Four Player Co-Op 12.23.09: Censorship, Word of Mouth, and Subscriptions

Posted by Rod Oracheski on 12.23.2009

Does Take Two need to release another GTA game right away? Will games ever get a fair shake with ratings boards? Who do you trust: reviewers or friends? Will Sony bring out a 'for pay' subscription plan for PSN? Three 411 writers handle these questions and more, this week in the cryptically-named Four Player Co-Op!

---

Todd Vote has joined the game.
Joe Roche has joined the game.
Rod Oracheski has joined the game.
Player Four has contracted dysentry!

QUESTION ONE: Aliens Versus Predator was banned in Australia, though Sega is appealing the decision. [Note: the game's ban has since been overturned] Is it time gaming moved past this kind of thing? After all, when's the last time you hear about a movie or book being banned? What's it going to take for gaming to be treated the same way?

Todd Vote

To be perfectly honest with ya, I thought the fact that video games are making as much money as big time Hollywood productions would have been enough to curb the banning of video games.

My hat is off to the developers for refusing to release a sanitized version of the game. The reason games can't get a fair shake is because you are essentially the one causing all the carnage, whereas in movies you just cheer on the guy causing all the carnage. It's a severe double standard set by the media and ratings boards, and I really don't know how to fix it.

Joe Roche

Well it's my understanding that the Australian ban on Aliens Versus Predator was overturned due to the game being science fiction though the question is still warranted because things like this seem to be happening more and more frequently. The problem with Australia in particular is that their reason for banning games is simply because they don't want to add one more level on their arbitrary ratings board system. If a game doesn't fit into their MA15+ slot the game can't be sold in the country -- that's a far more oppressive system then the one we have in the US which allows a game to come out with an AO slapped on the package which essentially kills the games marketable value, but at least it comes out.

I don't hate the ratings systems, I think every medium has to abide by some ratings system -- what I hate is the banning system. If a game is too violent then create a rating that says the game can't be advertised, or shown on television, or sold in big box stores but don't forbid the game from coming out completely.

Rod Oracheski

Australia is an odd case - they'll ban a video game for being too violent, but the government itself puts THIS on television?

I don't think there's anything they can do to fight that kind of double standard. The only way things will change is when people who've grown up playing games get involved in politics and the shaping of the laws of their country. The good news is that we're almost there...

---

QUESTION TWO: Hasbro and Atari are going to be mixing it up over the D&D license. Is it a property worth fighting for these days?

Todd Vote

Obviously it is a property worth fighting for. Atari claims the franchise is profitable. In a day where studios are closing left and right, and people are losing jobs, you are damn right a profitable franchise is worth fighting for.

Joe Roche

I can't remember the last time the Dungeons & Dragons franchise meant anything. I am sure that there is still a pretty large PC audience for the Neverwinter Nights series, but outside of that I can't imagine there are many people clamoring for more D&D. What this lawsuit really brings up in my mind is just how lazy some companies are in that they're not willing to create new worlds/characters/themes and would rather fight legal battles over the opportunity to recycle a tired franchise. If you look at what BioWare did with Dragon Age: Origins you'd have to agree that the game seems a lot like a D&D game, but it's not a D&D game because BioWare took time to create new characters, dialog and situations.

Frankly I can see the benefit to having the D&D license because I am sure that it's still a fringe segment of the gaming universe (it might be larger then I anticipate) but I wish that instead of fighting for the license to rehash something that has been played out for year we had reached a point where there might be some innovation in the wizards, ogres, dungeon sect of the RPG family -- I guess I'm just an ideologue on that front.

Rod Oracheski

The D&D license opens the doors not only to an absolute treasure trove of potential source material, but also to an established an well-tweaked rule set for controlling the game. From both standpoints, I think it's still a hugely valuable license - unfortunately one that hasn't been used effectively in quite some time.

With the 'relaunch' of D&D with the new rules that are reportedly (I'll have some hands-on time with it soon enough) easier for casual players to catch on to, I wouldn't be surprised if we see the D&D brand start to become more of a recognized name once more.

---

QUESTION THREE: A recent study indicates word of mouth is more influential than review scores - agree or disagree?

