muflax
/
muflax65ngodyewp.onion
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity
muflax65ngodyewp.onion/content_muflax/stuff/malstrom/Birdmen and the Casual Fall...

1317 lines
70 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters!

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters that may be confused with others in your current locale. If your use case is intentional and legitimate, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to highlight these characters.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:(null)0="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title> Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen">
</head><body>
<div id="container">
<div id="content_box">
<div id="left_box">
<div id="content" class="posts">
<h1><b>Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy</b></h1>
<p class="author"><em>by</em> Sean Malstrom</p>
<div class="entry">
<p class="MsoNormal">
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/birdman2.jpg" border="0" height="178" width="225"><br>
<br>
Centuries ago, men attempted to fly by putting wings on
their arms and flapping really hard. Logically, in their
minds, it should have worked. Birds fly. Birds have wings.
Therefore, having wings should mean man will fly.<br>
<br>
The gentlemen, puffed with pride,
failed every time. Had they examined the nature of flight,
as opposed to the nature of birds, they would have realized
the concept of lift (as Bernoulli did). One must examine the
physics of the flight rather than putting feathers on one’s
arms in imitation of birds. The descendants of these birdmen
are with us today. In the gaming industry, they represent
some of the highest gaming executives and esteemed analysts.<br>
<br>
Nintendo is flying high. Rather than
examine the nature of this flight, the birdmen are
mesmerized by the feathers. The analysts and executives do
not see the concepts of disruption and don’t even understand
the Blue Ocean principles (though they think they do). The
feathers they see on Nintendo’s ascent are <i>casual games</i>.
Therefore, they surmise, if they make <i>casual games</i>
then they will be flying high with Nintendo.<br>
<br>
There is nothing new here. Years ago,
when <i>Grand Theft Auto 3</i> hit big, all the birdmen
began putting out <i>Grand Theft Auto 3</i> clones. Years
before that, it was first person shooters. More years before
that, it was bloody fighters. One can find the birdmen back
in the 8-bit generation making platformers. They would look
at <i>Super Mario Brothers</i> and go, “Oh, I get it! We
just need to make a game with cute music, colorful world,
and upgrades like the <i>magic mushroom</i>!” Slapping wings
on their arms, these games flopped. Amazingly, despite how
many times the birdmen fall down, each generation they are
ready to put on feathers and jump off a cliff.<b><br>
<br>
<br>
How the Casual Fallacy was Born<br>
<br>
</b>The game industry was, and still is,
distinctively hardcore. They generate their profits from
sequels and big blockbuster games. The developers are all
hardcore. The publishers are generally hardcore as well.<br>
<br>
When a hardcore gamer looks at a
hardcore game, he sees <i>sophistication, magnificence, </i>
and, most important, <i>art</i> as if it were a mirror image
facing him. When a hardcore gamer looks as a casual game, he
sees <i>simplicity</i>, <i>non-art, easiness, </i>and, in
sum, a <i>retardation of gaming.</i> Hardcore view casual
games not as progress in gaming but as games tailor made for
gaming retards.<br>
<br>
“Retards!?” says a shocked reader.
“Surely you can’t say what you mean!” Why not? When a casual
gamer picks up the standard dual shock controller, he gets
confused. He doesn’t have the patience to wade through these
elaborate 3d worlds or memorize fourteen button
combinations. While the hardcore call him “stupid”, he
retaliates by calling gaming “stupid”.<br>
<br>
Anytime you read ‘casual games’ in the
news, just replace ‘casual’ with the word ‘retard’ and you
will get how it is truly perceived by the industry. “There
is a casual gamer boom!” should translate to “There is a
retard gamer boom!”. The “EA Casual Games Division” really
is translated to “EA Retard Games Division”. “Why are you
calling casual gamers retarded!?” thunders one reader. I am
not. I am saying that the hardcore industry is the one who
thinks this way. ‘Casual’ is just a nice way of saying
‘dumb’ in their eyes.<br>
<br>
The reason why hardcore gamers’ hearts
sink when a company says they will make the game include
‘casuals’ is because they know that all the edge,
difficulty, and passion will be ripped out to make a
generic, easy, and soul-less game.<br>
<br>
Despite every company and their dog
making these ‘casual’ games, the so-called casual audience
is not buying them (just as they didn’t buy the platformer
clones of the 8-bit generation, the fighter clones of the
16-bit generation, the GTA clones of last generation, and so
on). When seeing their ‘casual games’ flop while seeing
Nintendo’s ‘casual’ games in the bestsellers, the third
parties growl and say, “IT IS ALL NINTENDO’S FAULT! People
only buy Nintendo games! Third parties can’t succeed on this
platform!”<br>
<br>
The problem is not in these companies’
execution of their plan. The problem is their world-view.
Their perception is totally off, and it is costing these
companies millions upon millions of dollars. Don’t you
think, guys, that it is time to think about things a littler
harder before you waste more millions?<br>
<br>
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/birdman4.jpg" border="0" height="230" width="230"><br>
<br>
<b><br>
There is No Casual Gamer<br>
<br>
</b>“What!” echoes someone from the
balcony. “If this is true, then what will we use for this
generation’s meme? What will our editorialists write about?
We have spilled so much ink on this subject and apply the
‘casual gaming’ template to every story that comes out. How
can we exist without it?”<br>
<br>
I do not know nor do I care. Hopefully,
you birdmen can become a little more original.<br>
<br>
Take the industry of home speakers (as
many gamers are familiar with it). There is a wide range of
product lines, is there not Mr. Reader?<br>
<br>
“That is so,” replied Mr. Reader.
“There are very basic, bargain based speakers to the mid
range. Then, there is the more expensive high range.”<br>
<br>
Very well… So the higher one goes, the
more expensive it gets?<br>
<br>
“Yes, Mr. Malstrom. Upper tier speakers
are EXTREMELY expensive.”<br>
<br>
Now tell me, my figment-of-my-words,
how does user knowledge act along the product line?<br>
<br>
“Well, knowledge is the defining
characteristic of the tiers. The more knowledge one has,
that means the more audiophile one is, the more likely he or
she will reach for the upper tier. At the bottom, the users
know little about audio and do not care to know. The ones at
the top are very passionate about their audio and will pick
out separate speakers and subwoofer just to maximize their
experience.”<br>
<br>
Are you saying the people on the bottom
tier are stupid? Are they just casual listeners?<br>
<br>
“Only an upper tier person would define
them as ‘casual’. They just don’t have that much passion
about audio so they don’t have much knowledge.”<br>
<br>
And what creates this passion?<br>
<br>
Mr. Reader smiled. “By having audio
they want to listen to.”<br>
<br>
If there is audio they want to listen
to, they will start buying these speakers, become more
knowledgeable, and keep upgrading those speakers as they
move up to the higher tier?<br>
<br>
“Yes.”<b><br>
<br>
The Upmarket and the Downmarket<br>
<br>
</b>There is no casual gamer. There is no
hardcore gamer. There is only the downmarket and the
upmarket.<br>
<br>
In any type of product, there is a set
of obstacles that need to be realized before the product can
be enjoyed. Some people, especially technical savvy, can get
through these barriers sooner than others.<br>
<br>
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/featuritis.jpg" border="0" height="343" width="440"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Compare the above graph to users’
experience in game software. The simple games of the Atari
days have undeniably become more complex. To those who grew
up with video game consoles, they were able to stretch their
user peaks. These current players, who call themselves the
hardcore, became the upmarket.<br>
<br>
Many people did not grow up with video
games or kept playing them after the Atari 2600 and NES.
