Phoenix Marketing: Game Mag/Web Site Readers Like Games

Following up on this survey of IGN IGN readers comes a press release announcing Phoenix Marketing's latest study of how advertising influences game buyers. Among the interesting findings:

• ... "word of mouth" is the primary source for information about new games and gaming news. Secondary sources for advertising include television, web sites, and retail establishments. - Gaming magazines don't even rank in the top four? Ouch! Either Phoenix didn't ask about them, (unlikely, given the other findings) or game magazines really are in trouble.
• Print publications and gaming web sites were most often cited by specialty store consumers (i.e., GameStop, EB Games, etc.) as sources for advertising as opposed to consumers of other retail establishments such as Wal-Mart and Target - No mention of whether the specialty store buyers were influenced by those stores' official magazines, but it's more than likely. Also, this shows that Wal-Mart shoppers are more likely to be uninformed morons... when it comes to games, I mean.
• PS2 owners were less likely than either Game Cube or Xbox owners to cite gaming web sites and/or gaming publications as sources for advertising, leading Pluchino to believe that PS2 owners are more of a 'casual gamer.' - The assumption required for this conclusion to work is that people who read web sites and game magazines are not casual gamers. Which is probably true, but does it have to be? I'm a casual music listener but I'm still influenced by Rolling Stone. (Also, (pet peeve alert) GameCube is ONE WORD!(/petpeeve))

Quote of the Correctly Timed Moment

"So a fighter character with a +5 attack bonus might have a five-part sword attack that can be pulled off by clicking the mouse button in a correctly timed fashion." (emphasis added)
-Gamespot's Preview of Dungeons Dragons Online

IGN: Gamers Like Games

Ever wonder who your readers are? IGN obviously did. They commissioned a survey of 5,000 of their readers on their game buying habits and summarized the results in a press release yesterday.

My thoughts on some of the findings:

• IGN readers spend "$341 on console titles, $233 on PC games." Compare this to 2003 console game sales that outpaced PC game sales 4 to 1 (source). IGN readers like their PC games.
• People who read IGN, "do a great deal of research online on titles they are thinking about purchasing." Hmmm... maybe that's why they're reading IGN, huh?
• Respondents say they "advise 5 - 6 people per month, on average about computer, console or game-related purchases." So that one person reading an IGN review will actually indirectly influence six or seven purchases. The power!
• "More than 90 percent of survey respondents were male." You mean girls aren't attracted by IGN's Babes Section?
• "Twenty-five percent say they are most heavily influenced by what game writers say about titles they are considering. Review scores and word-of-mouth about the game are the next most important, followed by game demos." First off, this means that 75 percent of IGN readers don't think that what game writers say is all that important. Secondly, this confirms that IGN readers think the contents of the review are more important than the review score. Well, at least that's what they say
• "More than 50 percent of the respondents rent video games, on average about 11 games per month." That's a game every three days! That's the kind of schedule a busy game editor might have to keep, but an avergae game player? Are IGN readers training to be IGN writers without even knowing it?

Curmudgeon Gamer on Reader Reviews

The piece is titled GameSpot vs. the Public and the initial post poses a guessing game between two distribution graphs: one of Gamespot's professional reviews and the other of average user review scores for the same games. The post was later updated, revealing that the graph with the lower average and more normal distribution was done by the paid writers. What did the author take away from all this? "The GameSpot reviewers may be more reasonable on average than I would give them credit for, but given how highly the users rate games, I'm guessing that mostly-positive reviews is really what the readers want."

The problem with letting anyone review a game is that anyone can review a game, no matter what other games they've played or experience they've had. Heck, they don't even have to have played the game in question to offer up a "10.0 BEST GAME EVER" review. In a triumph of technology over logic, some outlets even allow readers to post their thoughts on a game before it comes out, leading to countless reader "reviews" written entirely in the future tense ("This game is gonna be so awesome! The graphics look sweet and I bet the gameplay will be OK")

User reviews also suffer from an extreme self-selection bias. Most readers aren't going to take the time to post their thoughts on a game unless they really love it or they really hate it (who's going to take time out of their day to say a game is just OK?). The split between good and bad reviews isn't uniform, either... people are more likely to seek out information about games they like, and thus more likely to submit a review for that game while they're there. Thus, reader reviews tend to skew higher

If reader reviews were really useful to the average reader, professional game journalists would be out of the job. Luckily, most reader reviews aren't worth the silicon they're encoded on.

