Gaming Podcast 118: Jump The Shark

The gaming podcast of the week, the best gaming podcast on the planet! No, just kidding. This week we’re taking a look back at Starfox, we’re reading off some great community questions, covering history on Dave Arneson and hitting up some news:

  • podcast-200x200Will Wright Leaves Electronic Arts
  • Nintendo Wii Bringing Video Download
  • Nintendo Wii Manufacturing Costs down 45% since launch
  • RockStar connecting Flash games and the Nintendo DS
  • Dave Arneson Dies at Age 61
  • Electronic Arts Want Their Brass Knuckles Back

Thanks for the great responses this week, as always, we’re also asking a question of the week: Is anyone else angry that Wizards of the Coast came out of nowhere to buy TSR, Inc back in the day?

0 thoughts on “Gaming Podcast 118: Jump The Shark”

  1. I wasn’t pissed off when the sale was made. I was mildly disturbed when Wizards of the Coast said they’d be revamping and fixing the game – by allowing things like level 20 halfling mage-slash-thief-slash-paladin-slash-monk-slash-fighters.

    I became angry when 4.0 game out and they succeeded in turning it into a computer game version of D&D, and sucking the life out of the actual roleplaying. Computer RPGs are the way they are because they LACK the ability to have an intelligent GM. It’s the tail wagging the dog now.

    At least GURPS is still out there.

  2. 3.0 was my first experience, so I had no ill will toward WotC. It wasn’t until Hasbro took over that I got ticked. And yeah, 4.0 is utterly pointless for pen-and-paper purposes, in my opinion.

    Also, not to get needlessly nitpicky or anything, but I don’t think you could actually be a thief/paladin/monk, could you? Unless that was a 3.5 change. ‘:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Developer Wants License Keys For Console GamesDeveloper Wants License Keys For Console Games

UK developer David Braben from Frontier Developments believes smaller development studios are in the worse position when it comes to re-sale of “pre-owned” video games. Since a developer only gets their cut of the profits when a game is sold new, pre-owned titles allow gamers to play games without paying the developer for the effort.

This also hurts larger publishers, but they’re able to recover because of the sheer volume of games and game titles. One idea David had, was to code each game with a unique license key like a PC game that gamers must enter before playing. This would kill the ability to re-sell video games back to the market for others to buy at a cheaper price (translation: better value).

The future shows a higher degree of downloadable games, which cannot be re-used or sold back to the market, but for now, developers have to deal with pre-owned video games cutting into their profit. Presumably you could have a great game with smaller sales and a high degree of resale in the pre-owned market.

Problem with this take on development? Besides large scale video game sellers like GameStop making 80% profit margins on resold games (rather than a 10-15% on new), gamers want a way to make back some of their money on expensive titles. When you’re paying $60 for a game and you beat it in a week or two, you want to resell it so you can invest in a future title.

My theory… make games more affordable so we don’t feel gouged on the price. We may decide to hold on to it longer and tell our friends about it. A good game reference and a reasonable price will increase sales every time. Don’t try to solve pre-owned problems when the problem is the publisher and the industry making huge game prices.

(Thanks, Kotaku)

Exclusive Artist Deals In Rhythm Games Not Good?Exclusive Artist Deals In Rhythm Games Not Good?

Rhythm games are the new FPS for a lot of gamers, a broader audience of gamers, and the market is thriving and demanding new titles. Harmonix and Activision are at the front of the battle with Konami following a bit behind but still contending (we think) very soon.

Each company plans to up each other with cooler instruments, tighter controls and new in-game options and multi-player fancies. It’s a business and each competitor tries to gain a lead by whatever means needed to win… or do they?

Harmonix stops short when it comes to purchasing exclusive rights to music artists, for now at least. Harmonix’s Eric Brosious went on blogger record saying, “We prefer not to sign exclusive deals with artists because while it seems like the competitive “business” thing to do, in the long run, it’s really not good for anyone. We think we should be working to get more music out to more people.” (kotaku)

As Marky Mark once said, we need “Music for the people” not for in-game exclusives making us choose between Guitar Hero and Rock Band titles. We’ve seen what EA has done to the football franchise by taking control of the NFL roster, money talks and the best game doesn’t always win.

If Activision decides to buy up a ton of great exclusive content and you’re a rock band gamer, you’ll lose out in a ton of great content. For some gamers, that might mean losing out in some artists you’ve never heard before which also means the artist loses out in new fans. We’ve seen younger gamers fall in love with the sounds of Boston and The Police, bands famous way before the birth of many of the Rock Band fan base.

You can tell Harmonix is a development group with roots in music while Activision is a development group with their roots in business. While exclusive access brings you an advantage, in terms of broadening the culture of music, it does very little. Harmonix may be in the right but will that matter in the end when business deals hit the table?

p.s. sorry about the Marky Mark reference, but it had to be done. Bringing out a bit of my own childhood there…