Look at the above graph and think of their reaction to
playing games today. Obviously, they will be frustrated as
they look in the manual, swear at themselves, and generally
conclude that gaming isn’t for them. Someone content with <i>
Pong</i> is not going to ‘jump in’ a huge 3d game world.<br>
<br>
When the upmarket views the so-called
casual games or even games of the past (such as the classics
on the Virtual Console), they are on the left side thinking
“Nice, but I wish I could do more…” The games are not
elaborate enough for them. In Wii Tennis, the upmarket keeps
saying, “The game is nice but I wish I could move my player
around myself” or “Wii Play is nice but I wish the games
were more elaborate” or “Downloading Mario Kart 64 is nice
but I wish I could play it online with new tracks…”<br>
<br>
Obviously, the pleasure thresholds of
upmarket and downmarket differ (with a variety of different
users in the middle). But for simplification purposes, based
on these two areas, we get two different paths to user
experience:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/kickasscurvetwo.jpg" border="0" height="458" width="444"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me ask you an honest question. Take
your favorite games or, rather, the games that put a great
first impression on you. How soon were you kicking ass in
these games?<br>
<br>
Most likely, very soon. Richard
Garriott, aka Lord British, revealed many years ago (back
when Origin Systems still existed) why <i>Diablo</i> and the
RTS games such as Red Alert and Warcraft 2 became so
popular. With <i>Diablo</i>, it is because you level up
extremely fast at first. You feel like a badass early on
which encourages you to go further. The RTS games did the
same with the first missions of <i>Warcraft 2</i> and <i>Red
Alert</i> as extremely simple (the first <i>Red Alert</i>
Soviet mission had the player just point and click to tell
planes where to bomb). Anyone who has played <i>World of
Warcraft</i> will realize how fast the game makes one feel
like a ‘badass’ in the first ten levels of the game. Other
MMORPGs start off much slower which would explain their
slower sales.<br>
<br>
These downmarket users, if properly
treated, will travel upstream to become upmarket users. <i>
World of Warcraft</i> novices often become the most die-hard
raiders. Many had <i>Command and Conquer</i> or <i>Warcraft
2/Starcraft</i> as their first RTS. They played the simple
levels and moved upstream to more sophistication. (It should
be noted that <i>World of Warcraft</i>, <i>Warcraft 2, Red
Alert</i>, and <i>Diablo</i> are set up to take advantage of
this. The first units or choices the player has are small
but it branches over time and becomes more complex.)
Miyamoto was surprised that the Touch Generation games on
the DS had users go upstream to play <i>Mario Kart DS</i>
and <i>New Super Mario Brothers</i> (both of which broke
sales records).<b><br>
<br>
<br>
The Upstream Games<br>
<br>
</b>When you think back to the great classics of gaming, one
finds games such as <i>Pac-Man, Super Mario Brothers, Sonic
the Hedgehog, Mega Man 2, Dragon Quest, Legend of Zelda, </i>
among other software. While all these games are obsolete in
technological terms and, perhaps, even in genre terms,
significant talent was used to build them. Some may argue
that the talent in those games is even superior to today’s
games! While these games were much simpler with less
features, they still required the same amount of talent and
force of creativity that today’s blockbusters do.<br>
<br>
The current generation, the High
Definition generation, ups the ante with offering different
visual displays for different television sets. Considering
most people do not really know what ‘high definition’ means
(or even how to hook up their consoles to the internet), it
is clear that gaming’s complexity is advancing further than
most people can adapt.<br>
<br>
Today, what is considered an “8-bit
game” would be considered a “casual game”. Evidence of this
is seen with 8-bit and 16-bit spiritual sequels emerging
only on handhelds while the consoles stay near the more
complex games. Ports of <i>Super Mario Brothers, Sonic the
Hedgehog, </i>and <i>The Legend of Zelda </i>have appeared
on handhelds. What used to be classics have become damned as
“casual” games. This is the current industry hive-mind view.
This is the hardcore view. But what is the reality?<br>
<br>
The reality is that all industries,
including gaming, exist in a series of tiers. While the
tiers of gaming are debatable, I have provided a sufficient
list for this discussion:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center">
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/tiers.gif" border="0" height="384" width="512"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me give examples of these tiers:<br>
<br>
<b>Tactical RPG/Strategy- </b><i>Fire
Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Master of Orion, Command and
Conquer, Warcraft, MMORPGs</i><b><br>
Epic RPG-</b> (‘epic’ meaning very
story based) Later <i>Final Fantasy</i> and <i>Dragon Quest</i>
games, <i>Ultima</i>, practically most JRPGs<b><br>
Tactical Shooter-</b> <i>Ghost
Recon, SOCOM, Counter-Strike</i><b><br>
First Person Shooter- </b><i>Halo,
Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty</i><b><br>
Third Person Shooter- </b><i>Gears
of War, Grand Theft Auto 3, Resident Evil</i><b><br>
3D Action Adventure- </b><i>Zelda:
Ocarina of Time, Eternal Darkness<br>
</i><b>3D Platformer- </b><i>Super Mario
64, Super Mario Galaxy, Rayman 2</i><b><br>
Basic RPG- </b>Early <i>Final
Fantasy </i>and <i>Dragon Quest. </i>(Likely) <i>Dragon
Quest IX</i><b><br>
Action Adventure- </b><i>Legend of
Zelda, Metroid</i><b><br>
Adventure- </b><i>King’s Quest,
Monkey Island</i><b><br>
2D Platformer- </b><i>Super Mario
Brothers, Sonic the Hedgehog</i><b><br>
Mini-Games / Arcade Style- </b><i>
Wii Play, Centipede, Galaga, Pac-Man</i><b><br>
Puzzle- </b><i>Tetris, Dr. Mario</i><b><br>
Non-Fiction Game- </b><i>Wii Sports,
Wii Fit, Brain Age, Nintendogs, </i>cookbook software, how
to learn English, etc. <i>Flight Simulator, Sims<br>
<br>
</i>Most of these tiers are
self-explanatory. The further upmarket one goes, the more
one gets drawn into another world. (Before someone writes me
and says, “WHERE IS THE RACING TIER, MALSTROM!???”, realize
that the list is not intended to be perfect but just show
the difference of segments from upmarket to downmarket.) The
non-fiction games do not attempt to pull the player into a
fiction world. Games such as Brain Age or even Flight
Simulator cater to the players’ interests of the real world.
