199: An Endemic Problem
- Thread starter Rob Zacny
- Start date
From the sound of the article, there is a lot of guessing among both publications and advertisers regarding what to do about the current situation of gaming journalism. However, there were a couple of key undertones that I detected. The first is that there is a lot of fear of the unknown on the part of the advertisers and the publications. Neither is really sure how to proceed and are so risk adverse that they have paralyzed themselves into inaction rather than experiment to try to find something, anything, that might improve the situation.
The second undertone is that it sounds like neither advertisers nor publishers are really sure what "kind" of people comprise gamers. Sure, it's easy to say that the Wii has made gamers include everyone, but this is not attempting to actually understand the new market space, in my opinion. There are still clusterings of particular preferences and interests among various sub-groups within the demographic of gamers, different age groups, different ethnicities, different common passions. Part of the task is identifying those people and what kind of games they tend to play and what other interests they tend to have that would make sense to juxtapose in a single publication along with video games. This would better guide, in my opinion, the types of products(outside of the games, themselves) that could be advertised in the publication.
Basically, one needs to know what kind of people are reading the publications and what their basic interests are, and then the publication needs to talk about those interests(more than just a focus on games). Maybe something like a general geek's magazine where you focus on games in general(video games, card games, and board games), manga and anime(a typical common interest of those into gaming), comics, and maybe throw in cars, machines, tech news, science, or other things(these are all just suggestions for example and not meant as a blue-print to solution).
There is a third voice I heard in the article, not so much an undertone as a footnote. Simply, there is still a large perception that the only people who are gamers are kids, those age 18 or younger, lacking income or social position to make significant financial decisions. Much of this perception, I think, is due to how gaming as an industry continues to present itself and how the content of gaming is still designed mostly as amusement-park thrill rides, rather than any serious commentary on the human condition, the events in our lives, and the possibilities of the future(trite, cliché dystopian visions of the future don't count; anyone and everyone keeps creating that kind of cynical, pessimistic garbage).
Gaming is not seen as a serious activity of personal growth; instead, it's seen as just a toy, and I think the fault for that lies in the kinds of games that are developed and the content of those games. Games are designed to be fun, but does fun have to necessarily exclude the ability to inform, educate, or enlighten? Part of the problem, I think, is that game development seems to fail to understand that there are multiple modes to gaining enjoyment and satisfaction from an activity; fun is only just one such mode. If gaming started taking on more modes beyond trying to have fun, gaming may be able to be taken more seriously and be seen as a more contemporary and adult activity. But, in doing this, it must do better than some of the "14-year-old playing dress-up" attempts that have been concocted so far. The very attitude, mindset, and philosophical perspective of gaming has to become more mature and sophisticated.
Going back to an earlier point about juxtaposing other interests with gaming, publications could also mold their conversation such to create relationships between gaming and the other interests presented. This could help build continuity and a unique voice to the publication and give more relevance to gaming aside from being a play-time-like activity(I would also get rid of the constant references to "addictive" gameplay and other drug allusions when talking about games; it adds a very negative "for loser junkies" connotation to the whole of gaming, and there has to be a better way to talk about something being fun).
I won't say I have the answers, myself. This is just my observation and opinion on the matter.
The second undertone is that it sounds like neither advertisers nor publishers are really sure what "kind" of people comprise gamers. Sure, it's easy to say that the Wii has made gamers include everyone, but this is not attempting to actually understand the new market space, in my opinion. There are still clusterings of particular preferences and interests among various sub-groups within the demographic of gamers, different age groups, different ethnicities, different common passions. Part of the task is identifying those people and what kind of games they tend to play and what other interests they tend to have that would make sense to juxtapose in a single publication along with video games. This would better guide, in my opinion, the types of products(outside of the games, themselves) that could be advertised in the publication.