New Games Journalism, Year Two

So I was developing in my head a big post about the current state of so-called New Games Journalism and the people who love it and the people who hate it and why I think each feels their respective way about it, when I surfed on over to Kieron Gillen's workblog. Kieron, you may remember, is the bloke who coined the term "New Games Journalism" a year ago today. In commemoration, he's posted a rather exhaustive analysis of the whole mess he created, which is much more relevant and interesting than anything I was attempting to compose.

Go read it. Now!

Sorry for the lack of updates of late. My computer died on me last Thursday (this is being written from my girlfriend's PC) and I used the implosion as an excuse to catch up on a few things I had to do... like sitting around doing nothing. Recently, I've been following the mainstream coverage of the stateside PSP release, which I've found pretty... varied, to say the least. Look for a summary judgment early next week.

What's Worse Than Plagiarism? Misleading Plagiarism!

Pop quiz time.

Without using any outside information, try to figure out what state this Gameshout article is talking about.

Read the whole thing. I'll wait.

Hint #1: It's not Illinois, even though the article mentions Illinois twice and mentions no other states. Incidentally, the Illinois House of Representatives, overwhelmingly passed similar legislation recently.

Hint #2: It is the same state that is covered in this Maryland Business Gazette article, whose headline and first paragraph was lifted verbatim for the GameShout article.

Give up?

Come on! Take a guess!

It's one thing to simply take writing from another source and pass it off as your own. That sort of thing doesn't surprise me much anymore, at least in the video game realm. But to take someone else's writing and essentially skew its meaning, even unintentionally, is new to me.

(This pop quiz brought to you by Google News)

25 or 6 to 4

(Should I try to do some more?)

Thanks to Ombudsman reader Dan Dormer (new motto: "doing the Ombudsman's job so he doesn't have to") for pointing me to a post on his blog about Play Magazine's changing scoring system. Over three issues, the magazine changed from a long-used letter grade system (A+, B-, etc.) to a star based system (out of four stars) finally settling on a ten point scale that the magazine's Editor-in-Chief, Dave Halverson, says makes everyone happy.

In my short history doing game reviews, I haven't run into many issues less contentious than the subject of review scores. When I started writing reviews for my college paper, The University of Maryland Diamondback, I made a point of not including any sort of summary score with my copy. I felt that these scores distract from the actual text of the review and are too discrete to differentiate between varied gameplay experiences.

This worked fine for about two years, until the paper's new section editor asked me to start adding a letter grade to each review, along with a "bottom line" synopsis (example from a review of F-Zero GX: "Sega and Nintendo collaborated on a well made game, but it's a little too hard for its own good"). At the time, I was a little miffed about this, thinking my articles should be good enough to stand on their own. Now, I realize my editor was just giving the readers what they want. A review score provides a good entry point for a reader who might not be sure if he wants to read a specific review. Sure, there will always be some readers who just skim through and read nothing but the score, but they probably aren't your target audience anyway.

Another blow-up over game scoring occured around the same time at GameCritics.com. A heated message board thread on the subject got started for some reason or other, and the opinions were wild and varied. Up to that point, GameCritics had a 10 point scale for it's reviews, with demarcations at half-point intervals (so 9.5 was allowed, 9.7 was not). Recommendations ranged from allowing all tenth-of-a-point values in scores (for more precision), allowing only whole number scores (for more separation), switching to a letter-grade system (for more understanding) and getting rid of scores altogether (for more focus on the words). Eventually people got tired of arguing and none of the proposed changes came to pass.

Personally, I don't care what rating system you use as long as the scores match well with the writing. A person who has read your reviews for a year should be able to guess the rating (within a margin of error) in a blind taste test. Changing the system as Play did can be very confusing for the reader, and should probably be done very rarely.

And a message to all you skimmers: take a few minutes and read past the final score. You might just enjoy yourself.

