[GameStop makes a zillion dollars by buying the game you paid $60 bucks for back from you for $8 and then reselling it for $40. Prove you're not gonna take it any more by... running a con? That's what my pal, film critic, Consumerist blogger and former game journo and SVGL-ally Phil Villarreal suggests you do in the following excerpt from his deadpan-sociopathic (and funny, of course) tome Secrets of a Stingy Scoundrel. SVGL does not condone, encourage or endorse criminal activities, so if you try this, don't tell me.
Experience with Internet People dictates that despite this preface, some of you are still going to read this and somehow end up thinking I wrote it because it is printed on my blog. SO LET ME YELL IN YR FACES THIS IS A BOOK EXCERPT, PHIL WROTE IT NOT ME, IT IS REPUBLISHED HERE WITH PERMISSION SO IF YOU LIKE IT GO BUY HIS BOOK AND IF YOU HATE IT GO YELL AT HIM.]
Video-game and DVD retailers stick it to you by refusing to accept opened disc packages for returns. Should you accidentally buy a copy of Pootie Tang, Kangaroo Jack, or Kung Pow! Enter the Fist and not realize the error of your ways until you’ve broken the seal, the policy leaves you with little recourse other than lugging it over to a used DVD shop, where you’ll quite possibly be put through the indignity of fingerprinting and a driver’s license check for a measly 50 cents in cash or a dollar in store credit. Sure, you could march the DVD back to the store and appeal to a manager, but ninety-nine times out of 100 you’ll only be wasting your breath. After all, it says right there on the receipt that the company doesn’t accept opened DVDs or software for returns. The manager can just tell you to read the receipt, making you look like an ass in front of everyone behind you in line.
Notice a few sentences ago, however, that I said “little recourse,” not “no recourse.” There’s a devious, deceptively obvious magic trick you can pull that will let you tiptoe around the policy and return your rancid DVD or game for the cash you so foolishly squandered, deflecting the supposedly hidebound policy back in the customer service desk’s defenses like a light saber would a laser gun blast. Employing this Force requires no browbeating, smooth talking, or voodoo sacrifices—just a little bit of moxie and a resolve to keep a straight face.
Now that I’ve backed into the juicy stuff for a couple hundred words, here are the goods: Tell the man behind your desk that your disc is “defective” and “doesn’t work,” which is the whole truth in the metaphorical sense in the case of, say, Kung Pow! because it’s a defectively conceived film and the humor just doesn’t work. Any reputable business will swap out your opened DVD for a fresh, unopened number directly off the rack.
At this point you may be shaking my book and screaming “So what? Now I’ve bought another copy of the same awful DVD. How does this help me in any way?”
Patience, my sinister-minded son. You’re only halfway home. True, you may have a copy of an awful DVD in one hand, but in your back pocket you’ll still have the receipt from the original purchase. This document combined with your new DVD equals cash. If you want to be sneaky and prudent about it, you can just come back the next day and make the return, or you can be a hard-ass and just go for it in the same transaction. There’s a decent chance you’ll have to do some arguing to get your way, but relax—so long as you retain your composure and refuse to give in, you’ll win because you’re standing not only on the moral high ground but the legally firm position. All you need to do is have the manager read the part on the receipt that likely says, “Unopened discs may be returned within seven days” and you make him look like an ass in front of everyone in line.
You’ll be an instant intergalactic hero. Once your opponent gingerly hands you the receipt that says the purchase price has been credited back to your account, feel free to shout the “ZEEEOOOW!” sound of the light saber in an act of glorious domination. The geeks in line behind you will understand where you’re coming from.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Squeaky Clean
Dear 'gamers' -- I'm surprised at you. You have been showing up here at Sexy Videogameland to swoon over Catherine trailers; you pile on my Formspring to ask me about my nerdy Metal Gear Solid theories (when you are not asking me creepy questions about my sex life and/or shoe size). If you are really cool, you've tossed a couple bucks the way of Babycastles, because you believe that the work of indie designers should have a home in New York City. To be a part of something special! For the future! For your children! Or because you want a copy of We Love Katamari autographed by Keita Takahashi, whatever.
