y office, comprised primarily of a near-middle-aged, white-collar workforce, is having a Wii Sports tournament; very few colleagues have ever played the Wii before. We have all been having a memorable time watching each other quickly learn the basics of tennis and bowling, before transitioning on to trash-talking during doubles rallies and chiding each other over unique throws that a bowler guarantees will net a strike.
Curiously, those critical of the Wii overlook its obvious cachet. In a post last year on Newsweek's LevelUp blog, Tyler Bleszinski — older brother to Gears of War designer Cliff — voices concern over the Wii's popularity and the implications such popularity has on future hardware and software development in the gaming industry. Bleszinski takes issue with his anecdotal perception of a new gaming demographic, the titles it demands, and potential industry response. A quick economic thought experiment renders Bleszinski's concerns less dire, yet he misses why Nintendo's console is as popular and trendsetting as it is. Nintendo has reminded us that the most important component of any technology is its interface with humanity.
Bleszinski doesn't take into account the dynamic demand of those who play the Wii.Bleszinski noticed an older woman in Target one day picking up some games for the Wii. Ignoring his condescending prose (because it deserves to be ignored), his observation drives a generalization that a new crowd is buying gaming goods that never has before. So what's the problem? He writes, "My problem is what this new crowd appears to be drawn to. Games like Wii Sports, Wii Play and Cooking Mama have become some of the biggest sellers, and that is what has me worried. If these are the type of games that become blockbusters, then you can count on other gaming companies who cater to the more hardcore gamer to promptly change direction."
Such a prompt change, Blezinksi continues, would be motivated by a firm's pursuit to maximize its profits: "If [a firm] can spend six months or a year developing a mini-game package for five-year-old technology and make more profits than they would by spending 2-3 years crafting a long and detailed experience, you can bet your Wiimote that that's exactly what they'll do." The author "can definitely see companies like EA and Ubisoft realizing that they don't need huge development teams and hundreds of people working on a game to make a ton of cash in the land of mini-game moneymakers. It's like suddenly discovering that business plan behind McDonald's is applicable to video games."
Bleszinski's focus on cost-cutting and the prospect of rushing simple titles to the store shelves does not take into account the obvious other side of the economic equation: the demand dynamic of those who play the Wii. Like my colleagues, many people who love Wii Sports are new to gaming entirely. This is a demand push in the industry, and certainly does not subtract from those demanding a title like Gears of War. While there are gamers who enjoy both consoles, I would wager handsomely against a hardcore gamer eschewing all other consoles and titles to exclusively play the Wii. If some firms choose to make simpler Wii games instead of their previous, more complex production, there will be supply pull of those who make Gears-like titles, making the profitability, and thus incentive, to keep supplying such titles more enticing. Moreover, as more firms make more Wii mini-games, the profitability of that pursuit, even with cheaper production costs, will also decrease. How many iterations of Wii Sports is economically viable? Would a casual gamer even be interested if he plays a few games with his friends every other weekend?
Many people who love Wii Sports are new to gaming entirely.Blezinksi himself finds "it hard to believe that something like Wii Play could lead to someone like the little old lady I saw in the store playing Metroid Prime 3." In a brief sentence, he has contradicted himself by acknowledging that this demand component is different. Put another way: even if making games for the Wii is like franchising a McDonalds, the fact that there's a myriad of other restaurant offerings should assuage Bleszinski's fear that game development will become a "zero-sum game," and directly threaten his "longtime hobby." A Quarter Pounder will not satisfy steak eaters if they are craving a bone-in, medium-rare ribeye.
I think the author's concern — that game developers are on the slippery slope of copying entirely the Wii's successful characteristics — is stoked by what some companies are doing initially: "Sony already imitated the Wii a bit with their Sixaxis controller; Microsoft followed Sony with their own EyeToy-like camera, albeit far less successfully; and Sony is now trying to replicate some kind of online service a la Xbox Live." This imitation, however, has nothing to do with game-specific development, and everything to do with competitors acknowledging and attempting to integrate superior components of the human interface: the Wiimote, EyeToy, and Xbox Live.
It seems tautological, but it's true: interface is everything. The Wii does not play DVDs, CDs, or output to 1080 resolution. These specification-related shortcomings, as it were, are more than made up for by the Wii's technological reminder. When in five minutes a complete novice can go from learning to playing and laughing with friends and colleagues, it is safe to conclude that the Wii's focus on the human interface is obvious, and that the marketplace is handsomely rewarding Nintendo.
I can't help but chuckle, reading this in retrospect. Pompous and misguided as he may be, Tyler was right. The crappy Move and Kinect games, pioneered (get this) by companies like Ubisoft, are precisely the direction the industry has begun to move.
Patrick's right about the steak-eaters. What he may not have accounted for is how substantial a body the quarter-pounder audience is. Food's a necessity--gaming isn't. And there's nothing to guarantee the availability of steak if game developers honestly think they could make the biggest bottom line by moving entirely to catering to the casual audience.
Of course, that's more of a pessimistic stance than i'm actually willing to hold. We see now that arcade and indie games are beginning to fight back against the lackluster offerings, and i imagine the popularity of, say, CoD, will be strong enough to keep blockbusters in style. Still, it's disconcerting to see how much of what Tyler predicted coming true, isn't it?