Brain Age promises to make you smarter, Wii Fit tries to get
you more ‘fit’, and so on. Wii Sports is popular because
people actually BELIEVE they are using the same exact sports
skills in the game as opposed to just pushing some buttons
and playing ‘make-believe’.<br>
<br>
The problem is not that games have
become more complex over the years; it is that lower tiered
games were becoming less and less made. This meant less new
gamers and that gaming became less exciting to the
mainstream. Games have become more expensive to make which
means publishers have huddled toward the upmarket.
Meanwhile, the downmarket was being unused until flash games
and online simple games caught on big with computer users.<br></p><blockquote cite="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33498">
"There are more Flash installs available in people's
homes and even on mobile devices than all of the sold
consoles of the last two generations put together. It is
everywhere…”<br>
<br>
-Raph Koster, president of Areae and designer of Ultima
Online and Star Wars: Galaxies. SOURCE:
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33498">http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33498</a><i><br></i></blockquote><i>
</i>These downmarket tiers became abandoned
and became a ‘Blue Ocean’ where no one was fighting over.
Nintendo aimed to become dominant on these lower tiers, the
Blue Ocean, first.<br>
<br>
Since these lower tier games were the
most critical for Nintendo, they put their first string
teams to make games such as <i>Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii
Sports, Wii Play</i>, among others. Birdmen, who mistake the
downmarket for ‘casual games’ (i.e. retard games), keep
putting their third or fourth string teams to make these
type of games.<br>
<br>
<br>
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/easeofusegonewrong.jpg" border="0" height="473" width="416"><br>
<br>
The above picture illustrates the Casual Fallacy well. <i>
Wii Sports </i>is a game stuffed with complexity (of its
physics), replay value, and many game modes. It is what
people want: a friendly but powerful game. Consumers want
more games like <i>Wii Sports </i>but they get the plastic
dog instead. Sure the game is ‘friendly’, but the power
behind it is gone. It is a neutered game castrated from any
purpose.<br>
<br>
If the reader happens to be a member of
the NES Generation, compare the games of youth of the
so-called ‘kids games’ you got on the computer to <i>Super
Mario Brothers </i>and <i>Legend of Zelda</i>. The tailor
made ‘kids games’ then ended up plastic dogs while the
Nintendo classics ended up being the real dog. Western
publishers were stunned that the 1980s children were
abandoning their specialized ‘kids games’ to play these
‘Japanese games’.<br>
<br>
If the reader happens to be a <i>
hardcore player</i> (oh, that word!), compare games like <i>
Grand Theft Auto 3 </i>and <i>Halo </i>to wannabe GTA and
Halo clones. The wannabe hardcore games will put in
gratuitous violence or sex or space aliens to ‘give the game
the edge’. These wannabe games end up the plastic dog which
annoys hardcore gamers to no end.<br>
<br>
Birdmen can only make plastic dogs. In
order to make the real dog, they would have to study the
concept of flight instead of studying the wings. Passionate
developers also tend to create passionate products (which is
why Blizzard puts on any business contract that its
developers will be free to make the games they want). Will
hardcore developers have a passion to create downmarket
products? They certainly didn’t become game developers to
make competitors to <i>Peggle</i> and online flash games.
What we will end up with are more plastic dogs.<br>
<br>
Why does the industry not treat the
downmarket well? Outside of developer passion, the answer
comes down to money. The upmarket games are far more
profitable. It is a sure thing that the upmarket will buy
the next first person shooter or epic RPG. And since the
upmarket games take the most time and are costly, publishers
will only put their first string teams on those games. The
downmarket, that the industry thinks are its worst
customers, sees these games as less profitable and cheaper
to make. In their mind, it is perfectly logical to assign
their fourth string teams to do these games as if they mess
up, little harm is done.<br>
<br>
Nintendo considered the downmarket to
be the most important and put their first string teams to
make games such as <i>Wii Sports</i>. The result is an
explosion of sales with these low tier Nintendo titles. The
industry looks at this and, idiotically, says, “Oh! A casual
gamer boom! Quick! Let us all start making casual games to
ride this wave!”<br>
<br>
The problems with this worldview are:<br>
<br>
1) The lower tier market has always been around. It was just
overshot and abandoned as generations passed on. The high
growth of online flash games showed this market was always
alive and well.<br>
<br>
2) The industry still is putting their fourth string teams
to work on these games. When they make a Wii game, they make
it for ‘casuals’ which means they attempt to make the game
playable for retards (in their minds). They dumb everything
down, put cutesy generic art and music in, and ultimately
make a flash game on steroids. Dull! Dull! Dull!<br>
<br>
Don’t take it from me. Miyamoto has
told them personally:<blockquote cite="http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25522312&amp;union_id=8913">
<font face="Arial">"If there's only one piece of advice
that I could give to the managers of third party companies,
it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're
putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are
being developed by their third-string team or their
fourth-string team. Maybe that's because they see those
products as being unique projects or somewhat smaller-scale
projects. But when Nintendo puts out a title that is
designed to really support and sell its hardware, that title
is always developed by one of our number one teams. And so I
think that when it comes to the question of trying to
compete with our software, I would really like to see the
parties try to do that with their number one teams rather
than with the third- or fourth-string teams. [Laughs.]"<br>
<br>
-Shigeru Miyamoto, SOURCE:
<a style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25522312&amp;union_id=8913">
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25522312&amp;union_id=8913</a></font></blockquote><br>
<b>The ‘Flight’ is in the Developmental Process</b><br>
<br>
As someone studying Nintendo recently, I have noticed how
the games Nintendo produces are of a very different vein
than third parties. Third party games tend to be more hit
and miss while Nintendo games almost assuredly have some
sort of quality there which makes their games easy buys (and
builds up tremendous customer loyalty). Some companies are
able to replicate this same effect such as Blizzard. Also,
interesting, the Nintendo/Blizzard games tend to hit both
upmarket and downmarket users. What are they doing
differently?<br>
<br>
”People buy Nintendo and Blizzard games because of their
franchise worlds.” But other third party games have as rich
of a franchise world. “Nintendo and Blizzard have the money
to delay their games and perfect them. Most third parties do
not have that luxury.” While this is true, it raises the
question as to how Nintendo and Blizzard got to where they
are. They started small like everyone else and, at a time,
also didn’t have the money.<br>
<br>
I have found a major clue to the ‘flight’ is in the
developmental process.<br>
&nbsp;<p></p>
<p>
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/developmentmodels.png" border="0" height="382" width="376"></p>
<p>
Most third parties have the development cycle of the
waterfall pictured above. Production is King to them. They
focus on utilizing their assets in the most effective
manner. Western companies are under more pressure to deliver
quarterly results which often results in more rushed games.
This approach is not ‘wrong’ as effective production does
lower cost and create profit. This also explains the parade
of sequels and ‘samey’ type games.<br>
<br>
Nintendo and companies like Blizzard use the Spiral where
customer satisfaction is King. This leads to delays in
production, projects pulled entirely, and constant testing.
The result is a product that creates passionate users.<br>
<br>
The third one, the question mark, is where the User is King.