You don't just enjoy video games; you love them and you live them. Maybe you grew up with them, like I did, as described in my current series at Thought Catalog (now up to Part Two! Part One is here.) But when I told you about how developers tell me some game publishers overuse focus testing to rationalize developing only formula-driven, risk-averse status quo video games, (thus stifling creativity and making innovation scarce) so many of you shrugged breezily and told me, "it's just a business."
It's naive and idealistic to think that games are more than simple consumer products and that there's more potential in the medium than its ability to make tons of money. So lemme be naive and idealistic -- I'm the one that has to get up in front of everyone and yak about it, so you guys can nod along or not.
So, uh... why aren't you all nodding along? Are games just consumer products to you, like soap or something? At Kotaku this month, I examine the schism between our experiential, artistic and emotional fondness for games and the biz-driven "product" identity games have carried since the 1980's when they were sold as novelties beside VCRs and music players. Check it out!
Fun 'insider info'-- while editing my column Stephen Totilo and I took bets on how long it would take someone to post a picture of Soap McTavish. Guess how long it took.
Wii remote soap in the image was found here, along with some other pictures of crazy/awesome video game soap. The new banner was a present from Matthew Carstensen, who has a pretty interesting blog.
Today's good song is the chip-ish and flipping excellent cover of Japandroids' Wet Hair done by Teen Daze. I'm posting it here rather than tucking it away in brackets because it has a game-like sound you guys might like. This looks like a fan-made video done, appropriately, to animations from the Scott Pilgrim video game.
And while I am slamming amazing things into your faces, let me remind you that you pretty much have to get the soundtrack to that game. Duh, Anamanaguchi.
Remember when I did an interview article on them circa 2k9? Think I said they 'might break through'. Think I was 'totally right'.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Maladaption
"Games help me understand serial killers better: I want to interact with people I meet, but I don't have the tools, so I shoot them."
-- Tim Schafer
[today's good song: sunday girl, 'self control' (young empires remix) ...no, i did not choose a cover of an iconic gta vice city track by coincidence!]
[today's good song: sunday girl, 'self control' (young empires remix) ...no, i did not choose a cover of an iconic gta vice city track by coincidence!]
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Catherine
If you follow me on Twitter or are the sort to read my work, you probably already heard about this. But in the event you haven't, apparently Atlus probes my brain while I'm asleep, has crawled into my head and decided to make the exact game I have been wanting all my life. It's like Murakami had a baby with Persona and yeah please let this come out here.
All Work, A Little Play
At Gamasutra we've been so busy with coverage of GDC Europe and GamesCom that I've hardly had time to eat, let alone blog! But if you're at all interested in what game designers did in Europe all last week, we've got lots of coverage for you, so check out: my interview with Mattias Myllyrinne and Avni Yerli on the Euro scene, plus our Day 1, and Day 2-3 roundups for everything you need.
I've been doing a lot of interviews and things myself, lately. I just talked to Crystal Dynamics' GM Darrell Gallagher about Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, the new co-op game for downloadable platforms (there's a full, AI-less single-player mode, too). This game is extremely rad. Studio obviously knows what it's doing in that space -- and that's not really a facile observation to make in emerging markets, even for a studio with that pedigree. For their first outing of a major IP on downloadable, I think they knocked it out of the park.
Another thing we've published lately worth noticing is that a number of the prominent indies whose games you love would like you -- well, "us", really, the critics -- to stop weighing a game on how long it is or isn't, and instead to look at it as a holistic experience. It is understandable that consumers are concerned about "value per dollar", but why is value being measured in minutes? I've gotta say, I'm very much behind their sentiments, so you should read this editorial from Klei's Jamie Cheng and the numerous essays published simultaneously from other devs linked in the piece.
Terminal Reality seems to have come out of nowhere as a powerhouse on the game engine scene. It's the Ghostbusters engine, and it's only been publicly available for licensing since then -- but they already have some 25 games in development on the Infernal Engine. VP Joe Kreiner explains to me how they quietly ramped up, and tells me they have a Kinect project in house. I think I have a good idea what it is.
