Sony’s shifting gears

Sony’s John Kodera gave a statement to Washington Street Journal that the PlayStation 4 is at the end of its console life cycle. This, combined with Sony stopping physical Vita game production outside Japan, is all about the momentum inside the company. Nobody’s surprised that PS VR is selling less than expected, VR has never been popular enough to make a breakthrough as its always expected to. We were told that the new technology will make VR more viable, but that’s the story we get every single time. VR requires a proper paradigm shift in terms of technology and how its presented before it’ll catch on. 3D TVs were in the same boat. I guess Star Trek‘s holodecks would be the pinnacle end point of both techs, but I doubt no company wants to invest money into hardlight or holomatter technology just yet.

Sony’s strategy for the future doesn’t seem all that rosy. Switch is controlling the market from two ends, and Sony effectively handed out the handheld end to Nintendo. As much as some people love their Vita and titles on it, the system was bust the very moment Sony themselves ported Gravity Rush as a franchise to PS4. The writing was on the wall for the console before it, and I’ll assure you the console won’t get a great swansong. It’ll drift and die slowly without a fanfare.

Vita could’ve been a great system. Sony’s mishandling reminds me of how Sega managed to screw their systems over post-Mega Drive. However, PS4 has not been lacking in mishandling department either, with the system having less significant titles and seemingly having a very bread-and-butter approach. Nothing about the system stands out. Xbone has the same thing going on for it, but at least neither systems are Wii U.

Will Sony come up with a hybrid console? While it is in their nature to respond to Nintendo’s shifts in how they approach the market, with Nintendo often doing the very same thing, the big question is whether or not Sony is willing to completely abandon their high-end, high-spec consoles. The Switch is not more powerful than its 8th generation competitors, yet it hits the sweetspots with its library in most cases.

The whole deal why PlayStation even exists was to put better technology in use for a game console. Ken Kutaragi’s want to create a system stemmed from his disliking of the Famicom’s sound. Each PlayStation, ever since it was supposed to be a Super Famicom add-on, has been driving some sort of media revolution and put high-end tech into the console. Original was driven by a CD and extremely good audio, before they gutted that out. Sure, PC-Engine was the first CD-based system with Mega Drive having Sega CD, yet both of these were marginal success at best. This was mainstream success with 3D graphics at the forefront. PS2 can be said to be the main cause for the DVD revolution and rapid shift from VHS, as it offered a cheap drive with further capabilities. PS3 again pushed the notion of sound and graphics, and introduced Blu-Ray, but at this point the competition had severely changed. PS4 doesn’t have anything for it, no new media, no real graphics overhauling. Everything’s become mundane and standard. All these have concentrated on bringing the multimedia experience to the living room.

Sony’s whole business, from sound to televisions to gaming, has been living room centric. Certainly, they’ve made numerous high-end portable products, yet they’ve never managed to achieve their Walkman glory days. Their corporate politics and customs are reason for this, and current paradigm with formats won’t allow Sony to create such devices any longer. Sony has been a company of engineers, after all. Modern technology requires as much, if not even more, emphasize on the digital engineering with coding and such.

If Sony intends to continue on with producing a console for a television set, it needs an edge. Cutting edge technology in terms of graphics only carries so far. New IPs help only if they’re great, but as people are spending less time watching traditional television and everybody is having something in their pocket with a screen. A hybrid console could be a solution to them, but copying Nintendo’s approach would be a harsh hit on Sony’s ego.

The whole five to six years of consoles is, of course, utter bullshit. A console’s life cycle is as long as the support its given. There are no real reasons to simply kill one off if it has consumers. South Africa enjoyed Sega’s Master System and Mega Drive long into the 1990’s and even early 2000’s, before their official support was killed off. The original PlayStation simmered along the PS2 for a good while, as did the PS3 with PS4. This is a discussion I’ve covered to death, every time news about a console’s death comes out in fact.

E3’s just around the corner anyway, so it is possible Sony has something in store for the consumer in the hardware department. Hopefully it’s something worthwhile.

Advertisements

Where are the video game movies?

Some years back, just before the Warcraft movie was announced, there was some slight buzz about how video game based movies would find a new place in the market now that comics have finally been successfully adapted for silver screen. That era never really came about. Both Assassin’s Creed and Warcraft movies were ultimately lumped with the Marvel and DC ones. While they’re not comic book movies, the terms has changed to encompass movies with extreme amount of CG, emphasize on action and essentially being a full genre movie.

