Weekend Confirmed 78 - Gears of War 3, TGS '11

Hey Garnett, Jeff, Xav..here is a topic for discussion next week after the Gears lovefest...what happened to the Japanese game development industry? Garnett made several comments about how the TGS is close to shutting down and the guys from 8-4 also commented that Japanese developers are running scared and just going back to their safe sure bets for games. This is really interesting to me since I think most of us grew up on Japan's games. So what did happen to the Japan game industry? It is just a cultural thing or did Microsoft just do such a great job in their home turf? What can they possibly do?

Does anyone else feel like review embargoes are now being used to dupe consumers?

I understand the idea behind them. It helps companies assure the coverage hits at the same time but it seems like these days the dates are closer to release days and they are being used more frequently. I worry that they are now used to keep any negative points away from gamers until they have already bought them.

This bothers me because it seems like just another way to screw loyal consumers. Am I alone in this?

Xav has it right about so-called "core gamers" - it's an arbitrary label that distinguishes a flawed character trait rather than elevated relevance or importance.

Also a great big thanks to jeff for talking about the merits of the used games market. Rather than the usual press talk of oh well it's stupid to sell your games you only get like $15 for $60 games that you'll probably never play again.

Jeff, I used to agree with you about the perception of the worth of a game. Like, if this title isn't as much, then it must not be as good.

However, especially with Steam, I have been able to buy amazing games for 5,10, 15 dollars....games that I would not have bought(or been able to afford) otherwise. I don't de value the experience or the quality of the game. Yet, I do tell myself "if I don't play this game, its no big deal, I only spent 5 bucks on it".

With Gears of War, its a AAA title, everyone knows it, its an established series...they COULD do 39.99 and people would just be like "AWESOME!"

However, they'd never do it...because everyone will buy the game at any price, so maximize profits.

And like, Amazon/Steam and other retailers do sales on brand new games and it is just seen as a sale...not as a devaluing of the game.

Is anyone else really interested to see how Steel Battalion turns out? It sounds like it might be the first Kinect game that appeals to a core audience.

The motion controls are key to playing the game and not an add-on
The controls are not dumbed down or sloppy to account for the motion control
The game has a full single player campaign built around a complex game system
The controls aren't just a controller replacement (like many move games)
Most importantly it's not a collection of 10 mech mini games.

The only downside is the game does go back to the regular controller. That's not necessarily bad for the game, just in the context of it being the first core kinect game.

Also, I'd love if this game could bring back the Battletech style mech game sim game.

I like the distinction between 'core' and 'casual', but it's probably the marketer in me. Market segmentation is a huge part of the marketing process - you have to know who is interested in your product, how many of them there are, where they are, how to contact them, and how to talk to them.

So I think, on the marketing side of the gaming industry, I bet 'core' and 'casual' categories mean a lot more than they do to gamers tossing the terms around on message boards.

For gamers, I think core gamers fancy themselves the taste-makers of the industry. They're the ones that are clued in about what games are good or not, and they're the centers of influence from which their more 'casual' gaming friends pick up recommendations, or see something cool.

CoD started off as a core franchise. It was core gamers that bought CoD4, played the shit out of it, and it was through them, over time, that a larger more mainstream audience that maybe buys one game a year decided 'hey, that's cool, I want to play that too'.

Core gamers can be fans of any genre, can put as much time in any number of games as they want. It's the knowledge and the passion for the games they love that seperate them from casual gamers, who could go on living quite happily if they were banned from ever playing a videogame again.

I think Andrea made a really salient point last week when she said that as game franchises progress they become impenetrable to a general audience because of how much content there is to sift through. To take this a step further though, I think this is happening in a way with regular single player games to some degree. Looking at Assassin's Creed, the whole point of the franchise to some degree is to create this construct of "virtual reality" that allows the developers to funnel in tons of filler gameplay. So, instead of creating one strong arch and presenting it in one experience, developers create and arch, but deliver it piece meal across multiple titles. I think this design philosophy doesn't only make the medium less accessible, but it makes games as products less valuable and less gratifying to people who actually care about them. I mean would you really enjoy the latest Songs of Ice and Fire if it took you 20 hours to read each chapter?