Despite the Madden series being one of my #videogameblindspots, I am weirdly fascinated with the annual development of the product. Maybe this interview I did with the EP will shed some light on how deceptively complex it is.
My goodness, how could I forget -- I was here at the New York City event when Irrational showed off the new BioShock game, BioShock Infinite. I heard a lot of "why call it BioShock if there's no Rapture" muttering from the internet, but hopefully my event coverage and interview with the art director will help answer that question. And maybe it'll even make you as psyched for the game as I am!
This is just a little bit of what's been keeping my colleagues and I running lately. With so much work going on, I've gotta play a little, right? Oftentimes, a lot of the ways I have fun look a lot like work, but hey.
Here's an LA Times article I just wrote about Babycastles, the fantastic indie arcade some friends of mine are setting up in the basement of a community space where I love to hang out. It's so cool seeing an indie game scene here merging with the music scene. I wish you could all check it out for yourselves, but until then, read the piece, willya?
Finally, I am weirding out the lovely literate community at Thought Catalog with a proud chronology of my gaming history; these are some personal memories of every game console I've ever owned -- part one of four (it's a long chronology!) Pass it 'round if you are into it. I'm really fond of Thought Catalog and read it for fun, and you should check it out too.
Oh, yeah. And still lots and lots of Persona 3 Portable. In general I think P3 is a much weaker game than P4; halfway through, it tends to take major shortcuts on narrative trajectories that it previously explored in-depth; whereas getting to know your housemates and discovering Fuuka early on were fairly fleshed plotlines, later on it just seems to start throwing party members at you. I loved the way that in P4, every character had their own individual story; P3's more like "okay, I said what you wanted, S. Link level up!" I guess preference for either installment depends more on whether it's atmosphere or individuals that motivate you as a player.
[Today's Good Song: 'Murder Dull Mind', Amen Dunes']
I've been doing a lot of interviews and things myself, lately. I just talked to Crystal Dynamics' GM Darrell Gallagher about Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, the new co-op game for downloadable platforms (there's a full, AI-less single-player mode, too). This game is extremely rad. Studio obviously knows what it's doing in that space -- and that's not really a facile observation to make in emerging markets, even for a studio with that pedigree. For their first outing of a major IP on downloadable, I think they knocked it out of the park.
Another thing we've published lately worth noticing is that a number of the prominent indies whose games you love would like you -- well, "us", really, the critics -- to stop weighing a game on how long it is or isn't, and instead to look at it as a holistic experience. It is understandable that consumers are concerned about "value per dollar", but why is value being measured in minutes? I've gotta say, I'm very much behind their sentiments, so you should read this editorial from Klei's Jamie Cheng and the numerous essays published simultaneously from other devs linked in the piece.
Terminal Reality seems to have come out of nowhere as a powerhouse on the game engine scene. It's the Ghostbusters engine, and it's only been publicly available for licensing since then -- but they already have some 25 games in development on the Infernal Engine. VP Joe Kreiner explains to me how they quietly ramped up, and tells me they have a Kinect project in house. I think I have a good idea what it is.
Despite the Madden series being one of my #videogameblindspots, I am weirdly fascinated with the annual development of the product. Maybe this interview I did with the EP will shed some light on how deceptively complex it is.
My goodness, how could I forget -- I was here at the New York City event when Irrational showed off the new BioShock game, BioShock Infinite. I heard a lot of "why call it BioShock if there's no Rapture" muttering from the internet, but hopefully my event coverage and interview with the art director will help answer that question. And maybe it'll even make you as psyched for the game as I am!
This is just a little bit of what's been keeping my colleagues and I running lately. With so much work going on, I've gotta play a little, right? Oftentimes, a lot of the ways I have fun look a lot like work, but hey.
Here's an LA Times article I just wrote about Babycastles, the fantastic indie arcade some friends of mine are setting up in the basement of a community space where I love to hang out. It's so cool seeing an indie game scene here merging with the music scene. I wish you could all check it out for yourselves, but until then, read the piece, willya?
Finally, I am weirding out the lovely literate community at Thought Catalog with a proud chronology of my gaming history; these are some personal memories of every game console I've ever owned -- part one of four (it's a long chronology!) Pass it 'round if you are into it. I'm really fond of Thought Catalog and read it for fun, and you should check it out too.
