Opinion - Nintendo live in their own bubble world

I am more and more convinced that Nintendo live in their own little bubble world, oblivious to what is going on outside in the minds of their targeted customers and the video-games industry. In a recent interview with CNN, Nintendo video-game designer legend Shigeru Miyamoto raised some points which only reinforces my conclusion that Nintendo are oblivious to the outside gaming world. 

Miyamoto and his hands

Point 1: "Make it possible for people to essentially play games even if something else was on the TV"

Repeatedly mentioned by Nintendo, but not a huge selling point. When I was a kid, I simply arranged my video-game time around that of my parents watching TV. Is it really that much of a problem that people can never play on their consoles because someone is always watching the TV? That also assumes households only have one TV. What makes this feature even more irrelevant is that Nintendo have their own handheld device, so anyone who has invested in Nintendo would still be able to play games when the TV is occupied. I am not saying this feature is useless, but over-rated? Definitely.

Point 2: "There is going to come a point where they feel like 'I can't do everything I want to do if I don't have a second screen'"

Miyamoto has a point here, and may be right. However again, this second screen is not completely unique. Microsoft are developing their SmartGlass product, which gives you a second screen on devices you already own, be that Smartphone, tablet or Windows 8 PC. Granted SmartGlass is currently next to nothing against the Wii U’s controller, but I would be surprised if SmartGlass won’t be much more fully integrated into the next generation Xbox; the upcoming announcement in May might shed some light on this however. Likewise there are expectations that the Vita will be more integrated with the Playstation 4. Now the Wii U’s second screen on the controller has some brilliant features which are far better than what the other consoles have. But as Miyamoto says, people are still warming up to the idea of using a second screen. The longer this takes, the longer competitors have to introduce their own second-screen features.

Point 3: "Something that offers a lot of practical use and practical purpose in the living room"

A practical use in the living room? Honestly I do not quite know what Miyamoto means by this. The Wii U doubles up as a footrest? The PlayStation 3 has Blueray, the Xbox 360 has Netflix. Consoles which go beyond gaming have existed for some time.

Point 4: "It's going to be very fun when Toad appears"

This ultimately is the reason Nintendo still exist. Not so much that Toad is making an appearance (sorry Toad), but their immensely strong portfolio of games and game characters which they continually re-release. Mario. Donkey Kong. Zelda. Pokemon. The list goes on.

Nintendo are entirely dependent on these games and characters. If the Wii U was released without their support, the Wii U would have been a completely flop. Miyamoto acknowledges that the above points (ability to watch TV and play games, a second screen, and a practical use in the living room) are features which for the meantime are not drawing in new customers needed for the Wii U to be a success. I largely suspect that the majority of people who bought the Wii U are people who are brand loyal and love the old game characters. It isn't a problem that Nintendo are bringing back and reinventing these games because they were so good in the first place. The problem is what makes Nintendo great is also what is keeping them in their bubble. 

Nintendo released the Wii U (which has similar specs to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3) out at a time where most gamers knew it wasn't long until the next generation consoles for Microsoft and Sony would be released. This decision seems so strange to me, because many people who cannot afford to buy all the consoles will want choice, and choosing means waiting until all options have presented themselves. This is why it feels like Nintendo are in their own bubble world. The only logical reason I can think of is that they wanted to create an incredibly strong and innovative product, so that when the new consoles are released it would seem obvious that Nintendo’s features are far superior. That however uses the huge assumption that the next Xbox and Playstation will have no new novel features, and simply be faster with better graphics. That seems... unlikely. Putting all their eggs into one basket with the controller with a second screen just does not cut it for me. It worked for the Wii, but the Wii was a affordable family console. The Wii U in contrast gives the impressions of wanting to take on Xbox and Playstation. For that, they need to wake up and put their innovation hat back on.

As always, keen to hear your opinion on Nintendo and the direction they are taking.

April 1 - Technology's trololol day

April 1 has to be one of my favourite days. I successfully fooled many friends by announcing I was getting married to despite not having been in a serious relationship for over a year now. People started to get suspicious when it was revealed my sun and moon (having only met her a couple of weeks ago) was a successful French model and also had a kid. Nevertheless I heard reports that my Dad looked mortified when he heard the news, so for me this year has been a complete success.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock you will know that it is common for the gaming and tech world for companies to come up with some brilliant April fools. I have dug up just a few here, but if you have some favourites then do not hesitate to share them!