Many companies know their current ‘waterfall’ production
based method has a future of rising costs and declining
passion so they are turning to the Internet to make the User
as King. These include episodic gaming as well as
downloadable content. Will Wright is moving in this
direction. The idea is that development cycles begin moving
extremely fast as now the user is directly or indirectly
involved. Companies are confusing the User as King to mean
Customer Satisfaction is King.<br>
<br>
”But Malstrom, what is the difference?”<br>
<br>
The market did not need <i>Super Mario Brothers</i> until
Miyamoto created it. Then, the market could not live without
it.<br>
<br>
Blizzard studied MMORPGs like <i>Everquest</i> and realized
there were too many barriers in the game that kept many
people from ‘kicking ass’. “How do we fix this?” the
Blizzard developers asked. The market did not need <i>World
of Warcraft</i> until Blizzard created it. Then, the market
could not live without it.<br>
<br>
When Will Wright made <i>The Sims</i>, he did not focus on
the ‘waterfall’ effective production method. The market did
not need <i>The Sims</i> until Wright created it. Then, the
market could not live without it.<br>
<br>
When Capcom (back in the good old days where small
development teams could harness their passions) made <i>Mega
Man II</i>, the market did not need it (<i>Mega Man</i> did
not sell well). But once it was made, the market could not
live without it.<br>
<br>
The difference between Customer Satisfaction and letting the
User in control is the matter of surprise which is critical
in entertainment. It is ridiculous to ask your customers
what surprises them.<br>
<br>
High definition games are just pushing development more in
the ‘waterfall’ model more due to the rising cost of art
assets. With more emphasis on the production model, this
will create less interesting games (and explains why the
Industry got into a rut as development costs went up over
the generations).<br>
<br>
It should also be noted that analysts tend to gauge the
market based on production methods. You never will read
Pachter talking about customer satisfaction but about the
production model in the software or hardware company. He
will talk about lowering component costs but not the
behavior of the customers themselves. <b>Until Third Parties
re-tool their development process away from the production
based ‘waterfall method’, they will never equal the success
or the passionate customers created by Nintendo, Blizzard,
and others.</b><br>
<br>
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/imperfectionscurve.jpg" border="0" height="299" width="448"><br>
<br>
Why are independent games suddenly becoming more appealing
than big budget games? Why do retro games hold appeal while
their huge budget ‘re-imaginings’ become flops? Why is
pixilated <i>Super Mario Brothers </i>revered while slick
and voiced modern Mario merely tolerated?<br>
<br>
There are diminishing returns with production values. For
some reason in entertainment, if the production values are
too high, the customers react unfavorably. This phenomenon
can be seen in movies and music as well. I personally
believe that if the customer senses too much production
value, he or she will sense the product attempting to be
more style over substance. The customer will then feel
‘cheated’.<br>
<br>
<i>Wii Sports </i>is an interesting case example. When the
game was previewed, gamers said, “OMG! They have no legs!
What is with these low poly-models?” Yet, undeniably, that
leads to part of the product’s charm.<br>
<br>
While the so-called ‘casual games’ were overshot, it should
be understood that production values are turning gaming more
and more into style over substance. Even the hardcore gamers
prefer the ‘good old days’ of <i>Tetris</i> over
substance-less games with bloated production values. In
order for companies to focus on the ‘flight’ as opposed to
the ‘feathers’, they will need to examine to see if their
production values are overshooting the market.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Advertisers, Not Consumers, Want Casual Games</b><br>
<br>
”But Malstrom! But Malstrom!” you say. “Reports are coming
out (like this:
<a style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=9400&amp;Itemid=2">
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=9400&amp;Itemid=2</a>)
which say Casual Games are booming! How can the Industry
ignore such a trend?<br>
<br>
The answer is that the Industry has ignored these simple
online games for quite a long time.<br>
<br>
”I do not believe you! You just make up stuff to support
your arguments.”<br>
<br>
You want proof? Then you shall have it:</p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:18.0pt">2006</span></b></p><blockquote cite="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/jul05/07-19CasualGaming.mspx">
<p><font face="Arial">”While sales of boxed PC games at retail are on a steep
decline -- 38 million games sold in the United States for
2005 compared with 47 million games sold in 2004, according
to retail marking consultant the NPD Group -- <b>casual
games are now enjoyed by an estimated 100 million PC users</b>,
according to comScore Media Metrix.”<br>
<br>
-CNN.com. SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/02/28/casual.games/</font></p>
</blockquote>A couple of years ago, even CNN was doing stories of the
rise of so-called casual games. What were our Industry
managers saying at this time? Oh yeah. They were saying that
Wii was a joke and the future was with high definition
graphics and top box media functions. It is amazing how the
Industry ‘discovers’ casual games only when the Wii succeeds
despite signs of popularity of low tier games everywhere at
this time period.<br>
<br>
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt">2005</span></b><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/jul05/07-19CasualGaming.mspx">
<font face="Arial">”’Casual’ games have been getting some serious attention
lately. Just last week, the International Game Developers
Association (IGDA) – a large independent, non-profit
organization for game software developers – announced the
formation of the Casual Games Special Interest Group in
response to new opportunities in the casual gaming sector.
Over the next few weeks, the Game Initiative – a leading
producer of game industry events – will be hosting two
separate conferences focusing on the casual games market. <b>
Microsoft’s Casual Games group will be a major sponsor of
both conferences.</b>”<br>
<br>
-<b>Microsoft Press Release.</b> SOURCE:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/jul05/07-19CasualGaming.mspx</font></blockquote>Microsoft was singing the praises of ‘casual games’ back in
2005, sponsored conferences on the subject, and considered
it to be the reason for new spectacular growth for them.