Oh, yeah. And still lots and lots of Persona 3 Portable. In general I think P3 is a much weaker game than P4; halfway through, it tends to take major shortcuts on narrative trajectories that it previously explored in-depth; whereas getting to know your housemates and discovering Fuuka early on were fairly fleshed plotlines, later on it just seems to start throwing party members at you. I loved the way that in P4, every character had their own individual story; P3's more like "okay, I said what you wanted, S. Link level up!" I guess preference for either installment depends more on whether it's atmosphere or individuals that motivate you as a player.
[Today's Good Song: 'Murder Dull Mind', Amen Dunes']
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Privilege
When people who've long demanded diversity in the characters and narratives they enjoy in video games get down to discuss the issue, it always comes down to a lingering why they can't concretely answer -- why does male and white-dominated homogeny in video game protagonists persist, when so much of the audience that wants to be personified in interactive entertainment can't relate?
Even though creativity and self-expression are needed to elevate games beyond predictable "commercial product" industry, the fact remains it's a high risk, hit-driven business, where the answer to why is usually "because it sells." But doesn't the demand for diversity indicate at least some untapped market opportunity, enough to justify the risk?
What if it did? It would mean no more excuses, no more economic reasons not to do things differently. No more data with which to dismiss uncomfortable conversations on why developers won't or can't treat race and gender in games. No more marketing spreadsheets to justify taking the path of least resistance. Wouldn't it be much easier for the army of the status quo to ignore any evidence that would challenge them to do anything new?
Would it even be easier to interpret existing data in whatever fashion's needed to keep things comfortably the same?
That's apparently what happens at Activision, according to what I've been told by numerous current and former employees of the publisher's studios. I covered what these insiders had to say in an article today in Gamasutra, and their claims that the company's decisions on what goes in its games -- including the race or gender of its heroes -- are based disproportionately on focus tests that, the sources tell me, it often skews to support its "preconceived notions."
The timing of my article is unfortunate with recent revelations that CEO Bobby Kotick preferred to spend over a million dollars in legal fees to "destroy" one of his employees who accused another of sexual harassment, rather than settle with her for much less. But accusing an entire corporation of inherent bias goes a bit further than I'm aiming, here; I want to be clear on that.
I've also heard from plenty who say that it's not just Activision where this occurs, and despite the focus on a few exemplary anecdotes in my story, this is likely true. Still, the facts on how market-driven methodology -- which happens to various extents at every publisher -- make it nearly impossible to address new markets or pioneer new and representative game characters are very hard to ignore.
That there is an underlying climate of ignorance and bias wafting in the game industry, populated in significant majority on all levels by white males (to where a female or ethnic developer is still, in 2010, trotted out as worthy of special note) is just the darker undercurrent to this story. People can only create what they know. People are hostile to those unlike them. The game industry's culture and practices bear the deeply-ingrained stains of its long-term homogeny -- and as long as people have "well, we're making money," to hide behind, why would anyone want to change?
To those of you who look at internal process information like this and say, "it's just business," bear in mind that the line between business and bias is not as simply or as tidily parsed as you would like. Perhaps it is a CEO's job to relegate the entire conversation about a medium's creative and cultural future to "this is what sells."
But you're their audience. You're the consumer. You don't have to feel guilty because you buy and enjoy blockbusters like Gears of War or Call of Duty, but the party-line bottom-line talk should not be your mantle to assume. Don't tolerate "it's just a business", because as those who spoke to me for my article insisted, there exist infinite reams of data that can be applied to prove whatever point the status quo wants to prove, to justify the production of whatever it's easiest for the status quo to produce.
The issue goes beyond gender equity or even general "character diversity"; few would wish for "more female characters" just out of the arbitrary desire for political-correctness. When I asked you about it on Twitter, many of you said you don't care what race or gender your characters are as long as they're interesting.
Instead, it illuminates a larger issue about an environment of progressive creation, about developer happiness, about being a healthy, widely-relevant industry that attracts a broad range of interesting people on the production side and on the audience side. And if you need evidence we've got a long way to go, just read some of the comments on the article at Gamasutra.