The iPlay Game Console

Not the most believable April Fools to be sure, but wonderful nonetheless given the recent stir caused by one of the Xbox founders Nat Brown for suggesting Apple could dominate the games industry by opening the Apple TV to gaming developers.

You can enjoy IGN's Apple spoof here (it will open in another page).

Sony Tech for Pets

Worryingly if I had a pet then I would more than likely buy something like this for the little bugger. I bet my hamster Nibbles would have loved those mini speakers. If anyone wants to start a petition to make this real, let me know!

Star Wars: Galactic Empire
If you missed it, George Takei annouced this morning on his facebook page that he would be starring in a Star Wars reboot directed by JJ Abrams. This is one of those posts which makes you sad it isn't true! Just look at how awesome he looks!

Top Facebook comment says it all: "This is the MEANEST April Fools joke EVER"

I would share more but...

Blogging using q French keyboard is slightly infuriating (I am not even going to correct the 'a' to make my point) and I have a train to catch. What are your favourite April Fool's jokes? Share them here, Google+ or on the Facebook page! Happy day of fools one and all!

Food for Thought - the design of micro-communities

I recently watched a livestream of Colin Johanson, lead designer for Guild Wars 2 on the topic of creating communities within games. Understandably he mainly cited the design process of Guild Wars 2, so this weekend I sat down and put together my thoughts on one topic which has been playing around in my head - micro communities.

Before we get there, let us briefly cover the basis on Colin’s talk. Four pillars were central to the design of Guild Wars 2. Pillars is a great word as it conceptualises their meaning: the foundations of what was being built so that every aspect of the game reflects those things. 

I would like a micro-transaction with this lady.

These foundations were:


1. A community driven game.
2. Action oriented combat.
3. Your character has a story.
4. Living world; the world you play in feels alive.

The closest parallel I can draw this to is the ‘core values’ businesses create when designing or restructuring their business. Every decision the game designers or business make should reflect these pillars or values, notwithstanding marketing and PR strategy (Colin's words not mine). This ensures continuity throughout, while reflecting genuine reliability which consequently creates trust in the game or business. “Change your pillars at your own risk” Colin warned, as this may undermine every decision taken up until then.

The Pillar of A Community Driven Game

Having played Guild Wars 2 I can certainly say that this pillar shines through, and the second M from MMO (massively multiplayer online) is truly present. Through a subtle reward structure you cannot help but rush to aid a stranger if he looks like he is in a tough spot, and gone is fighting over resources but rather fighting together for common goals.

The only thing I find missing is what I call ‘micro-communities’. This is a term I coined a while back when trying to describe some differences I found within some organisations. A normal community would be a group of people who are bound together due to an existing structure, may this be geographical or organisational. In an MMO for example the most common of communities would be those who group together into Guilds. In the workplace your community may well be your department. The problem which such communities is that they are bound by the very structure which creates them. By being in a guild, you might find that you do not chat with any of the other players outside of this structure. Likewise at work you may never talk to anyone outside your department.

So what are micro-communities? These are relationships between a small number of individuals which develop and exist outside the normal communities. For example I recently starting chatting to a stranger in Guild Wars 2 (an unfortunately rare occurrence) after we helped each other out, which led to playing together for sometime after. If I met a colleague from another department during a coffee break, that colleague might then later be someone I can contact if I need information otherwise unavailable to me. In different types of ‘power’, one of the most important types is that of social networking. Having shared a few jump puzzles with this stranger in Guild Wars 2, I might later be able to invite him into a dungeon when my friends when we are missing a player.

The problem with Guild Wars 2 and many organisations is that there is little consideration for how these micro-communities are created. The game design of Guild Wars 2 focuses so much on openness and ease-of-use, this creates an unintended consequence that players rarely need to talk to each other in PvE (Player vs Environment) resulting in a lack of micro-community development. Indeed in the first Guild Wars players would barter over items in buying-and-selling; now you just list your items on a large database and you never interact with the buyer. Equally, for organisations if the workplace has no shared facilities, then employees from different departments will never meet and so you will find your company with a lot of separate communities with little communicate in between.

How do you create micro-communities?

The very nature of micro-communities means that they are dependent on the individuals involved. However it is the responsibility of the game/workplace design to allow those individuals to meet and interact in the first place. One company I worked in had one beautiful solution: a games room which had a table tennis table, a PlayStation and table-football. By using this room in your break, you could meet anyone from the company and thus micro-communities are born. As micro-communities slowly grow, new communities may even rise up: a monthly table-tennis tournament for example. Back to Guild Wars 2 a design to give players reasons to communicate would also be sorely welcome. To keep to the same example, allowing players to trade face-to-face as well as using the database would be one step in the right direction.