This isn’t exactly the best science out there, but there is a certain kind approach thematically with comic book movies. To some extent, “comic book movie” is a degrading term and has been used as such. It’s the usual you used to hear from film snobs for them not being real films, just movies or flicks. Entertainment for the masses and such.

Despite video games having more money moving inside its industry nowadays that Hollywood, Hollywood has always had the position that they know the best when it comes to stories. After all, they’re the ones that realise dreams on the big screen, teller of stories and such nonsense. The stance Hollywood seems to take is that passive following of a story and being immersed in it is the higher route to take, it’s more classy or whatever you want to call. Story through play, i.e. player’s own actions, are seen lesser because of the connected connotations of “play” and “game”. Somehow it’s more childish to be an active part of a story rather than sitting still and have a story told to you.

Every time Hollywood has taken charge of a game and wish to bring their wealth of knowledge to this lesser field of entertainment, the results have been less than impressive. For example, Jurassic Park: Trespassers was supposedly co-developed with Spielberg and parts of Hollywood crew, but all they ended up bringing in was story elements. Trespasser, while a big budget title, ended up pretty damn terrible game with some interesting elements to it. I recommend checking out Research Indicates’ Let’s Play on the game, its full of information on development and history of this sad title.

Considering Hollywood doesn’t care about how a game could tell a story in its own media, something most game developers don’t seem to care either, it’s not surprising that they’d concentrate on the FMV sequences and pre-scripted scenes first and foremost. To them, this is where the artistry is. Hollywood’s takes on video game movies have been rather lacklustre overall, with Super Mario Bros. probably being the most blatant example of not giving a fuck about the source material. That said, the SMB movie is also one of the last great children’s adventure movies made, similar to The Goonies. Alternatively, House of the Dead movie or Alone in the Dark. Overall speaking, video game based movies haven’t been all that well-received or well produced, similar to comic book movies initially. Certainly there has been numerous good titles here and there, like Mortal Kombat (which is a great MK movie but lacklustre otherwise) and we can make an argument for Prince of Persia.

However, unlike with comic book movies, no company has really managed to make a game based movie work to the same extent. Whether or not it is because there’s a lack of respect for the source material, the source material being rather terrible, or simply because games’ stories don’t fit the silver screen without considerable changes for the adaptation, the end results speak for themselves. Something like a fighting game as in the aforementioned Mortal Kombat is relatively easy to adapt as a martial arts action movie, but something like Super Mario Bros., an abstract action game about a character jumping on platforms to defeat a big turtle doesn’t exactly turn itself into a movie easily. Well, Sony’s certainly aiming to do so.

How do you turn, for example, a mission of Warcraft into a scene in a movie? By having a massive fight scene, of course. While the scenes in the  movie are of pure fanservice and pretty nice to watch, nothing in the movie is impressive or new. Much like how the original game stood on the shoulders of fantasy giants before it, so does the movie. Lord of the Rings movies affected both aesthetics and directions how similar fantasy movies would be directed down the line, and Warcraft followed its lead in a very expected manner. I doubt there was ever a possibility for anyone in the project to aim change the paradigm fantasy movies are in at the moment, and that possibly lead to the movie’s lack of success outside China.

Perhaps its because games don’t have a need for a Hollywood-like “good” plot. Video and computer games require a reason to play, the end-goal that may change, and the story itself is the player’s actions. The overarching narrative in a game is more about the player than the readily set story. A comparable example of this would be in any tabletop RPG, like Dungeons and Dragons, where players play a readily made scenario. This narrative can be extremely hard to translate into a passive story. However, considering there are numerous franchises based on the author’s DnD games, like Slayers.

It would seem that the first thing that an adaptation from a video game to a movie needs first-hand experience, a play worth telling. All the story sequences, FMVs and such are meaningless as the meat is in the gameplay. All players have a story to tell when it comes to their greatest moments in a game and that moment is always within a game’s play. Hollywood is missing this and concentrating on the wrong parts of the games and consider playing as acts for children. While you can visually replicate some of the moments in a game visually, a film can never replicate the action of it. Why even try when the special effects heavy smashbin market is essentially controlled by Marvel?