The Ombudsman Asks: GDC Coverage

Because of work and other business, I wasn't able to attend this year's Game Developers Conference. I did my best to follow the coverage from the comfort of my desk, but I was only able to catch the occasional TV giveaway, "blockbuster" announcement, strange-license competition and rant against the entire idnustry. With the sheer volume of coverage coming out of the coference, I wasn't nearly able to read all of it.

That's where you come in. What coverage came out of the GDC that changed the way you look at the game industry? What would you have liked to see more covered more? Is the GDC growing to be a unique showcase of its own, or just a grand prequel to E3? How about the stories themselves: What do you think of Microsoft giving HD TVs to some of its biggest fans? How balanced was the coverage of Nintendo's big announcement -- both before and after? Send me an e-mail or hit the comments link and share your thoughts on these or other GDC-related press issues.

Headline of the Moment

New-N-Improved N-Gage N-route
-Gamespot

The New Games Journalism Rules/Sucks

I have to admit, I haven't read most of the articles listed on Guardian Gamesblog's recent list of ten unmissable examples of New Games Journalism. I definitely like the concept behind the "movement" towards more experiential writing about games, but I just haven't had the required time or mindset necessary to read through ten of these things in the past few days.

That's why I'm sending out huge thanks to Ombudsman reader Dan Dormer, who pointed me to a hillarious list of reasons why news game journalism is, um, not so good. The guys behind UK Resistance (which excellently describes itself as "a WEB SITE, not a blog.) apparently aren't big fans of 15,000 word articles that they say are primarily "centred around how GREAT the writer is, how long he can write for in one go and how many books he knows about and films he's seen."

On the one hand, I feel this is a horribly basic and unfair generalization about all the pieces lumped under the wide and growing "new games journalism" heading. On the other hand, it's pretty funny, and pretty accurate in some cases. Read it and take yourself down a peg.

Game Artists Get Sold in the Marketplace

"Used to be dismissed as the domain of nerds. Nothing like money to improve a reputation. Just ask the folks at the annual Game Developers Conference that got underway in San Francisco today. The global video game industry is now worth upwards $25 billion, and now corporate America is ready to embrace its inner geek."

The above quote is from a great piece on the game industry from American Public Media's Marketplace that I caught on the way home from work today (full audio available through the first link). The piece focuses on the increasing respect games are getting as both an artistic and business force. The reporter, Jeff Tyler, provides a good mix of hard numbers (the average game costs $12 million to make), market analysis (gamers are a cynical bunch that won't buy a game just because of a hot movie tie-in) and trend spotting (Will Wright's Sims TV deal with Fox, independent of Electronic Arts, could signal the rise of the game artist and decline of the major developers). The piece also ends with a jewel of a quote that shows that Tyler knows what he's talking about:

"Media companies can refuse to acknowledge that games are on par with other forms of entertainment, but that's not a game they're likely to win."

First Impressions: 60 Minutes VG Violence Piece

Just a few minutes ago, 60 Minutes finished airing a segment on a multiple-homicide that was allegedly inspired by the Grand Theft Auto series. (The complete text and a short video snippet from the segment can be found on CBS' web site). Being on the nation's most-watched news program -- watched by many gamers and non-gamers alike -- the piece has the potential to greatly influence the debate over video game violence in the United States. I'll be going over the piece with a fine-tooth comb in the coming days. For now, a summary and some first impressions:

• The teaser to the story, featured at the beginning of the program, left me fearing the worst. After an introduction by Ed Bradley, a snippet of a Jack Thompson quote about games providing a "cranial map" for crime was presented with no meaningful context or skepticism. Compare this to the introduction that came right before it, for a piece on terrorist suspects being tortured overseas. There, a quote about the practice defending Americans was met with a question about the appropriateness of torture. I wish the teaser for this piece had been as balanced.
• Ed Bradley's lead sentence to the story also drove my hopes down. He asked viewers to "Imagine ... a video game in which you could decapitate police officers, kill them with a sniper rifle, massacre them with a chainsaw, and set them on fire. Think anyone would buy such a violent game?" He answers his own question, revealing that such a game exists (shocker!) and citing sales numbers of 35 million for the Grand Theft Auto series. The introduction goes on to call the game "360 degrees of murder and mayhem" which is pretty accurate, but also pretty cheesy.
• Things got better once the interviews started. Bradley led off with a rather skeptical question to attorney Jack Thompson about whether a video game can actually made an 18-year-old commit a crime. Thompson gave an answer that described the game as "primarily a cop killing game" (much less accurate than the 'murder and mayhem' line, in my opinion), and said that "but for the video-game training ... he would not have done what he did." No real surprises here.
• The next segment of the piece was particularly powerful. Bradley walked down the police station hallway where the crime took place and gave vivid descriptions of what happened, pointing out specific locations for each shooting as he went. The description was "according to [suspect Devin] Moore's own statement," Bradley said, so the fact-filled account was not really a matter of debate. They also cited police reports that cited Moore as saying, "life is like a video game. Everybody’s got to die sometime," after he was apprehended.
• So what is this game about, anyway. A law student from the University of Alabama showed off some of the game's more violent moments for Bradley and viewers. The student was introduced as one of those who "like millions of gamers, the overwhelming majority ... plays [the game] simply for fun." Score one for the pro-video-game side.
• Also sitting down to watch the game was child psychiatrist David Walsh who described the difference between teen and adult brains that makes the former more susceptible to imitate violent behaviors and have diminished impulse control. Bradley jumps in with talk of additional risk factors at play here -- a broken home, a handful of foster families and severe emotional stress -- that also likely played into the crime. Bradley asked about the millions of players who aren't violent, and the psychiatrist emphasized that they aren't nearly as likely to imitate the game "because they don't have all of those other risk factors going on." All in all, Walsh provided a great subject for a balanced interview.
• The piece now slides over to the brother of one of the police officers that was killed, who gave a tear-filled account of why he blames video game for the crime. Powerful, but very short. We'll be back to him later, though.
• Finally, we get to the actual civil case that sparked this thing, which cites Take-Two and Sony (which Bradley described as the maker of "the device that runs the game." Device?! Runs?!) and also Wal-Mart and Gamestop (which are later revealed as the locations he bought the game from). Both retailers sent in statements denying responsibility, Take-Two and Sony declined to comment.
• Here comes the cavalry for the video game side. Enter Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association and frequent defender of the video game industry. Bradley mentions that Lowenstein and the ESA are not named in the suit, so he can't comment on the case directly. I feel this puts him at a disadvantage compared to Thompson, who can and does address the particulars of the case many times. But CBS did try to get a comment from the parties actually named in the suit and got next to nothing, so I guess they made their own bed here.
• Lowenstein starts off talking about how it's not his job to defend individual titles and mentions that he wants to "defend the right of people in this industry to create the products that they want to create. That's free expression." But Bradley is right there with a tough question stemming from a quote from a police officer that said games like GTA effectively put a "target" on their backs. Lowenstein is ready for it, though, saying "if people have a criminal mind, it's not because they're getting their ideas from a video game." Overall, he didn't crumble under the pressure, but unfortunately was too broad to address the specifics of GTA and the case (see last bullet point).
• From Lowenstein, the piece jumps to a tough segment for Jack Thompson, about whether the idea of a video game making someone pull a trigger does away with the idea of personal responsibility. Thompson is quick to say that he does think the suspect is partly responsible, but that there's "plenty of blame to go around," and that the makers of a game that "in effect programmed Devon Moore and assisted him to kill are responsible at least civilly." Those last three words are important -- the case is a civil complaint against the previously named parties, not a criminal case. This fact is mentioned in passing a few times in the piece, but an inattentive viewer might miss this important fact.
• A summary by Bradley of previous cases on video-game-linked violence mentions a street gang that "played the game by day and acted out ... the game by night," according to a police officer, and a couple of teens who were allegedly inspired by the game to shoot at cars from an overpass. But Bradley is quick to add that "not a single court case has acknowledged a link between virtual violence and the real thing," an important point that many accounts skirt past.
• From this, we go to Paul Smith, a First Amendment lawyer who talks about the "hysterical attacks" that have dogged new entertainment media for decades. He mentions what he calls "hard to believe" attacks that said comic books caused juvenile delinquency in the '50s, and goes on to say that any restrictions on free expression because of the acts of one consumer would lead to a "huge new swath of censorship." This guy did a great job of framing the issue in the larger context of media history and defending the industry from a non-spokesman's standpoint.
• The final quote, though, came again from the brother of one of the victims, who poignantly asked, "Why do you make games that target people that are to protect us, police officers ... Why do you want to market a game that gives people the thoughts, even the thoughts of thinking it's OK to shoot police officers? Why do you wanna do that?" The words are delivered with real emotion that would likely make many video game supporters think twice about their position.
• Back in the 60 Minutes studio, Bradley closes with statements from Wal-Mart and Gamestop that they voluntarily card teenagers trying to buy violent games. Bradley also mentions the proposed state laws that would ban violent game sales to children under 17, but fails to go into any great detail about them (which is unfortunate, since I think such laws are vitally tied to cases like these).
• Overall, I was thoroughly impressed with this piece. Despite a shaky start that came off as overly accusatory, the piece bounced back to talk to some great sources on both sides of this issue and gave enough facts and opinions to introduce a new audience to this pressing issue.