Todd Vote

I agree with this 100%. Look at it this way, say you are on a limb about purchasing the latest Tekken title (strictly for arguments sake). If you are on the fence about buying, reviews have not been overtly negative, but not as strong as previous Tekken games have gotten. Are you going to listen to a reviewer who was not enamored with the game, or are you going to take the word of a longtime friend who claims the title is as good as previous efforts? Nine times out of ten, I am listening to the friend.

That is not to say that reviews aren't helpful at all, because I surely believe they are. I also believe reviews serve a better purpose for games than they do for movies, but that's a question for a different day.

Joe Roche

I tend to think that this survey points out one of the things that I've been vocal about in the past -- these "game reviews" that you see on the larger video game centric websites and in the magazines are almost completely useless. When you read these reviews (and lets face it we have all read them) you get the feeling that it was written by a puppet or a video game playing machine and not a normal human being.

When I write reviews here for 411mania.com I always try to write the review not from the POV of someone who has played hundreds of games this year - but from the POV of a regular gamer. I remember some people being a bit put off by my review of Madagascar 2 because I played the game with my wife and wrote the review from the POV of a casual gamer who has little interest in things like the Gears of War franchise. But that review was more accurate then anything else you were reading on the game because it was written through the target audiences eyes. This comes into play with friend and peer reviews being more important because word of mouth comes from people who you share a common interest with so naturally your tastes will align more closely then some guy behind a desk at a gaming magazine or website. There is also the added benefit of knowing that the review of a game you get from a friend isn't going to be tainted by that friend getting the game for frree, or paying for his apartment with money from the production company.

Rod Oracheski

I think the word of a trusted friend will always trump that of an unknown reviewer, though I don't think that necessarily means reviews are being ignored outright. Instead, I think most people do what I've always done - find those reviewers that seem to share my opinions on games. If I've agreed with what a reviewer has said on several action games in the past, then I can be fairly certain that I'll share their opinion on an action game in the future.

Friends are an easy source of information, but let's face it - they're often just plain wrong about things and generally don't share your opinions on everything unless you hang around with a bunch of spineless 'yes' men.

---

QUESTION FOUR: Take Two lost money this year, bleeding out to the tune of $138 million. What can they do to turn things around?

Todd Vote

Make another GTA game? Again, I am no expert on making games, or what the public is craving, but even after losing money, I am impressed with Take Two for stating that GTA would not be a yearly title. That is a smart move no matter how you slice it. To turn things around, the best suggestion I could make would be to take more time on creating games that people want to play. Quality over quantity.

Joe Roche

I think the answer to this one is simple -- be more conscious of time. The Grand Theft Auto franchise is still Take Two's bread and butter - but they screwed themselves by holding off on releasing the downloadable episodes until many of the initial wave of GTA players had abandoned the game. I mean for gamers (or at least for me) seeing ads for The Ballad of Gay Tony on my television right now is like seeing adds for Windwaker -- it feels like GTAIV came out two console generations ago.

I feel as if Take Two lost a lot of revenue from the GTAIV DLC by being so late in releasing both episodes and that came back to bite them a bit in 2009. However, other then that I don't think they really need to change much -- their 2010 calender looks very good with Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock 2, Mafia II, and Max Payne 3 all looking to release in 2010 and all looking like pretty solid games. When you factor in Borderlands which should get a boost after Christmas with DLC I imagine that 2010 should be a strong fiscal year for Take Two once again.

Rod Oracheski

How about releasing more games? They seem to have that well in hand, with a pretty good lineup of 2010 releases on the schedule. They could also try supporting those games with DLC in a timely fashion. The DLC for GTA IV, which we all knew was coming, was way too late to bring people back to the game - by that point they'd traded it in for the next big thing.

It doesn't help that GTA just doesn't seem like a franchise that will ever drive story-centric DLC sales. Judging by the Achievement stats available at various tracker sites, very few people ever finish a GTA game, so why would they buy additional storyline material? Maybe if the DLC was called Sick Stunts Island and featured the potential for crazy stunts not available anywhere else...

---

QUESTION FIVE: Social web-based gaming is really starting to take off, with Zynga recently raising $180 million in investment capital with relative ease. What changes are we going to see this new focus bring to 'regular' gaming?

Todd Vote

I'll say none more than what we've seen already. With certain sites offering social network updates on your gaming, I think that would be the extent of the connection between social networking and console gaming. I don't see how one is connected to the other.