Today, in 2008, Microsoft says that it was taken by surprise
by the ‘casual boom’ with Wii’s success, but we know this is
categorically a lie. Microsoft always knew about the ‘boom’
of ‘casual games’.<br>
<br>
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt">2004</span></b><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/gaming.html">
<font face="Arial">”Lyon and Richards are among the millions - mostly women
35 to 54 - who play casual games online. It's a gray market
that earns companies $450 million annually, largely through
advertising (less than 2 percent of players actually pay to
subscribe). That number will triple by 2007, according to
tech research firm IDC. And talk about sticky: Pogo's
players spend about 24.8 million hours on the site each
month, says Nielsen/NetRatings. ‘Checkers is a big pickup
scene,’ says Frentzel. ‘And there's one guy who's written in
thousands of times requesting that we update our statistics
for hearts.’ </font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial">“<b>‘Casual games are tapping into a Middle American
audience like few services on the Web do,’ </b>says Erick
Hachenburg, senior vice president of global publishing for
EA. His company is locked in a bitter fight with Microsoft
and Yahoo! to serve this market. All three are expanding
their design teams, courting third-party developers, and
releasing hundreds of titles. But they all know there's only
one surefire way to win. As Pogo game producer Todd
Kerpelman puts it, ‘Make the next
<cite style="font-style: normal">
Tetris</cite>.’”<br>
<br>
-</font><span class="pgtoolsl"><font face="Arial">David Kushner, “The Wrinkled Future
of Online Games”. SOURCE:
<a style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/gaming.html">
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/gaming.html</a></font></span></p></blockquote>
<span class="pgtoolsl">The use of games as a
pick-up scene might be the catalyst of Nolan Bushnell
deciding to make uWink. Anyway, even back in 2004, <i>four
years ago</i>, there was much talk about the casual gaming
boom.<br>
<br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:18.0pt">2003</span></b><span class="pgtoolsl"><i><br>
</i></span><br><blockquote cite="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:USDvLnFA4tkJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9501E7DA163AF935A15755C0A9659C8B63&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a">
<font face="Arial">”At Yahoo Games, the leading online game site,
Nielsen/NetRatings reports more than 8.5 million visitors
each month. Daniel Hart, the site's general manager, said
that its visitors spend more than 5.5 billion minutes a
month playing its casual games -- an average of more than 20
minutes a day per user. <br>
<br>
“‘Casual gamers represent a substantial part of the overall
game audience if you include every possible game outlet and
genre,’ said Jay Horowitz, an analyst with Jupiter Research
who follows the video game industry. <b>‘In terms of
audience, 70 percent of the online community play casual
games.’<br>
</b><br>
”<b>But he and other video game experts say the surge in
casual gaming is about much more. Rising costs and
production times for sophisticated games for hard-core
players have helped give companies like Gameloft,
WildTangent and Hexacto incentives to produce more and
better casual games.</b> So have improved wireless services
and handsets, advanced gaming software formats, and firmer
pricing structures for the sale and delivery of games
online. And as those already drawn to games grow older and
have busier lives, they are looking for less time-consuming
diversions.”</font><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial">-Michel Marriott, “The
Un-Doom
Boom”, Published: June 26, 2003. SOURCE:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:USDvLnFA4tkJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9501E7DA163AF935A15755C0A9659C8B63&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a</font></p></blockquote><p></p>
<p><br>
Near the beginning of last generation, stories (such as
the above New York Times article) were coming out about the
boom in casual gaming. With more than five years to see the
trend of increased desire in lower tier games, how could so
many game industry managers miss the boat?<br>
<br>
<font size="2">Malstrom</font><font size="2"> motions you to come
closer. “Shh…” Malstrom whispers.</font><font size="1"> “The real reason why so
many in the Industry have rallied about casual gaming since
the domination of the Wii is to escape blame for piss poor
decision making. They talk of casual gaming like it was a
‘new trend’ despite it always existing and its increase on
PCs were generating newspaper articles half a decade ago. By
describing ‘casual gaming’ as an unforeseen explosion, they
save their necks from investors who would have rightly
penalized them for making bad business decisions. Pre-Wii,
Nintendo talked about appealing to non-gamers and former
gamers. Casual gamers are neither of those two.”</font><i><br>
<br>
</i>The truth is that regular PC games and console games
have begun overshooting the market for quite some time now.
What is described as a ‘casual game’ used to be the ‘bread
and butter’ of the Game Industry not too many years ago.<br>
<br>
The big problem with current research methods is that they
are polling active gamers. What about the non-active ones?
And are the more hardcore game genres in true decline or are
the games overshooting the market and generating more and
more former gamers? (It should be noted that Nintendo
focused their market research on non-active gamers including
non-gamers and former gamers. Nintendo never aimed at
capturing ‘casual gamers’ in the same context that birdmen
speak today.)<br>
<br>
The most important thing to keep in mind with ‘casual
gaming’ on PCs is that revenue is generally made from
advertisements. Currently, there is an advertisement crisis
as less and less people watch television or read newspapers.
Consumers now have greater control on being able to edit out
advertisements. Advertising agencies are desperate to reach
people. It is no surprise that advertisers are rushing over
one another to get to these ‘casual games’.<br>
<br>
The problem is that advertisers will want these games more
than the consumers will. “But look at the growth, Malstrom!”
Trends are double edged. It is good to be in front of them
but bad when one is on the wrong side. Low tier game growth
will not go on forever especially with everyone treating it
like a new gold rush. Soon, advertisers will be pushing
these games more than consumers demand.<br>
<br>
While Nintendo accurately interpreted the growth in low tier
gaming on PCs to mean the traditional market was overshot,
this ‘Blue Ocean’ would allow Nintendo to perform the
nastiest business move conceived. It will be Microsoft and
Sony’s worst nightmare.<br>
<br>
<b>Difference Between World-Views</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nintendo’s worldview is simple: aim at
making hits on the downmarket to make the Wii platform
dominate the lower tiers. Then slowly move upmarket.<br>
<br>
The rest of the industry has a
completely different worldview: view the ‘explosion’ in
downmarket games as a unique phenomenon (in this case, the
fictional “Casual Games Phenomenon”), and then assign many
teams to make these ‘casual games’. Instead of trying to
understand Nintendo’s flight, they are putting on wings and
trying to flap. Wii gamers become frustrated while
Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 gamers laugh and say, “If you
want to play REAL games, buy a real <i>gaming</i> console!
Hah! Hah!”<br>
<br>
Go back in time and look at the DS
which was hated by the industry (who analysts referred to it
as Nintendo doing another Virtual Boy). The industry did not
understand the platform and just dumped many PSP ports or
mini-game collections on it. While this was going on,
Nintendo focused on the downmarket with games such as <i>
Brain Age</i> and <i>Nintendogs</i> as well as a few tiers
above that with <i>New Super Mario Brothers.</i> After a
year on the market, <i>Super Mario Kart DS</i> and <i>Animal
Crossing DS</i> came out. As you know, games like <i>Brain
Age </i>and <i>Nintendogs </i>became huge hits which
attracted new gamers. And these new gamers then swam
upmarket to turn <i>Mario Kart DS, New Super Mario Brothers,
</i>and <i>Animal Crossing DS</i> into huge hits (than they
would have been without those lower tier games). The
installed base for the DS surged which attracted more third
party support but mostly meant support for upper market
games such as <i>Dragon Quest IX </i>and the Final Fantasy
and Dragon Quest remakes. As the DS swam upstream, the
uppermarket games that were coming on the PSP began to be
stolen by the DS.<br>
<br>
The Wii is advancing in the same way.
Nintendo focused on the downmarket with games such as <i>Wii
Sports, Wii Play, </i>and <i>Wii Fit</i> which all became
hits. Third parties become confused and made mini-game
compilations. After a year, slightly higher tier Nintendo
games come out such as <i>Mario Kart Wii </i>and <i>Super
Smash Brothers Brawl </i>and <i>Super Mario Galaxy</i>.