But enough from me ... what did you guys think of the segment. If you caught it, leave us a comment below and tell us what you thought.

Meet Your Peers at the GDC

If you're a game journalist, and you're headed to the Game Developers Conference, I suggest you check out David Thomas Journalist Group Gathering.

"This goal of this meeting of the minds is to share thoughts about the current state of game journalism, the obstacles in the way of improving the art and craft of covering games and to point out examples and people helping show the way."

Just don't look for me there. I couldn't get out of work.

Strategy Guides: The Final Frontier?

Yesterday, I got a note from UPS saying they had a package waiting for me. The name listed on the note was "Kyle Orland c/o The Video Game Ombudsman." Today, I went down to my local UPS center and picked up a shrinkwrapped copy of BradyGames' Xenosaga II Limited Edition Strategy Guide. The return address was Pearson Education, which a quick Google search confirms is the owner of BradyGames.

I'm fairly sure I didn't ask for this guide through BradyGames' media request page or any other venue. I'm also pretty sure I've never given BradyGames my contact information, and that I've never mentioned BradyGames on this site before today. So the arrival of the book puzzles me a bit.

So first off, BradyGames, thank you for noticing I exist. Second off, why did you send me this guide?

I can only assume I've been sent this book in the hope that I'll review it, despite the fact that I've expressed no desire and shown no past experience to suggest I would want to. But the more I hold this book in my hands, the more I ask myself: Should I review it?

After all, this site focuses on writing about video games, and strategy guides are definitely writing about video games. Many even include supplementary information about the game that has nothing to do with strategy (I lovingly remember reading and re-reading the Mario retrospective at the beginning of my copy of Nintendo Power's Mario Mania until the pages were tattered and torn).

Still, strategy guides could be considered in a different class of writing than the type of content that goes into most video game magazines and web sites (excluding the code and strategy sections, of course). And what intelligent commentary can I really offer about a guide? "The strategy for beating the boss in world 4 was especially helpful." Riveting, eh?

So I'm putting the question to you, my readers. Should the Video Game Obmudsman blog expand its focus to include coverage and reviews of strategy guides? If so, what type of analysis would you like to see, and do you believe it's neccesary to play the game to achieve an appreciation for the guide? If not, what should I do with this unrequested $25 MSRP windfall that's been delivered into my lap. Comments are welcome, as usual, through e-mail and the link below.

Which Came First... they Hype or the Interest?

Thanks to Ombudsman reader Erik Bondurant for point me to a post on his blog about what seems to be the hot topic of the moment (at least among VGO readers): PSP bias in EGM. Erik argues that EGM's bias lies not in a personal preference, but in an assumption of their audience's personal preference.

To me, it is unnecessary to predict success because too often, having the media predict serves only to influence what actually happens, or as I put it in the title, the bias of self-fulfilling prophecy. EGM thinks that Nintendo is doomed to second rank niche play while the PSP is destined to mainstream madness, well, that seems likely now that the impressionable teenagers and young adults who make up the largest and most active portion of the gaming market have been led to think the PSP is the system to own.