Virtual-On Retrospective: MARZ

Previous: FORCE

In the early 2000’s, Sega’s plan was to deliver cheaper and more effective arcade hardware for the Japanese market, which of few would see worldwide releases. NAOMI 2 was given the emphasize over the Hikaru, which was phased out in 2002. NAOMI 2 would last to 2008, with Atomiswave, a Sammy developed NAOMI derivative, running by its side. Around the same time in 2001 Sega developed the Triforce with Nintendo and Namco, based on Nintendo’s GameCube. Two years later, Sega would release Chihiro to the arcades, based on Microsoft’s Xbox. All these arcade machines ran different games that Sega was directly involved and developed, like NAOMI 2’s Virtua Fighter 4 series, Triforce running AM2 developed F-Zero AX, Atomiswave running many fishing and fighting games Sega was part developer and publisher, and Chihiro most known for OutRun 2 and House of the Dead III due to their Xbox ports. Later in the 2000’s, Sega’s arcade hardware would be more or less completely home media derivative, based on normal PC architecture, making some of the modern games running on a modified Windows. However, there was no Virtual-On, on any of these systems.

With Virtual-On FORCE generally receiving lukewarm acceptance from the overall audience, regarding Oratorio Tangram the superior game, Hitmaker would develop a console-only sequel for the PlayStation 2; Virtual-On MARZ.

Continue reading “Virtual-On Retrospective: MARZ”

Seems like Sony likes to sit tight where they are

Sony’s Andrew House doesn’t really seem to get the Switch. It’s nothing new to see an industry member or a someone from media to compare handheld consoles to smart phones despite the two being in different markets. House’s claim that the Vita somehow lost its footing in the market place due to the changes in consumer preference for mobile devices has no basis, despite Bloomberg showing a graph of PSP’s and Vita’s waning sales. Correlation does not imply causation. It is far more likely that the PSP and Vita began losing its sales due to lack of software being presented. This is nothing new either, sadly, as game companies tend to begin moving towards their next generation consoles both in hardware and software.

House seems to correlate Vita’s lack of sales to the aforementioned trend. However, this is was not the case of the 3DS, which saw some rise in sales after its library got stronger. Funny how the 3DS seemed so weak compared to the robust Vita, but things turned completely other way around. The words House chooses to emphasize in the interview give off an impression that the Switch might have a market in the future. What he is missing is that the Switch has a robust demand and market now. Whether or not the Switch will keep it successful trend is dependent on how Nintendo will continue marketing it. If they decide to go the N64 and GameCube way, they’ll have another Wii U in their hands. Going for the NES, SNES and Game Boy route will yield them another DS/Wii. The Wii was supposed to be a passing trend, but in the end it sold hotcakes and everybody and their mother had a Wii. That’s a market that could be easily taken advantage of, if people were to make proper software.

Switch may have not impacted Sony’s sales, as House claims, but the same was said about the DS not impacting the PSP’s sales. Then again, House probably means that the Switch’s sales numbers don’t seem to affect PS4’s sales. The Vita is dead, Nintendo effectively has a market monopoly in the handheld console market. That is what the DS’ sales did to Sony’s handheld consoles. Of course, the Vita seems marginal success in Japan and other Asian countries, thought that’s not an oddity in itself. Japanese electronics companies do have some tendencies of offering support to long obsoleted devices within the nation itself, seeing how the market is smaller than what it is worldwide.

Nintendo’s bet, as Bloomberg puts it, for the hybrid console market as been a success thus far. As said, it’s only up to Nintendo take advantage of its current installation base to expand onward. The situation is much like it was with the DS after its first unsuccessful year (before Nintendo turned the machine into a money printing beast), but 2017 Nintendo is not the same one they were decade and then some ago.

If Andrew House says Sony hasn’t seen the hybrid market a big opportunity, that may give more insight how the company isn’t all too keen on expanding its market. Certainly they are in a nice position of having die-hard fans and general consumers who like the games that are on PS4, but most of them are on other platforms as well, lessening the console’s unique value. Sony’s emphasize of their home console being the central point to their other home entertainment devices is nothing new. Both Sony and Microsoft emphasized how the X360 and PS3 were home media centers. Virtual Reality has been largely a bust thus far with little to no impact on consumer markets. VR comes and goes. It’s always said that the tech is no better than last time around, but the software are still the same and offer no real value for the money needed.

Though it must be said that Sony should be able to juggle this sort of approach. They used to be the brand when it came to consumer electronics, be it music, video or whatnot. However, how consumer electronics are nowadays, with all of Sony’s products being matched in quality and beaten by lower price, one has to wonder how they’re floating around the way they are now. Maybe everything manages to scratch enough money to make their business profitable, but gaming has taken far too much attention from everywhere else from them. Well, PlayStation as a home media center.  Even the PlayStation’s success is rather weird in hindsight. It wasn’t until the DS and the Wii when Sony’s console saw striking competition. Xbox has been largely a failure, for the better or worse, and with the careful positive outlook of macro-economics we have going on right now, maybe Sony has been able to sail the right kind of currents to hits the right spots with their machine and marketing, and been able to secure better libraries. That is, until the DS and Wii decimated and expanded the market on their own.