So what?

What is so important about micro-communities anyway? Two of these I have touched upon. Firstly that of social networking - this is a powerful tool which empowers people. Secondly, this can rise in new stable communities as micro-communities gradually merge together. Thirdly and ultimately - engagement. By engaging people within the workplace and within a game, this engages the individuals to the greater whole. Regardless of whether it is at work or playing a video-game, having bonds with others will inevitably improve retention rates, happiness and fun!

That’s it from me. As always I would be interested in your thoughts, so please drop your comments below or share. Have a good week!

Forward thinking - 9 points the Vita II needs to win

My blog is back! Since my last blog entries back in the sands of time I have been thrown into the world of post-university real-life work, and so other interests took a back seat. But here we are on that same old road again and I hope you enjoy my scriptures on the video-game industry. Let's start today with a large issue at the moment - handhelds and the Vita.

When Sony released the Vita I practically drooled looking at it. For any self-confessed geek there is no denying it looks beautiful. I mean, look at it.

I've looked at envy at all 3 guys I've seen using it

I raged against websites such as CNet who slammed it. I won't go into detail but in a nut shell they stated that the iPod Touch was better for gaming. Supposedly they thought that Angry Birds and swiping represents the peak of games. Rather than go into a hulk-esk rant, the nice little blog here (come back after!) will give you a run down as to why smartphones are unable to replace handhelds.

This close.

You should know, I was that close to buying one. And by close I mean the picture to the right. Given the lack of game developers I am now sadly glad I didn't buy one. This is a huge shame because I know I would enjoy holding this on the many train journeys I seem to take.

In my infinite wisdom Sony made some serious design omissions. Try working for a huge multinational company and the reasons quickly become apparent. Big companies are HARD to change. We live in a time when change is happening increasingly quickly. If you try and break a freight train at 30 miles per hour, and change is 30 yards ahead of you, you're going to have a bad time. And probably get fired.

So without further ado, here is what Sony need if they are ever going to make a Vita II. I say need because, given the rate of change, these are now requirements and not options.

NO 1. Akin to Apple's store on the iPhone, open up the indie platform to make it easy for anyone to develop a game for the Vita. Why? Such games are the sort that are ideal when waiting 5 minutes at the train station and can be resumed at a moment's notice without lengthy loading times. Avoid the trash by make it superior to Apple's platform by having stricter checks, thereby maintaining the image of a quality gaming device. This platform would also speed up the number of games available at or soon after launch.

Note: this is to complement the high-spec games of the Vita, not to replace them. The more people who buy and use the Vita for whatever reason will attract the major game developers.

NO 2. Create a very intuitive online marketplace so that you can easily discover and download content. This cannot be stressed enough. We live in an age where for the majority of people User Experience is prime. Don't simply copy Apple though, we want a trailered gaming experience from the moment we turn on the device. 

NO 3. A very good battery. This goes without saying really. A key advantage over smartphones.

NO 4. Fit it within the next-gen PS4 ecosystem. Sony's recent PS4 announcement has hinted at this, and good for them. The possibilities are limitless but I personally love the idea of watching a friend play a game on your Vita screen and then joining in through the power of streaming. Needless to say using the Vita as an extra controller would be a middle finger to Nintendo's efforts to the Wii U.

NO 5. Also play media and include streaming from your computer or Playstation. I would happily also use the Vita for on-the-go music and film; although I use my smartphone for these the battery is always an issue. This links nicely to my next point...

NO 6. Create a platform to allow third-party media developers. Microsoft's Xbox hit the nail on the head with this and everyone I know who regularly plays games on their 360 also uses the likes of Netflix, Lovefilm or Sky. I can almost hear 'pure' gamers angrily arguing that this in turning the Vita into a glorified smartphone, but if I could use Spotify on my Vita while playing games then I would be a very happy bunny. By limiting yourself to your own closed platform then in consequence you are limiting how your customers use your product. It stands to reason that the more customers use your product, the more developers you attract.

NO 7. A great 'friends' platform. This is closely linked to No 4's eco-system but it deserves a point of its own. Gaming has and always been social and we live in a time where you expect the same experience online with your friends as actually going over to their house for a gaming session. I am convinced that Xbox Live's excellent social features is what ultimately drove the Xbox to success.