First of all, calling EGM readers the largest portion of the gaming population is a bit of a stretch. Most active, sure, and possibly most influential, but definitely only a small slice of a large and growing gaming market.

That being said, is EGM being presumptuous here? Is there any basis for assuming that "people are too hyped for the PSP," as EGM Editor-in-chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu said in a recent editorial? I asked him this very question.

"To a Nintendo fan, or a gamer who hasn't seen PSP yet, these may seem like preconceived notions," Hsu said, "but when I see the hype around this system -- not just from gaming magazines and websites but from industry people and retailers -- it's incredible how much buzz is behind the machine before it's properly launched."

Shoe points to a specific example -- cited in his editorial -- that illustrates the buzz.

(a local EB Games already has over 100 pre-orders just based on people walking in and seeing the manager's personal machine... for real)

Shoe also gave an anecdotal example of the the system's appeal to the mainstream public. While giving an interview to local show Stir TV, Shoe said that the producer and two cameramen asked to see the system and were "blown away."

True, these two examples don't amount to overwhelming scientific evidence that "people are too hyped for the PSP," but they certainly don't hurt. One can only assume that there are other examples that Shoe has come across in his daily interactions with gamers and game industry members that support his perception of buzz (in fact, he cited a few more to me, but they weren't quite as compelling).

Shoe says the buzz around the PSP has nothing to do with EGM's coverage. "People look to the gaming press as opinion leaders because we see this stuff before they do. But there's only a certain amount of reach that we have. It won't succeed just because we tell everyone to get one. Even if we don't cover system at all, it will still be a success. The minute it's in stores, in hands, people will understand why."

Erik says on his blog, "it is impossible to seperate sales from media coverage and decide whether the media is simply responding to the market or actually is shaping the market." He's right to an extent, and it's a little pointless to speculate which truly comes first when both are constantly feeding off each other. But I don't see any problem with commenting on any perception of buzz in an editorial, as long as you have some sort of evidence to back it up.

Quote of the Moment (Press Release Edition)

"From Mario and Donkey Kong to Spyro the Dragon and Crash Bandicoot, some of the most popular console games in history have featured strong, appealing characters."
-The almost overwhelmingly insightful lead sentence of an Alawar press release for "Snowy: the Bear"

We'll Return to Video Game News In a Moment... But First

Surfing around today, I stumbled across this post on Ombudsman reader Troy Goodfellow's blog that asks whether this Evil Avatar story about Battlestar Gallactica belongs on a gaming news site.

This reinforces the place of gaming in so-called geek culture. If you game, you must like science fiction, you probably role play and know a lot of about comics. Somehow, these hobbies and interests have become inseparably linked in the minds of people who write about games.

...

Maybe Evil Avatar is staffed by a bunch of geeks who are really interested in this stuff. But please don't tell me that it's gaming news.

Goodfellow is right, this definitely isn't gaming news. Whether or not it belongs on Evil Avatar, ostensibly a gaming news site, is a slightly different question. After all, as Troy suggests, the people behind Evil Avatar are most likely also interested in science fiction, so they didn't mind writing it. Judging by the three pages of comments from EA readers, their audience didn't seem to mind reading about it (these stereotypes do exist for a reason). Happy writers, happy readers... so what's the problem here?

Well, let's look at this from a purely practical point of view. Consider the people who don't read Evil Avatar. Despite the stereotypes, there is also a growing population of serious game players who are not as interested in the comic books, science fiction and other pop culture that is commonly associated with gamer culture (how big this audience is, and how interested it is in reading about games, are up for debate). If Evil Avatar wants to attract these readers, then they should probably stay away from the Battlestar Galactica news. If they're happy with the audience they have, then they should keep doing what they're doing and leave their potential audience to potentially go to other sites. It's as simple as that.

There's no rule saying that gaming publications have to focus exclusively on gaming matters, and you'd be foolish to suggest one. But gaming sites should definitely consider their audience, both actual and potential, before straying too far from their stated subject.