The Switch clearly has a demand and that demand must be satiated. Hybrid market will only grow. I was part of the hybrid market when the DS was released with the question Why would we need home consoles when portable consoles are doing good enough graphics as is?  I’ve yet to pick up a Switch of my own, but whenever I get one, you can expect a design review on it. The question What will Sony do next? has been asked few times around, but the answer seems to be The same thing we always do. This may not be as sustainable as Sony might want to believe. Maybe their best bet could be to take this home entertainment connection thing to the Nth degree and play the role of some sort Japanese equivalent of Apple in lifestyle electronics department. Their designs already zig where Apple’s zags, so the hardest part is done, right? Nevertheless, Playstation’s future is not guaranteed if Sony won’t take it outside the readily made box. Vita should’ve taught them something about this already, but no. Whatever PlayStation 5 will be in the end, it should expand further away from the living room. Maybe going to the extreme lengths to make PlayStation de facto home entertainment hardware by incorporating everything they have to some extreme degree. Of course, all this would be at the expense of it being a game system, but that’s secondary as it is at best currently.

Hunt for Sony

If there’s something Sony and Microsoft always do during E3 is their showcase how they’re chasing each other. Remember that one time when Sony did a video how you can loan your game to a friend without anything getting in the way? This was in the wake of Microsoft saying that games would be locked to a console, an idea everybody told them was retarded. It was dropped right after and nobody talked about it again.

Microsoft’s big bang for the year is 4k and XbonX. Sony would probably present something similar if they had anything left on the hardware side (they’re most likely already well into designing whatever PlayStation 5 will be) so all they really have to bring you is their services and software. They begin with few long pre-scripted trailers and hype them even further, and then mention all the biggest names on their system. All handful of them. What strikes the worst of the bunch out of this introduction speech is the fact that they felt a need to emphasize storytelling. This never promises anything good when it comes to games. Hell, there are people in the game industry who would rather do stories and feel disappointed that they need to put gameplay elements in-between their story bits.

Which is funny as hell, because Monster Hunter World trailer kicked in right after that, and the series isn’t really known for its complex or innovative storytelling. If anything, it goes its way out not to bother the player too much with the story and just lets you hunt down big dinodragons.

However, Sony still seems to want to ride on past glory, as they’re kicking in yet another remake of Shadow of the Colossus. Sony’s conference is full of sequels already, so they really should aim to make the original Shadow of the Colossus obsolete with a sequel. Not a spiritual sequel or the sort, but another proper game in the series.

Maybe this would be the best spot to chime in about Marvel VS Capcom Infinite as well, as everything we’ve seen thus far has been emphasising the story aspect of the game, not the game mechanics or characters. I’m sure they’re proud of the story that already plays like bad fanfiction where multiple characters aren’t their selves. Hell, I could do a whole post about how Sigma’s been treated a shit hand here. All this really is juxtaposed with Spider-Man, as that game seems to aim to blend storytelling and gameplay as seamlessly as possible, something that should be the standard rather than exception.

Let’s not forget that while Microsoft has no VR, Sony has their stupidly expensive one and they need to promote the shit out of it. Then again, it’s getting the best game of the 8th Generation; Final Fantasy Fishing.

There’s so very little to actually comment about this. Outside the few stupid knacks here and there, Sony’s show was trailer galore. That’s the problem really with the whole E3. It’s nothing but advertisement. There’s nothing wrong about getting excited about products you wish to consume in the future, but recognising that all these conferences are just that. While Sony has a tendency of promising what they’re going to deliver in two years or so, this E3 was a slight exception in that most of the stuff they showcased will be available sometime around next year.

All in all, a good ad for people who own a Sony machine. Relatively low content in terms of what Microsoft had, but perhaps that’s for the best on the long run. After all, people just want to see the games with as little bullshit attached as possible.

Netflix style gaming

Some time ago I was asked what do I think will be the next big thing in gaming. Usually I tend to argue that digital will not replace physical release for some time now (digital distribution has been said to obsolete physical media for some fifteen years for now) but I do recognize that cross pollination between the media is common. The future of gaming can once more found in the past, and that probably will be streamed games.