NO 8. Make a financial loss on the Vita when you release it. Why? If you want something to sell well then it must be affordable. Everyone reads reviews before they buy, but if said review states a product is great yet overpriced then this will no doubt sway potential buyers away. Successful gaming devices will make their money through games (and let's not forget third party media apps where Sony would get a nice cut). 

NO 9. Understand your market when advertising. I am almost cringing writing this. The Vita's advertisements were awful. In summary they represented their target audience as anti-social and sexually repressed teenagers. Comparing the Vita to a woman with four breasts is just one example of many. I risk coming off as a Microsoft fanboy, but here is one of the greatest gaming adverts I have ever seen. Smart, funny and underlines Live's social features.

Having 10 points would be nice, but this concludes my weekend musings. Are there any other points you think this blog has missed?

Until next week!

Opinion - The Controversy of Google's new privacy policy

If you keep up with the BBC news, you’ll have heard have the controversy surrounding Google’s new privacy policy. BBC news is a great resource, and although inevitably biased, I have found compared to the newspapers it is by and large a lot more objective. So it was with some dismay this morning when I witnessed a rather embarrassing interview on the morning news with a Google representative.

This representative explained these four points:

1. The different platforms owned by Google are combining privacy policies. This simplifies things making it clearer to the customer (i.e. us) while allowing appropriate adverts to reach the customers based on what they’ve searched for. If I search for a Spice Girls video on Youtube, then I might find an advert on Gmail for Spice Girl albums (that’s my example, not his).
2. The advertisers themselves don’t see any of the data collected by Google; they provide the advert and Google chose where that advert appears.
3. The whole process is sorted with algorithms. You don’t get actual Google employees stalking your online activities and picking adverts for you. If you consider a moment just how many people use Google then you’ll realise this just isn’t feasible.
4. This system only works if you’re signed in to these platforms with a Google account.

The Google representative had to repeat these points several times to the beleaguered reporters, who didn’t really seem to know much about the issue at large. Worth noting here is the representative was not using jargon speak. Misunderstanding is one thing, but the accusing tones the reporters progressively used in their questions were highly inappropriate. I guess nothing attracts viewers like inviting in a representative of a giant, evil Big Brother corporation right? In reality I think the aggression mounted because they simply weren’t listening to what he had to say.

That’s not all. On the BBC news website (http://bbc.in/zoKxpy) they display some figures which are obviously meant to shock:

“A poll of more than 2,000 people conducted by the group in conjunction with YouGuv suggested 47% of Google users in the UK were not aware policy changes were taking place”

This is surprising; for the last month at least there has been a banner at the top of the Google platforms announcing the change and inviting the user to view it. I’m not quite sure how the 53% percent of this sample failed to notice this but I certainly wouldn't blame Google for the observational skills of these people. Google's alternative would be to introduce a giant flashing pop-up and I can only imagine how people would react to that.

“Only 12% of British Google users, Big Brother Watch said, have read the new agreement”.

Assuming the sample was truly representative of the whole British population, I’m proud to be amongst that 12%. I use the Google search engine, Youtube, Gmail and of course this blogging website, so I guess it was pretty inevitable. What strikes me however is that 12% actually seems quite high; when you install a program on your computer or sign up to a website, how many of you can actually claim to reading the terms and conditions? Facebook are infamous for changing theirs, but when was the last time you checked?

"Let us not forget that Google is a free service"

It seems to me Google are being attacked for an action despite of which seems to be in the favour of all parties. We the customer only have one privacy policy to read (which should increase the chance we actually read it rather being presented with lots of sporadic pages), and we’re presented with adverts tailored to our interests. On the flip side, an improved advertisement service should also increase Google's revenue. Let us not forget that Google is a free service. If you don't like it then you are free to use other services, and unlike Facebook there are plenty of viable alternatives.

Google is part of a wider trend of merging platforms. My first blog post discussed how the Xbox 360 dashboard and Windows Phones are merging together for a more integrated experience. It seems rather ironic that by keeping their privacy policies on the low these changes managed to escape the notice of mainstream reporters. I can’t help but question just how much fact checking and proactive measures are made in the news industry. Reacting hostilely to measures which Google have pre-warned users about well in advance just isn’t acceptable. You know what they say: you fear what you don't know. You can read the new privacy policy right here: http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/policies/privacy/

Have something to say? Don’t forget to like or comment on the (new!) Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/InGameBlog

Opinion – DLC and why I won’t be buying KoA: Reckoning any time soon

DLC, for the non-gaming literate, stands for Downloadable Content. Often after a video-game is released the developers continue working on future content which gamers can then later download. Such content serves different purposes – in ‘Halo Reach’ the developers work on bringing out extra multiplayer games to refresh the experience for players, while in ‘Guild Wars’ the developers released some bonus missions so that the game ties into the sequel Guild Wars 2, which we are expecting to be released later this year. Some DLC costs money and some is free; e.g. the formal and latter examples respectively.