Joe Roche

Anyone who is married or who has a girlfriend will probably tell you that Farmville has taken over the world. If I'm sitting around my house for more then an hour and my wife doesn't jump on facebook to check her farm I'm amazed. The problem with these types of social gaming platforms is that they had a tendency to become too big, burn themselves out and flame away.

If Zynga is this successful, then some new start up companies will jump into the fray and then Facebook and or online social medial will be inundated with these applications and icons and everything will get cluttered -- if that sounds like MySpace then you're right. The expansion of social gaming within these networks usually leads to the downfall of the networks -- hence there is seemingly a cap for social gaming on these social networks. One thing that I will say is that Zynga should be working on making farmville accessible through the Xbox Live Facebook application. If Zynga games can run on the Xbox then I think that opens up another HUGE world of potential consumers for them - though not as profitable because they can't scam you with FREE IQ tests. But seriously I feel like all of these social gaming networks have a shelf life and Zynga has almost capped their growth potential in my mind.

Rod Oracheski

I think we're already seeing some of the impact of a huge casual market out there. Games like Forza, a sim-heavy and inaccessible-to-newbies racer in the past, opened things up with the latest iteration - making it easier to just go do what you want (race awesome cars) without grinding out millions in cash. Or Bayonetta, with a mode that makes it possible for even clumsy-fingered oafs (like this guy) to pull off the crazy combos available.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a Farmville-like game appear on XBLA at some point. There's definitely a market for it, so why not?

---

BONUS QUESTION: A survey might have tipped Sony's hand regarding the future of PSN. What do you think of the options and prices shown?

Todd Vote

Man, why is it no matter how much I want Sony to right the ship and turn things around they just seem to keep going in the opposite direction? How would you expect people to pay for a service they have been getting for free for years? I understand the subscription will get the players more things, and not take away what they already have, but who wants to pay for cross game voice chat?

I know Xbox charges for their online. But it is also something that Microsoft has always done, not something they started free, and then decided to charge for. Besides, what if this has an adverse effect? What if charging for PSN makes gamers turn to the Xbox 360 which many consider to have a superior online functionality? I think this is another bad move by Sony.

Joe Roche

I can't say that I'm very surprised although I am a bit shocked that Sony might go above the price of a year long Xbox Live Gold Membership for a year-long PSN premium membership. This is the point of the show where Sony apologists pile on about how great these features would be, and how the PSN premium membership gives you SOOOOO much more then an Xbox Live Gold Account -- but the truth is that Sony is still losing money on the PS3 and they need to create revenue streams out of the console and this would be the most no-brainer idea in history. I mean it's an idea that is already WORKING for your competition.

It's nice to offer free services to gamers, hell I'd love for Xbox Live to be free but the fact that Microsoft is successfully charging people for the access to Xbox Live and online gaming while their competition was offering it free -- and they were still making a killing on the service just goes to show you that when done right - gamers will pay for a good thing. I don't mind the pricing or the options although some of the stuff seems a bit unnecessary I mean why wouldn't a demo be a better sales pitch then a free 1 hour trial of a game? If you played the first hour of a Final Fantasy game would you really run out and purchase it based on that? I understand what Sony is doing though and the only shocking thing is that it took them this long to do it.

Rod Oracheski

The pricing on some of them is ridiculous, regardless of what it offers. There's no way they're going to be able to charge as much as Xbox Live does, much less $10 more. The crossover crowd (people who own both an Xbox and PS3) is too great, and it's unlikely anyone with Xbox Live would be willing to pick up a second subscription.

It's a lot like the MMO world. It's difficult for a new game to break in against the reigning champion, World of Warcraft, because it's familiar to people. They've played it for a while, they have a friends list built up, and they have time invested in their character. In the same way, people who've had Xbox Live for a few months and made some friends aren't likely to just drop it all to go pay for a PSN service instead. On the positive side, at least they plan to leave the current features alone if they institute one of these plans.

I know Sony is desperate to find new revenue streams, but I don't think this one is going to pan out. They really should have had some sort of subscription variant in place from the start of the console's lifespan, because trying to institute one midway through is a really tough sell - doubly so when you've spent all that time crowing about how paid services are the devil.

That's it for another week of Four Three-Player Co-op. Tune in next week to see what misfortune has befallen the fourth player this time, unless I get motivated enoguh to make a new banner and we can switch to Three Player again!