This issue upsets people. It brings out their ugly side. Nobody wants to face it.
There is no business "formula" for a sure-fire blockbuster video game. Publishers have tried to prove to their investors they've discovered one, and ended up shot full of holes. Why do we continue sacrificing innovation to this straw man?
As one dev told me on Twitter: "People get really upset when they have their privilege challenged." Which means we should do it. And 'on principle' is a perfectly valid reason. 'It's a business' is not an excuse.
Even though creativity and self-expression are needed to elevate games beyond predictable "commercial product" industry, the fact remains it's a high risk, hit-driven business, where the answer to why is usually "because it sells." But doesn't the demand for diversity indicate at least some untapped market opportunity, enough to justify the risk?
What if it did? It would mean no more excuses, no more economic reasons not to do things differently. No more data with which to dismiss uncomfortable conversations on why developers won't or can't treat race and gender in games. No more marketing spreadsheets to justify taking the path of least resistance. Wouldn't it be much easier for the army of the status quo to ignore any evidence that would challenge them to do anything new?
Would it even be easier to interpret existing data in whatever fashion's needed to keep things comfortably the same?
That's apparently what happens at Activision, according to what I've been told by numerous current and former employees of the publisher's studios. I covered what these insiders had to say in an article today in Gamasutra, and their claims that the company's decisions on what goes in its games -- including the race or gender of its heroes -- are based disproportionately on focus tests that, the sources tell me, it often skews to support its "preconceived notions."
The timing of my article is unfortunate with recent revelations that CEO Bobby Kotick preferred to spend over a million dollars in legal fees to "destroy" one of his employees who accused another of sexual harassment, rather than settle with her for much less. But accusing an entire corporation of inherent bias goes a bit further than I'm aiming, here; I want to be clear on that.
I've also heard from plenty who say that it's not just Activision where this occurs, and despite the focus on a few exemplary anecdotes in my story, this is likely true. Still, the facts on how market-driven methodology -- which happens to various extents at every publisher -- make it nearly impossible to address new markets or pioneer new and representative game characters are very hard to ignore.
That there is an underlying climate of ignorance and bias wafting in the game industry, populated in significant majority on all levels by white males (to where a female or ethnic developer is still, in 2010, trotted out as worthy of special note) is just the darker undercurrent to this story. People can only create what they know. People are hostile to those unlike them. The game industry's culture and practices bear the deeply-ingrained stains of its long-term homogeny -- and as long as people have "well, we're making money," to hide behind, why would anyone want to change?
To those of you who look at internal process information like this and say, "it's just business," bear in mind that the line between business and bias is not as simply or as tidily parsed as you would like. Perhaps it is a CEO's job to relegate the entire conversation about a medium's creative and cultural future to "this is what sells."
But you're their audience. You're the consumer. You don't have to feel guilty because you buy and enjoy blockbusters like Gears of War or Call of Duty, but the party-line bottom-line talk should not be your mantle to assume. Don't tolerate "it's just a business", because as those who spoke to me for my article insisted, there exist infinite reams of data that can be applied to prove whatever point the status quo wants to prove, to justify the production of whatever it's easiest for the status quo to produce.
The issue goes beyond gender equity or even general "character diversity"; few would wish for "more female characters" just out of the arbitrary desire for political-correctness. When I asked you about it on Twitter, many of you said you don't care what race or gender your characters are as long as they're interesting.
Instead, it illuminates a larger issue about an environment of progressive creation, about developer happiness, about being a healthy, widely-relevant industry that attracts a broad range of interesting people on the production side and on the audience side. And if you need evidence we've got a long way to go, just read some of the comments on the article at Gamasutra.
This issue upsets people. It brings out their ugly side. Nobody wants to face it.
There is no business "formula" for a sure-fire blockbuster video game. Publishers have tried to prove to their investors they've discovered one, and ended up shot full of holes. Why do we continue sacrificing innovation to this straw man?
As one dev told me on Twitter: "People get really upset when they have their privilege challenged." Which means we should do it. And 'on principle' is a perfectly valid reason. 'It's a business' is not an excuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)