Streaming games isn’t anything new and few companies have already tried it few times over. Nintendo’s Satellaview service is perhaps the most prominent example next to OnLive’s cloud gaming. These two functioned rather differently, with Satellaview requiring a specific cartridge that would download and save the game on the cartridge itself, whereas OnLive’s MicroConsole TV Adapter (that’s what their console was called) would access a title on OnLive’s servers and stream it directly to the console.

Netflix’s and other streaming services’ success is something modern game industry is probably highly envious of. Games and movies don’t only affect each other visually speaking, but also how the industries sort of work. Modern mainstream game industry is just as corrupt and full of itself as Hollywood is, and both are envious of each other of their successes and products they put out. The consumer really loses in this little battle with each other.

It could be argued that modern technology isn’t up to perfect game streaming yet. Satellaview was more or less a similar service to Steam in how the game required a specific setup in order to be played, and OnLive’s service stated that the user needed to live thousand miles of within their server in order to get quality service. The Internet speeds are the bottle cap of the system overall, and as games require more and more oomph from the machine, the machines need to reflect this in their hardware. However, hardware still doesn’t reflect the quality of the games, as that’s still up to the developers how their games are designed and optimised, two things that seem to be missing from current mainstream industry.

One of the main reasons why companies would want to aim for game streaming is that they can claim it to be fighting against piracy through that. Claim is the choice of word here, because game companies don’t like people trading their games with each other. It’s better for them if everyone bought their games new from the stores. A streaming service would keep their the control of the market in their hands. Purchasing of games wouldn’t be a thing as the consumer would subscribe to a service. Except for the DLC, that would always be a separate thing. Of course, the user wouldn’t need to use any of his HDD space for the games due to cloud based service. In regards of history archiving, stream-only games would be hard to archive for future generations. Satellaview games suffer from this, especially with the radio broadcasts that went with them. Even now, a game that has its license expiring will be removed from stores and online services whenever applicable, and the same will apply to any streaming service.

Of course, the ownership question always pops up. With a streaming service, you would only own the console you would use for streaming, and for computers you wouldn’t probably own the software. You’d need to subscribe to the service itself and would have no control over anything in the end. Without a doubt, regional variants would continue to exists, just like with Netflix and other streaming services that limit what can be streamed in which country. This sort of regional locking is something that isn’t an issue with modern consoles any more, but with stream-only services a user wouldn’t be able to access games from another region without a VPN.

Which if the Big Three would launch their own modern game streaming service first? Sony certainly should have the basics for it, as they bought out OnLive. They should have all the documentation and basic framework how to set up a similar cloud gaming service. Perhaps this could be their ace in the hole to compete against Nintendo’s hybrid console. Microsoft on the other probably won’t do anything of the sort for a while now before they see how Project Scorpio turns out, and probably will mimic whatever Nintendo and Sony put out while trying to trump them with something over the top (see; Kinect and WiiMote.) Nintendo on the other hand seems to be already testing some waters with Switch’s paid online, as the current word on the street is that Nintendo’s paid online service has been delayed until 2018 and rather than offering a game for the subscribers to play, they will be able to access a plethora of classic games. Of course Nintendo would only offer classic games and nothing newer, as they don’t give a damn about their classic lineup of games. On the surface it does seem nice, with the cheaper price and all, but this most likely also means Nintendo won’t give two shits about Virtual Console, which was one of the reasons people bought Wii. Perhaps in their eyes a streaming service of these classic games could increase console sales, especially if the service was cheap enough.

I admit that companies hoping to take control over the consumers’ consumption of goods into their hands does sound like conspiracy theory to an extent, but no company would pass such an opportunity, because ultimately it is all about the money. By having all the string in your fingertips, a company could log in all the preferences of a consumer, supplement them, hit the right spots and sell the information forwards while still selling their own  product (i.e. subscription service and DLC in this case) to the consumer. The current consumer trend is to give control of products over the companies, and Steam probably exemplifies this the best alongside with Netflix. Certainly it is cheaper and you don’t amass large amounts of discs on your shelf. Perhaps there is too much trust put into these companies with all the information we give them.

Nintendo itself is not the brand

Neither are their developers or any of the individuals we see on streams and in interviews. Nintendo’s value as a brand goes up and down according to what they do. While branding is often given to the visual design and flavour of a company or a product, everyone knows branding is a lot more. If not consciously, then through unconscious osmosis of simple consumption of products. Brand goes hand-in-hand with reputation and the perceived value of the product produced by the company. Naturally, the product’s perceived value colours the value of the company.