This is all well and good. Generally speaking, paid DLC helps to retain fans of the game while generating some instant revenue, while free DLC increases customer loyalty and bring in new players resulting in longer term revenue.

A beautiful DLC map for Halo reach - whose design is clearly the result of skill and effort.

However, a worrying trend is emerging: DLC is more often than not being released alongside the release of the game. Take the game Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, which was released yesterday. I logged into Steam to check the price (Steam is a PC platform for buying and downloading games online) only to find I could also buy a DLC for a ‘weapons and armor bundle’. This essentially means that if I buy KoA: Reckoning, I am not buying the complete, finished product; the developers also made some extra content but they’re selling it separately.

DLC on Steam - the first of many?

Consider this within the content of the game for a moment. Part of the experience of games such as these are completing challenging quests or discovering hidden location, and you are typically rewarded with some legendary sword or armour. Yet, if I can buy with real money weapons and armour anyway, instantly this reward is cheapened. Furthermore resources spent on fine-tuning and removing bugs and glitches was instead used to make DLC.

Hero, this sword could be yours for only £3.99! No wait, £29.99 + £3.99. You need the buy the game as well remember.

What is the purpose of this DLC? It isn’t to reward fans; the game has just been released. It isn’t to draw in new customers, the game has just been released. Presumably the only and sole purpose is to milk the cash cow for customers who do want the full experience.

So what does this tell us about the game? It implies that the developers and producers are after short-term financial revenue, which raises doubt to the overall experience of the game. It also suggests that for hefty profit margins, sub-standard DLC will be frequently released. I have to ask, why would I want to buy the game now, when I know you’re going to be asking me for a lot more money? As far as I’m concerned, it makes more sense for me to wait when all this inevitable DLC has been released and I can finally buy the complete and finished package in one, genuine bundle.

There you have it. As you can tell, I am not a happy man right now. I enjoyed the demo of the game, despite its glitches. Typically glitches experienced in a demo have been fixed by the time the full game has been released, but I gain the impression that in Reckoning they’ll still be present. In my eyes at least, game developers and producers need to start considering their perceived credibility and where their priorities are when making a game.

Future tech - Mass Effect's omni-tool in real life

Sci-fi, be it in novels, games or some other art form, has been remarkable at predicting future technology which once-upon-a-time seemed completely impossible. Here's one which might not be as far off as you might think.

The arm controller thingy

Ok, so the name I've given it isn't great, and assuming Apple don't fall from their pinnacle with the loss of Steve Jobs we might witnessing the release of the iArm.

For this blog we'll call it the omni-tool; the piece of kit which is used repeatedly in the game Mass Effect. These devices are a computer microframe packed with holographic display, sensor analysis system, the ability to modify remote equipment, and the latest version of Powerpoint. Well, perhaps not Powerpoint but you get the idea. If that sounds familiar that's because smart-phones are practically just as functional for the needs of yourself, member of the public.



A further benefit is that the omni-tool makes you look badass. Hood not included.



What makes it so nifty in Mass Effect is that holographic projection of the display. Now even though almost everyone by now knows that 3D is a declining fad and should probably be kept away from smart-phones and TVs, it could be a substitute for the hologram. What would be necessary to include would be a hand and finger recognition system - akin to a miniaturised Kinect - allowing you to interact with the 3D display rather than jabbing your fingers on the screen like its 1999. Throw in the rapidly developing voice recognition software and the iAr- I mean omni-tool isn't quite as obscure as you first thought.

So when it comes down to it, our equivalent of the omni-tool is simply a smart phone attached to your arm. If the idea is peculiar to you, consider how the pocket watch was transformed with the simple addition of the strap. Given the increasing reliance on smart-phone technology having the device strapped to your arm might actually be more convenient than fishing it out from your pocket. Wirelessly controlling mentioned Powerpoint, transferring money across device accounts, playing angry birds: you name it; all achieved with greater access.

  

You'll just have to be patient with people while they make some calibrations.

Thoughts? Don't forget to like or comment.