main consideration?
Of course, as I type all this I am firmly aware that the people who generally make the decisions have little knowledge or even interest in some of the IP they control. Which is more the shame, because they are also the wrong people to maximize their IP's potential.
DISALLOWED (Random)
This is but one similarity between the two industries, but it's an important one. The idea that you can have an Intellectual Property (IP) is paramount to either. After all, if you don't own your ideas, what is stopping anyone else from making money off of it? The odd dichotomy here is that you'll see companies defend their IP vigilantly from outside forces, but are less picky about when money actually changes hands. Thus we see bad movies made based on good games, or bad games based on good movies. The problem is that in not demanding a certain level of quality, they are actually devaluing the one thing that makes the transaction viable. If I were in the car rental business, I wouldn't simply let customers return cars in horrible shape. After all, my livelihood is dependent on having vehicles that people will actually want to rent. Devaluing my assets hurts me. When movie or game makers devalue their property, they hurt themselves.
The whole game to movie to game cycle has been going on for awhile. Unfortunately, the reputation has formed that movies based on games are going to be bad and games based on movies are going to also be bad. It doesn't matter what the quality of the source material was. Of course, trying to translate from one entertainment media to the next is tricky, but we've also seen many instances where it can be done well. The consequence has become for any license to ascend beyond it's meager expectations.
Let's face it, this is a business and business is about making money. At the same time, I firmly believe that maximizing profits is always a good thing. For instance, a game based on a movie license shouldn't be just a promotional tie-in. A well-done game can be a moneymaker unto its own. A good example are the Spider-Man games and how they tied in with the movies they represented. This is in addition to the general expectation that movies and games based on comic books will also be bad, though this has been less true in recent years. You can make a mediocre game and write it off as marketing for a movie. You can make a movie and write it off as promoting a brand. I would think a savvy business move would be to turn the license into a multi-media, multi-platform franchise of its own. Take Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, a game that was probably better than the movie franchise it represented! Not only that, but it is essentially "canon" material for the Riddick "universe". Although that's a little too synergistic in my opinion, it certainly is a step in the right direction. Even if the movies do poorly, there is potential there to have a series of games.
Indeed, if you're managing your ideas properly they should grow beyond the medium they originated from. A good example is Lord of the Rings of the Harry Potter series. Both started out as books and look at what has happened since then. Indeed, Lord of the Rings has actually had some decent games based on its material as well, though I admit it's had a fair share of bad ones.
If ideas are indeed valuable, then they should not be sold cheaply. It makes little sense to protect them fiercely and yet whore them off cheaply. After all, ROI (return on investment) is the primary concern in most business transactions. Shouldn't that always be the main consideration?
Of course, as I type all this I am firmly aware that the people who generally make the decisions have little knowledge or even interest in some of the IP they control. Which is more the shame, because they are also the wrong people to maximize their IP's potential.