I think the idea that Heavy Rain lost x amount in sales due to used game sales is highly inaccurate and simply an excuse for weaker-than-expected sales. I strongly believe that people buying used games are most likely NOT in the market for buying new games. You are buying used because you do not - for any number of reasons - want to pay full price for a game. If the used market did not exist, you would not convert 100% of those used purchases to full retail purchases; I suspect it'd be a small percentage of them actually paying full retail.

This same argument extends into piracy as well. Neil Gaimen's talk on book piracy is fantastic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

Now you can certainly argue that book sales are a different beast than other media, but I think the general concept is still applicable. Piracy, used sales, lending to a friend - only puts your media in front of more eyes, which will only be good for your product and brand in the long run.

Do we place developers an a pedestal that is too high? While I agree than some (Miyamoto, Infune, Levine, etc.) show more brains and creativity than the rest of the populace, for every inspired idea there seems to be a thousand brainless knock-offs. I'm not saying that developers don't deserve respect, but it does seem to me like certain members of the press (and even some gamers) often side with developers over the gamers that truly drive this industry.

While some gamer rage is asinine (the Devil May Cry 4 going to 360 frenzy) gamers often get belligerent because they want the best for a game/series they are dedicated to. I know some go way too far and approach their complains in a crappy way, but DON'T gamers have a right to say what they want from a product they are wanting to buy $60 for? Even on used sales, where gamers are often demonized, all I can see is that developers and publishers would do better to concentrate on creating products gamers don't want to trade in, instead of whining about a situation that exists in a lot more industries than gaming.

Wouldn't developers and publishers do good to try to listen to gamers more? I don't think this applies in every case, but I would always side with consumers.

@garnettisms and @cannatisms on Twitter. Do it!

Does anyone have any info regarding Battlefront 3? Was really looking forward to it and nothing ever happened :(

You don't need to go to the doctor Xav. That reaction to pricing is a common phenomenon.

Companies often price their products higher or lower depending on how they're trying to position them in the marketplace. If they feel they can leverage a 'premium' position - that is, the idea that they're charging a higher price for a better product, then they'll jack up the price from the initial plan to help establish that 'premium' mindset.

Likewise, higher-end brands are often hesitant to put their stuff on sale even as it's replaced in the marketplace by newer models, simply because they don't want consumers to associate their products with a lower, more affordable price.

For a lot of consumers, the fact that they pay full price is affirmation that they've bought a quality product.

Maybe this makes me an FPS nerd jaded of Call of Duty, but here's my reaction to Jeff Cannata's description of Red Orchestra 2:

Jeff: "...unlike any other tutorial I've ever seen... there's a lot of those where you go to the gun range, and it tells you, 'Left mouse button to shoot! C to crouch!'... but [Red Orchestra 2], you literally try out 6 or 8 weapons, and it tells you the differences between them..."
Me: "Awriite! An actual firing range where I'll be able to learn the differences between weapons before combat, instead of being forced to shamble through weapon inventory decisions on the fly, which is a modern FPS trope that I REALLY hate these days, especially with 2-weapon inventories."

Jeff: "...and it's like, 'Okay, set your range, because sometimes they're gonna be 300 yards away, or 600 yards away...' and you scroll the mousewheel, and it changes the altitude that you're aiming your gun..."
Me: "YESSS!! True windage and elevation adjustments! No more simple 'put dot on enemy head to headshot!' weapons!"

Jeff: "...and it's got a really cool mechanic in the campaign mode where if you die (which I did quite a few times), it'll put you in the body of another of your squadmates, and you get to continue from his..."
Me: "YESSS!! The logical FPS game answer to the 'GAME OVER' screen!" (did ARMA do this?)

I've been holding back on RO2 because I heard of some bugs in the final release, but I think I'll buy this one this weekend. I liked the weapon mechanics of Killing Floor, but it was trapped in a zombie co-op game, and I really wanted to see a single-player campaign with those weapon mechanics. That's essentially what RO2 is.

Will the Vita reach psp #'s hell yes!