Basically, one needs to know what kind of people are reading the publications and what their basic interests are, and then the publication needs to talk about those interests(more than just a focus on games). Maybe something like a general geek's magazine where you focus on games in general(video games, card games, and board games), manga and anime(a typical common interest of those into gaming), comics, and maybe throw in cars, machines, tech news, science, or other things(these are all just suggestions for example and not meant as a blue-print to solution).
There is a third voice I heard in the article, not so much an undertone as a footnote. Simply, there is still a large perception that the only people who are gamers are kids, those age 18 or younger, lacking income or social position to make significant financial decisions. Much of this perception, I think, is due to how gaming as an industry continues to present itself and how the content of gaming is still designed mostly as amusement-park thrill rides, rather than any serious commentary on the human condition, the events in our lives, and the possibilities of the future(trite, cliché dystopian visions of the future don't count; anyone and everyone keeps creating that kind of cynical, pessimistic garbage).
Gaming is not seen as a serious activity of personal growth; instead, it's seen as just a toy, and I think the fault for that lies in the kinds of games that are developed and the content of those games. Games are designed to be fun, but does fun have to necessarily exclude the ability to inform, educate, or enlighten? Part of the problem, I think, is that game development seems to fail to understand that there are multiple modes to gaining enjoyment and satisfaction from an activity; fun is only just one such mode. If gaming started taking on more modes beyond trying to have fun, gaming may be able to be taken more seriously and be seen as a more contemporary and adult activity. But, in doing this, it must do better than some of the "14-year-old playing dress-up" attempts that have been concocted so far. The very attitude, mindset, and philosophical perspective of gaming has to become more mature and sophisticated.
Going back to an earlier point about juxtaposing other interests with gaming, publications could also mold their conversation such to create relationships between gaming and the other interests presented. This could help build continuity and a unique voice to the publication and give more relevance to gaming aside from being a play-time-like activity(I would also get rid of the constant references to "addictive" gameplay and other drug allusions when talking about games; it adds a very negative "for loser junkies" connotation to the whole of gaming, and there has to be a better way to talk about something being fun).
I won't say I have the answers, myself. This is just my observation and opinion on the matter.
I've been playing video games since I was five and not once has an ad focused on selling "extreme"-ness ever worked on me. I think part of the problem with advertising to traditional gamers is that we're being taken for a ride we didn't ask for. Yes, I play video games. I also read books, go to movies, go hiking, enjoy an hour at the gym every day, drink craft beer, work in science, and many more things. I believe the problem with advertising through these channels is they think we're the same idiots you market Budweiser to. They believe that we're all just going head over heels for some busty blonde in skimpy clothing and while that marketing works for some, it's not getting at the whole slice of gamers (rather the most annoying childish type that drives the rest of us crazy).
The key, at least in advertising to me, is that you won't sell me on an image. I am used to developers falling short of what they promised in a game, delaying releases without end and treating me, their customer, as a criminal. Perhaps advertisers might realize this builds in a healthy quantity of skepticism. If you try to sell me on the idea that I will be happier in all ways and have a better sex life if I buy your product, I'm going to laugh at you. On the other hand, if you sell me a realistic representation of what a product does, I might take notice. Of course, this assumes you're not just shoveling crap I don't want or need in the first place (ahem, 3D television, PS Move, crappy beer, expensive cologne and anything with the name Uwe Boll attached to it).
The key, at least in advertising to me, is that you won't sell me on an image. I am used to developers falling short of what they promised in a game, delaying releases without end and treating me, their customer, as a criminal. Perhaps advertisers might realize this builds in a healthy quantity of skepticism. If you try to sell me on the idea that I will be happier in all ways and have a better sex life if I buy your product, I'm going to laugh at you. On the other hand, if you sell me a realistic representation of what a product does, I might take notice. Of course, this assumes you're not just shoveling crap I don't want or need in the first place (ahem, 3D television, PS Move, crappy beer, expensive cologne and anything with the name Uwe Boll attached to it).