Is This The Golden Age of Gaming?

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) president Michael Gallagher called this the “Golden Age of Gaming” during his E3 keynote address. Calling out innovators like Nintendo who have “helped revolutionize our industry” and Sony’s Home initiative.

The keynote fell on the ears of fifty or so people who filled the large room awaiting his talk. Gallagher believes we’re in some of the best years of the gaming industries life based on… sales figures, technology and innovation?

If we’re in the Golden Age of Gaming we might as well pack it in now. Text book definitions of the phrase are defined as “the first and best of the four ages of humankind; an era of peace and innocence that finally yielded to the silver age.”  Or, “the most flourishing period in the history of a nation, literature, etc.” (dictionary.com)

By that definition, we’ve seen the best to come and everything from here is downhill. When a person retires from work they’re often said to have reach the “golden age” of their career. Is this the correct message to be sending to the industry? That we’ve done it all and now it’s time to sit and relax.

In terms or progress it seems we’ve only just begun to realize the potential of the growing industry. We’ve learned there is a place for intense graphical games and fully interactive motion-sensitive product lines and accessories. We’ve broken the mold on game controller designs with the Wii controller, Wii Fit, Rock Band, Guitar Hero and keypad controllers like the 360 attachment.

Nothing has been perfect or “at peace” in the industry. Nintendo is releasing the Wii Motion Plus accessory to increase their sensitivity in their games and, overall, fix the limitations of their Wii controller. Sony continues to work on scaling and global presence in Home while Microsoft continues to update their Xbox Live solution with new creative community features, not mention the failure rate on the 360.

The console realm is far from perfect and the PC gaming realm is an ever growing technological race of bleeding edge graphic cards and powerhouse processors. PC’s and consoles shrink their technology, conserve power with new advances and are still learning how to handle multi-core designs. How is this the golden age of gaming when we’ve not yet found our true potential?

Sony has said they’re working on a 10-year game plan and you can only “imagine” what the PS3’s going to have for gaming titles in two or three years. They’re jazzed for the upcoming 2009 and beyond; if this was truly the golden age of gaming we’d all be sitting back sucking on grapes handed to us on golden platters by servants.

For Gallagher to even suggest we’ve hit our full potential shows he’s not looking at the big picture. Perhaps he meant E3 has hit its golden age?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Post

Phil Harrison’s Building a 100 Million Dollar FranchisePhil Harrison’s Building a 100 Million Dollar Franchise

Once upon a time, Activision Blizzards CEO Bobby Kotick kicked a few franchises to the curb: Riddick and Ghostbusters. No doubt, this was a result of the Activision and Blizzard merger requiring some resources to the merged together while others were cut from the lineup. Phil Harrison, the new big suit at Atari/Infogrames has raised these little birds from the ashes with a dream to build them into 100-million dollar franchises.

While Bobby Kotick said the titles, “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises,” Phil Harrision sees it as a personal challenge to prove him wrong.

“What Bobby, perhaps unhelpfully said, was that those games were franchises which wouldn’t make $100m of revenue and generate sequels. If that’s his benchmark, then fine — and we’d love to aspire to the same benchmarks. But you know what? I would love to turn Ghostbusters into a $100m franchise, just to prove him wrong.” (1up)

In many ways, this is the difference in attitudes from a large firm compared to a smaller firm with strong goals and a vision for success. Activision Blizzard is big now, perhaps the biggest publisher in the industry, they can’t be bothered with minuscule 80-million dollar franchises. Others, like Atari, strive to take a title from nothing to something of greatness. Granted, Atari’s failed in a lot of franchises, but with their new ex-Sony executive behind the helm things could turn around and this might be the first step.

Most of the best game franchises in existance today started from nothing but a dream. Big publishers don’t have time to dream, they’re too busy making money off the fanboys of their current franchises.

Sony Responds To Crashing Sales with Management ShiftSony Responds To Crashing Sales with Management Shift

ps3Sony Computer Entertainment Europe has made some leadership changes in response to their in-ability to get things going in the sales department of the PlayStation 3. Gamer’s continue to refuse to believe the PlayStation 3 is in a bad situation by explaining how badly Microsoft’s Xbox 360 is doing in Japan and Europe compared to the Sony console. And, of course, the Wii isn’t competition to Sony.

“Andrew House, Chief Marketing Officer and Group Executive of Sony Corporation, has been named President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Co-Chief Operating Officer (Co-COO) of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) as of May 1, 2009.” (smarthouse.au)

We’ve been told this is the year of the PS3, this is when they bring it all together. Nintendo’s losing some of their grip on the industry with slower sales, even in Japan. The economy isn’t playing nice with any of the consoles and sales continue to drop, reportedly 17% in March compared to last years numbers.

Australia isn’t proving to be any help to Sony, “for example in Australia a consumer can now buy the Xbox 360 for $299 and a separate Blu ray player and DVD upscale player for $199. Combined this is $200 under the recommended retail price for a Sony PS3.”

Here in the United States, we’ve bought more Wii balance boards than PlayStation 3 consoles. One can argue that the Wii is a novelty system but that really casts a dark shadow on the PlayStation 3. The PS3 is being beat out by a novelty item? Can the new SCEE management change the direction of Sony?

Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?

I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.

linkNow even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?

You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.

Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.

Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.

Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.

Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?