More and more I see the future of gaming taking shape in the form of these new handheld expierence's. As the gap between what they can do and what consoles can do closes, why bother being stuck to the TV.

The WiiU and Vita are deffinetely the starting points for this, neither are the full step. Both are half steps trying to keep it viable to sell 2 platforms. The WiiU tablet can not go and play games away from the console, and the vita needs a functioning console to stream to the TV. Marry these 2 platforms and that is where the future of gaming most deffinetely is.

One of you guys was talking about an idea for PSVita and PS3 connectivity, and I think what they were getting around to was basically the same thing as AirPlay and how that works between the iPad and Apple TV. It would be sort of like a reverse remote play (or a remote play that could work either way).

Say if you own a PSVita and a PS3, and you're playing a Vita game at home, you could tell the Vita to send its video signal to the TV through the PS3, so you're basically playing a console game with the Vita as a controller, either wirelessly or through a cable of some kind. Of course just giving the Vita an HDMI out somehow would be simpler but whatever works.

Potentially Nintendo could do something similar with the 3DS and the Wii-U.

Not finished listening to the show, because when I heard the discussion of playing Skyrim on my PS3 and Vita I blacked out and I think something in me popped. This would be more than amazing.

I would say a "casual gamer" is someone who just plays games to kill time and a "core gamer" is someone who makes time to play games.

A lot of people have played Tetris or Angry Birds on their cell phone while waiting in a line or played Bejewled on their computer while bored at work. If you are doing that, yes, you are gaming, but it's like, "I'm bored. I'm stuck here. There really isn't anything else for me to do but stare at the wall. I guess I'll play this game." We are all casually gaming when we play like that and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm glad I am able to casually game when I am stuck at the DMV or waiting to be seated at a restaurant.

The core gamer is someone who chooses to spend their free time playing games. When you are in a situation where you could watch a movie or tv show, read a book, go outside, or do anything else, and you choose to invest your time into gaming, not because you are just bored and are trying to kill time, but because you are actually excited about getting into what ever game it is, that is what makes a "core gamer." I don't think what game it is really matters. If the only game you play is Peggle, but you look forward to playing it and set aside personal time to play it, I'd still probably consider you a core gamer. You are hard core playing (or hard core gaming) something that was designed with a casual audience in mind. Guys who only play Madden but they look fowrad to it every year and play the hell out of it, those guys are hard core gamers in my book.

You can call us hobbyists or enthusiasts if you don't like the title "core gamer," but I do think that is the basic difference between a casual gamer and a core gamer. I think core gamers can get a bit elitist, but you'll probably find that "Pfff...stupid casual enthsiast" attitude in any hobby. Luckily, not too many people are like that. We've all been annoyed by someone who is arrogantly into something like that at one time or another. With gaming, the elitist attitude seems to have spread out beyond arrogant hobbyist over the past few years, but I think it's just a manifestation of gamers' fear of the casual market drowning out games designed for people willing to invest time into them. Core gamers just need to realize that as long as we keep buying core games, someone will keep making them. And if a studio that makes core games goes under, it's not Angry Birds fault. The people who only game casually were not going to play that studio's game any way, regardless of if Angry Birds existed or not, so lets no take it out on them.

I don't know much about Warhammer but from what i gather Ultramarines are just a subset of Space Marines.

"What would you think if Gears of War 3 was $39.99?"

Thanks to Amazon, it was for me. :) You can't beat $20 credit for pre-ordering games. Portal 2 gave me $20 credit, rolled that to Gears 3, Gears 3 will give me $20 credit to use on Batman Arkham City, Arkham City will give me $10 for Skyrim. All with release day shipping.

You don't really need to pay $59.99 (plus tax) for new games.

In Gears of War 3's case, it ought to be $39.99 considering there is $45 in "DLC" included on the disk.

Next week, Garnett is still out, but we have two special guests for a regular show.

I purpose a question, the game I use is only an example replace the game with any other game you would like and ask the same question.

Does Super Mario bros. Sell a significant number of copies more than what it sold if it cost only a $1 rather than the $50 it cost, or is the interest in SMB a finite audience?