These games will become bigger hits because of the success
of lower tier games such as <i>Wii Sports</i> sending new
consumers upstream. Just as the DS has become the darling of
hardcore gamers, so too will the Wii as the system moves
upstream.<br>
<br>
The birdmen eventually understood the
DS. They realized it wasn’t about making retarded games
(what they nicely label ‘casual games’) but hitting
different tiers. They could make a simple RPG or a puzzle
game to satisfy those customers on that tier. They realized
casual gaming does not necessarily mean passion-less gaming.<br>
<br>
While the journalists and analysts
parrot one another with “casual gaming” speeches and
rhetoric, keep in mind Nintendo’s plan. The strategy is to
start with the Blue Ocean, seize and dominate the lower tier
(which the industry doesn’t really care for anyway), and
then <i>slowly move upstream</i>.<br>
<br>
What happens when Nintendo moves
upstream? Competitors have two choices:<br>
<br>
1) <b>Flee.</b> Many companies will
gladly ‘cede’ this new market. After all, this new market is
not very profitable to the competitor and, besides, the
competitor clearly is getting tons of money through the
upmarket. While this choice works for the short term, the
problem is that the encroaching company will swim upstream
and begin to take customers away. Fleeing to the upmarket
means ceding more and more of the market to the newcomer.
Eventually, the competitor will have nowhere else to flee
and will go out of business or be reduced to a niche.<br>
<br>
2) <b>Fight.</b> Some companies realize that fleeing will
ensure their demise so they stay and fight the newcomer for
that market. However, the newcomer is patient for growth but
impatient for profit. The competitor will likely be unable
to defend that tier due to the newcomer gaining more profit.
The battle becomes attrition until angry investors let the
company’s managers know they do not enjoy them wasting so
much money fighting over a market that has little profit in
it. The investors will say the upmarket has plenty of profit
to satisfy the company’s needs for growth. So, eventually,
the competitor will decide to flee upmarket.<br>
<br>
Imagine Nintendo using <i>The Blue
Ocean Strategy </i>to gain a foothold in the market, attract
new gamers, former gamers, and dominate on the downmarket.
Once successful there, Nintendo slowly moves upstream with
superior business models which prove more profitable than
the competitors (that attracts more and more third parties).
As Nintendo moves upstream into the upper markets, Sony and
Microsoft either fight or end up retreating upstream. Since
Nintendo has a more profitable business model, they will win
any fight over a tier with Microsoft and Sony. As Sony and
Microsoft retreat upmarket, Nintendo follows. Eventually,
Sony and Microsoft either become niches or leave the gaming
market entirely.<br>
<br>
“NOOOOO!!!!” a hardcore gamer screams
in sudden realization.<br>
<br>
You see it, don’t you? You now are
suddenly seeing the Big Picture. Now, when you hear Sony
says that they think <i>Final Fantasy XIII </i>or <i>Metal
Gear Solid 4</i> to ‘save them’, you realize they are
relying on the upmarket. Just now, Nintendo announced paid
online services and even download content. “What does this
mean?” asks a reader. It is a sign that Nintendo is moving
upstream into the upmarket, into the more hardcore areas.<br>
<br>
The tsunamis were just the beginning. <i>Malstrom puffs on
his cigar while standing in knee-deep water. He points to
you. </i>Remember this room? Here are the statues of all of
gaming’s heroes. <i>Malstrom held up out his palm, and you
see a drop of water fall into it. You look up to see the
roof leaking.</i> “The water is rising!” you shout.<br>
<br>
Yes. The Old Era will soon be gone. Enjoy its last gasp. We
are in the midst of a huge shift where little will be as it
once was.<br>
<br>
But my hope is that people will stop
being birdmen. Instead of looking at Nintendo’s games, their
marketing, or their online and say, “Oh? That is for casual
gamers! This means they are going for people who don’t
normally play games! LOL! I AM SO INSIGHTFUL!!!” they will
instead look at Nintendo starting at the bottom of the tiers
and moving their way up.<br>
<br>
A thoughtful reader asks, “Malstrom,
this is an interesting and, indeed, ingenious strategy
Nintendo is using of creating a very profitable business
model, aiming to dominate the lower tiers, and then move up.
The competitors cannot compete because they will not be as
profitable so they will lose the attrition wars and can only
retreat upmarket. What is the name of this strategy?”<br>
<br>
It is called <i>Disruption</i>.<br>
<br>
I could find only one voice that
appeared to see the disruption for what is was. Unlike
others, who in hindsight described the Wii-mote as the
‘Nintendo disruption’, he recognized it in the software as
far back when the DS hit its stride:<i><br>
</i></p><blockquote cite="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17739">
<font face="Arial">“Ultimately, what is happening is an
entirely unexpected and unlooked-for resurgence in the
concept of the games console as a vector for "edutainment"
and reference software - and one which could shape much of
the future of our industry. Just as disruptive technology is
set to prove vital to the coming console generation, <b>so
too will this disruptive trend in software be key -</b> and
<b>the ability</b> of publishers and platform-holders <b>to
embrace</b> this trend could help <b>to decide the winners
and losers of the coming years.</b>”<br>
<br>
-Rob Fahey, 06-2006 Commentary, Source:
<a style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17739">
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17739</a></font></blockquote>The console market revolves around
software, not hardware. While it is understandable to see
the Wii-mote or the touchscreen as the disruption, we should
remember that both are nothing but pieces of plastic until
software comes into play. People only buy hardware to get to
the software.<br>
<br>
Casual game phenomenon? No. It is a
disruptive game phenomenon. Despite all the talk about
‘casual games’, do you ever hear Nintendo (whose games are
creating the big so-called ‘casual’ boom) join the ‘casual
games are the future’ chorus? Of course not! It is because
they are following the path of disruption, not the path of
casual games (whatever that means). If there is a fad, it is
the Industry’s sudden romance with ‘casual games’ for they
see them as easy money (which they will soon discover that
there is no easy money in this business).<i><br>
<br></i><blockquote cite="http://ds.ign.com/articles/664/664482p2.html">
<font face="Arial">”Mr. Iwata has been focusing on these key thoughts truly
for about the last three years. These are excerpts from a
variety of these speeches whether it’s at Tokyo game show,
GDC, even our own E3 events. They are all <b>focused on
creating disruptive technologies</b>, approaching the market
in a different way offering new news and innovation to the
consumer. <b>We can't simply expand the market.</b> If
that's all we try to do, slowly this industry will die. <b>
It is our responsibility to make games for all skill levels.
Technology can't advance the business.</b>”<br>
<br>
-Reggie Fils-Aime, November 4, 2005 SOURCE:
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://ds.ign.com/articles/664/664482p2.html">http://ds.ign.com/articles/664/664482p2.html</a></font></blockquote>Not only does Reggie say that Iwata and
he are focused on the disruption strategy, he even says that
Nintendo’s aim is not to simply expand the market. Yet,
despite this clear statement, the conventional wisdom is
that Nintendo’s success is due to only to ‘expansion’ and
‘aiming at the casual gamers’. All skill levels mean all
tiers, not just the ‘casual’ ones at the bottom.<br>
<br>
I admit I find myself in astonishment.