It is extremely easy to make your product to look bland, and once you’ve made that misstep, it’s hard to recovered. Mass Effect Andromeda is extremely bland bland game and thus its perceived value is low. Patches only help so much, and PR is what the publisher must do in order to recover from the failure. It’s even worse if the fans lose their perceived value on the game, and that takes some effort to do. Like making your characters hold guns in reverse and essentially making it inferior to the first title in the series. Much like other AAA video game titles, it’s a very bland, very grey product.

What brings colour into a product is disruption. Nintendo has a history of heating up the Blue Ocean and disrupt the market with coloured products, though they have a history doing very grey products that wallow in the Red Ocean as well. The Switch, as it is currently, is about disruption in the video game industry. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo went with what probably is the future of console gaming and created a hybrid system.

To use car industry as an example, Volvo’s brand is security and safety. Their cars are not the most exciting things in the world, but they are very trustworthy overall and suit the best for everyone. Until somewhat recently you couldn’t find a car that would move away from this branding from their main lineup. This is because Volvo has begun to change this somewhat bland yet trustworthy brand image of theirs with premium cars that offer more exciting cars. Their image is not safety, but the content with the car and the options you can have.

Nintendo’s brand has been perceived similarly as kid’s and family’s console to play. A Nintendo console usually has a good variety of games for everyone to play, whereas Xbox is a first-person shooting game wet dream in console form (though that has been severely diminished with the lacklustre recent Halo titles) while Sony is that black console cool kids who like hardcore games go for. The original PlayStation followed Nintendo’s branding as a whole family’s future generation console, but at the same time used Sega’s not-just-for-children approach. While the PlayStation had games that kids enjoyed, it also had titles like WipeOut that hit the cultural club scene if the latter 1990’s. The N64 on the other hand wasn’t everybody’s console due to the sheer shit tier library it had. Saturn was ever successful in Japan and was mostly staying within then-passed arcade port title. As much as it hurts Saturn and Dreamcast fans, arcade ports didn’t cut it any more at that point, and arcades themselves were starting to die out.

People don’t just buy what companies are selling. They buy the perceived product the company is selling. Shit in a can isn’t perceived valuable, but when an artist does it and sells it as art, the perceived value among certain crowd skyrockets.

Nintendo Switch currently has a highly regarded perceived value because of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. No other title is driving its sales as much. 1-2 Switch is a joke, though the new Bomberman seems to have gone through a rise in perceived value after the latest patch. The Switch is currently the prime example how game industry and the Red Ocean consumers don’t get the market worth jack shit. As I’ve mentioned before, the Switch was proclaim dead on arrival and that its weak hardware wouldn’t be able to do anything. Yet, BotW alone is driving Switch’s sales. This is what a Zelda game is capable of when it is allowed to be true to the series rather than just a puzzle-dungeon game. Less Aonuma there is with Zelda, the better it gets.

It doesn’t matter if you personally think that these people who bought Switch and are enjoying its games are normies or have shit taste. They are not the deviation of the form, but the rule. The AAA game industry might shove millions into a game production and barely make even with the Red Ocean consumer, who seems to be easier consumer to please and pull money from as the Red Ocean is filled with competition. Developing and releasing games and consoles is hard work, and while it can be understood why Red Ocean developers want to stick where they’re most comfortable at (of course, with no expanded life experiences outside games, how could you even imagine developing game for the Blue Ocean consumer? Shoving an agenda to the player’s view is the last thing they want) and this is why even 10% drop in sequel game’s sales will put alarms on. Despite millions being in play, even the slightest change will throw the finely tuned balance off.

While video game industry is creative, it is service industry. If you want to use this sort of comparison, video game developer is on the same level as a burger flipper. Developers’ job is to serve the consumer and their needs, it is the consumer who ultimately decides whether or not your product is good enough to be purchased. You can work your burger however well, but if the consumer doesn’t want it, the onus is on you. Not on the consumer.

Nintendo’s last three home consoles show how their disruption coloured their brand. The Wii , as much as the Red Ocean hates it, was a massive success because Nintendo didn’t stay with the comfortable Red Ocean market. The Wii U was made for the Red Ocean, and it succeeded worth jack shit. Hell, it was pulled from the stores to make room for the Switch, which again has disrupted the industry and hopefully will continue to do so with both low- and high-end software aimed for everybody.