This is the process I am seeing:<b><br>
<br>
Nintendo:</b> “We are following the
strategy of disruption!”<b><br>
NPD: </b>“Nintendo wins!”<b><br>
Journalist:</b> “How are you
winning, Nintendo?”<br>
<b>Nintendo:</b> “We are following the strategy of
disruption!”<br>
<b>Journalist:</b> (ignores Nintendo) “What is going on
here, analysts and third parties?”<br>
<b>Analyst:</b> “It is a casual gamer boom!”<br>
<b>Third Parties:</b> “OMG! Easy money! Quick guys, everyone
start making casual games!”<br>
<b>Nintendo:</b> “We are following the strategy of
disruption!”<br>
<b>Journalist:</b> (philosophically) “Will casual games
cause the downfall of the hardcore games? Let me write many
editorials about this!”<b><br>
Analyst:</b> (philosophically) “Is
the casual game boom a fad? Let us pontificate over this.”<br>
<b>Third Parties:</b> “Hey guys! How you like my casual
games? They sure are snazzy! I will make millions! I am such
the business whiz!”<br>
<b>Nintendo: </b>“We are following the strategy of
disruption!”<br>
<b>Journalist: </b>(scratches head) “You hear something?”<br>
<b>Analyst: </b>“It was just Nintendo speaking. They are
saying the same thing.”<br>
<b>Journalist:</b> “Yeah! Haha! Same old marketing speak. I
am so much smarter about business than Nintendo. In my next
interview with Iwata, I’ll give him some business lessons.”<br>
<b>Third Parties:</b> (cries) “Oh no! My casual games are
not selling!”<br>
<b>Journalist: </b>“Obviously, this is because people buy
Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games.”<br>
<b>Analyst: </b>“Nintendo needs to assist these third
parties in getting their casual games to sell.”<b><br>
Third Parties:</b> “That’s right!
They need to do what WE want them to!”<b><br>
Nintendo: </b>“We are following the
strategy of disruption!”<br>
<b>Journalist:</b> (yawns) “Is that all they say? (becomes
excited) Ohhh! Look! A new hardcore game is being made with
fresh textures.” (runs off)<br>
<b>Analyst: </b>“Obviously, Sony and Microsoft are branching
with casual games themselves. Poor Nintendo. Too bad they
are out of tricks. I expect Playstation 3 to be surpassing
them in a year or two. The market revolves around technology
you know.”<br>
<b>Third Parties:</b> “My casual games aren’t selling? Why!?
I do not understand!”<br>
<br>
Is it not amazing how everyone talks
about the casual gamer boom except Nintendo? Instead,
Nintendo keeps talking disruption while everyone either
ignores these quotes or misinterpret ‘disruption’ to mean
‘change’ or ‘innovation’.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://wii.ign.com/articles/698/698588p4.html">
<p>”Our adventure is still ahead of us. Nintendo is
committed to creating an environment where <b>all of your
work can prosper</b>. I began today saying that <b>
disruption is not just a strategy for Nintendo.</b>”<br>
<br>
-Satoru Iwata, GDC 2006 “Disrupting Development”. SOURCE:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/698/698588p4.html</p>
</blockquote>What is Iwata saying here? He is asking for game developers
to focus on making disruptive games, not casual games. ‘All
work’ means even the higher tiers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>The Low Tier Train has Already Passed<br>
</b><br>
”But Malstrom!” you say. “If the lowest tier was passed
over, then isn’t it good that all these companies are aiming
at it? This abandoned tier is now priority number one.”<br>
<br>
Fool! It is a gold rush. There is a
saying: there is not much gold when everyone fishes from the
same stream. There is also a saying that when a business
opportunity hits the newspapers, it is way too late for
investment.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191679/">
<font face="Arial">“<b>You can only sell so many
products to the same customer.</b> The games industry has
done a good job growing the core customer, but when you
start looking at the casual landscape … you’re really
looking at everybody.”<br>
<br>
-Chip Lange, general manager of EA Hasbro Studio. SOURCE:
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191679/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191679/</a></font></blockquote>If Mr. Lange would put his words to
their natural conclusion, he would realize that he is doing
what he condemns. The low tier customers cannot absorb tons
of products. No tier can.<br>
<i><br>
</i>
<blockquote cite="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191679/">
<font face="Arial">“Everyone is mimicking everybody
else.”<br>
<br>
-Michael Pachter. SOURCE:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191679/</font></blockquote>Go! Go! Captain Obvious!<br>
<br>
Even Sega has pointed out the worrying trend:<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/sega-pigeonholing-wii-only-for-casual-is-a-mistake/?biz=">
<font face="Arial">”But I do also believe that a lot of <b>Western
publishers</b> are only looking at the Wii for casual and
family gaming, and <b>I think that's a mistake</b> – I think
there's a lot more opportunity there on the Wii. The Wii
isn't just about Wii Tennis and Mario &amp; Sonic; it's about so
much more."<br>
<br>
-Simon Jeffrey, President of Sega of America. SOURCE:
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/sega-pigeonholing-wii-only-for-casual-is-a-mistake/?biz=">http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/sega-pigeonholing-wii-only-for-casual-is-a-mistake/?biz=</a></font></blockquote>“But Malstrom! If this is the wrong
path for publishers, what should they be doing?”<br>
<br>
Friend, realize that Nintendo did not
make a Nintendogs 2. While they did make a Brain Age 2 and
Brain Age Academy, the brain games have stopped. There is no
Wii Sports 2 or Wii Play 2. Outside of novel approaches,
such as Wii Music and Wii Fit, what else is Nintendo making
in the Tier 1?<br>
<br>
”That is all we know….”<br>
<br>
Nintendo is already busy putting out
Tier 2 and Tier 3 titles. The Wii Zapper and Wii Wheel are
the ‘bridges’ to move Tier 1 gamers upstream.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=723">
<font face="Arial">”Reggie feels Mario Kart Wii is a ‘bridge game.’”<br>
<br>
-Matt Cassamassina in an IGN podcast. SOURCE:
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=723">http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=723</a></font></blockquote>I’m surprised that people miss a big clue being the
wheel that comes with it. “No, Malstrom! Wheels come with
games all the time!” Silence! I have had enough of you.<br>
<br>
The solution is for these publishers to create bridge games
and aim more at Tier 2 and Tier 3 titles rather than have
all of them aim at Tier 1. This strategy… no idiocy, of them
all aiming at the same person is going to backfire. I
haven’t seen this stupidity in this industry since… well…
since them all making PS3/Xbox 360 HD games because “Top Box
systems are the next wave, Malstrom! LOL!”<br>
<br>
Some developers do understand the bigger picture event
though they aren’t familiar with the disruption label.<br>
<br><blockquote cite="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33596">
<font face="Arial">”The way I look at casual games...I think a lot of people
view it as a threat…<br>
<br>
”I think, what it is, it's a nice gateway drug. It makes
people understand the principles of gaming.<br>
<br>
”Let's not kid ourselves. When I grew up playing on Atari -
those are the casual games of today. Pac-Man is a casual
game, Centipede...All those things would be considered
casual games now. Tetris is a casual game. There was no
concept of a casual game back then...<br>
<br>
”I think it is a nice gateway drug. I think it is going to
strictly expand the market, which doesn't scare me very
much.</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial">“I think what BioShock did was, we said if we're going
to have a complex game we have to invite the gamer to
explore that complexity rather than just throwing it in
their face and saying ‘Deal with it.’<br>
<br>
”Nothing on the scale of a Wii Sports, but again, Wii
Bowling is like the ultimate gateway drug and God bless them
for figuring that out because there is no barrier of entry.
‘Hey, can you go like that?’ [swings arm] That's what you do
in bowling, that's what you do in Wii Sports.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">“It's not that [casual gaming] scares me. It excites
me.<br>
<br>
”I think there's a much better chance of people who wouldn't
normally be interested in games going in and thinking ‘I'm
interested in the history of Rome. I'll buy that strategy
game,’ whereas before they would have been overwhelmed by
the very concept of it.”<br>
<br>
-Kevin Levine, Creative Director for “Bioshock”. Interview
by GameIndustry.biz. SOURCE: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33596</font></p></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Mr. Levine, drawing on the experience
of the 80s, understands the concept of upstreaming (or as he
says ‘gateway’ drug). Even back then, ‘hardcore’ games such
as <i>Defender</i> sold which no one thought was possible
and plenty of ‘hardcore’ RPG and strategy games were
blossoming on the computers (from the upstream of arcades
and the home console gamers).<br>
<br>
What no one is pointing out that this deliberate upstreaming
process, of ‘gateway drugs’, is the big picture of
Nintendo’s strategy. The hardcore gamer, enraged that all
these “non-games” are coming out and his beloved HD consoles
are struggling, screams “This is madness!” No, it is
disruption. Nintendo is winning not because it is attacking
at the top and going on down but by attacking from the
bottom and moving up.<br>
<br>
One game journalist sniffed the truth and shuddered:<br>
</p><blockquote cite="http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/03/18/new-term-from-nintendo-bridge-games/">
<font face="Arial">“Bridge games,” reads the release, “let video game
novices and veterans play and have fun together.”<br>
<br>
“A few weeks ago, “<strong>BioShock”</strong>’s <strong>Ken
Levine</strong> called “Wii Bowling”
<a style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410045214/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33596">
<strong>“the ultimate gateway drug.”</strong><br>
</a><br>
“But is it? Bridging casual and hardcore gamers implies each
is approaching a game from opposite directions — but having
fun on a common ground. That doesn’t mean the “novice” will
ever end up crossing to the other side. “Gateway games” and
“bridge games” may not be one and the same.<br>
<br>
“Nintendo’s announced definition of a “bridge” game isn’t
necessarily Wii specific, either. Does a “bridge” game mean
another player has to be a part of the action? I had several
friends watch me play through <strong>“Resident Evil</strong>,<strong>“</strong>
simply because the game was so immersive, even to a viewer.
They never played it, but they experienced it.<br>
<br>
“So far, the gameplay of “bridge games” falls on the simpler
side. Could Nintendo make a “bridge game” out of <strong>“Pikmin”</strong>?
And how would you make a more accessible version of <strong>
“The Legend of Zelda?” </strong>without scaring off the
hardcore?<br>
<br>
“Do they need to?”<br>
<br>
Patrick Klepek, MTV gaming post. SOURCE: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/03/18/new-term-from-nintendo-bridge-games/
</font></blockquote>You can smell the fear. Klepek connects ‘bridge game’ and
‘gateway drug’ and becomes alarmed. Why, if Nintendo made
bridges for low tier users to go upward, it would destroy
the Hardcore Kingdom. Instead of facing this fear head on,
Klepek attempts to rationalize this possibility of
upstreaming away (similar to how everyone said, before
launch, Wii would just sell to Nintendo fans and have three
year lifecycle max to not deal with the fear that Wii could
reshape the market like DS did). He says ‘gateway drugs’ and
‘bridge games’ may not be the same. But what is he basing
this on? HIS OPINION.<br>
<br>
”What’s wrong with that, Malstrom? Are we not allowed to
have opinions?”<br>
<br>
What is wrong is that this is the business strategy arena,
not ‘is this game fun?’ arena the journalists tend to reside
in. Opinions don’t matter in the business strategy arena.
Strategies mean outcomes. Klepek doesn’t ask anyone at
Nintendo. He attempts to rationalize the possibility of
upstreaming away.<br>
<br>
Since hardcore love ‘immersion’ games, he attempts to pin
bridge games on people watching him play Resident Evil.
Then, he attempts to try to dismiss it further by saying
Nintendo could not possibly make a bridge game out of Pikmin
or The Legend of Zelda without scaring off the hardcore.
Unfortunately for Klepek, Nintendo did just that with Zelda:
Phantom Hourglass. The next Pikmin is practically guaranteed
to be a ‘bridge’ title as well. (I sent an email to him
asking him his thoughts on the DS simple games being the
gateway drugs to the bigger games to eventually stealing the
precious ‘hardcore’ titles like <i>Dragon Quest 9</i>. He
never replied.) <br>
<br>
As you can see from above, ‘disruption’ will not be the
conclusion in anyone in this industry for Nintendo’s
success. They will, instead, mistake correlation for
causation, see these ‘casual games’, and think all they need
to do is make ‘casual games’ for instant money.<br>
<br>
You can tell much about someone by their criticisms. The
Industry criticizing the Wii because it is a “fad” aptly
describes the Industry. That is all they do, chase one fad
after the next. Now, my birdmen, what is the fad are you
going to chase once the ‘casual games’ have run their
course? Why would someone invest in an entertainment company
that is doing exactly what everyone else is? Imitation is
suicide, and mimicry is the masking of the talent-less.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="http://www.google.com/">
<p><font face="Arial">"There's going to be a lot of dead bodies in the side of
the road in casual gaming. If you're a developer, beware the
glut, because there's a lot of content coming...We're about
to emerge from this cocoon, and there will be all different
kinds of butterflies."<br>
<br>
-PlayFirst CEO John Welch GDC 2008: "The Promise of Casual
Games."</font></p>
</blockquote>
More like moths to a flame. The fad was not in
Nintendo’s strategy but in third parties (incorrect)
interpretation of Nintendo’s strategy. Trying to escape
their hardcore labyrinth, many are donning waxy casual wings
to fly over the vast Blue Ocean. Those wings will melt and
many millions will be lost as they plunge into the deep.<br>
&nbsp;<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<img src="Birdmen%20and%20the%20Casual%20Fallacy_files/birdman.jpg" border="0" height="503" width="525"><br>
<br>
<font size="2">-Disclaimer-<br>
<br>
</font><font size="1">-The more colorful graphs were created
by Kathie Sierra, writer of The Passionate User blog, and
former game developer for Virgin, Amblin’, and MGM.<br>
<br>
-Analogy of the birdmen to put on feathers rather than study
flight was graciously taken from Professor Christensen of <i>
Innovator’s Dilemma</i> fame who uses it to describe
businesses trying to ride a disruptive wave but do not know
it is disruption.</font></p><hr>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink