A Very Long Response

This next blog is in response to Ironix's blog, but it's too long to post as a comment!  So here it is.

Alright, I read your blog twice over, so the debate ought to go well.

Let's put a few things into perspective we both agree on.  1)  The price of $55 is just way too high.  2)  The best bet this game has of selling is, indeed, through it's already existing fans.  You made very convincing arguments on the second point.  I also agree that Namco must justify themselves regarding this decision.  However, I still do not agree with the main thrust of your argument, which is that Namco Bandai made a mistake.  They didn't, and here's a short list of why.

1)  The PSP is dead.  I know I beat you over the head with this but it's important for any consideration of the facts.

2)  The PS Vita is nearly dead.  As an owner myself, I'm saddened by this beyond words.  However, the dismal release list speaks for itself.

3)  The iOS platform is plenty healthy, and is spread over iPhones, iPads and iPods, which makes for a great market.

Now we both agree that the price is ridiculous and the fans are important.  So let's take a look at why Namco did what they did.  Put yourself in the publisher's shoes for a second.  If you were to put out Idol Master Fiesta, what are your options?  There are several, but I think it boils down to two general decisions.

1)  To localize for the PSP/Vita

2)  To localize for iOS.

In your arguments, you say that fans are the ones who will buy at the 55 dollar price point.  Yes.  Fans are the ones who will initiate other players into becoming fans.  Also yes.  BUT, this actually works against you.  Because the BEST way to attract existing fans AND to pull in new ones is through  option 2, the iOS.  Why?  Because you cannot grow the market using option 1.  Suppose I were to try to get a friend to buy Fiesta on the PSP/Vita.  It would be easy to do so if they already had the machine.  But not so much if they don't.  It would be very difficult to get anyone else to buy the game if they also had to shell out for a system they don't have but it's doubly so when the systems in question are DEAD!  So how do you intend to grow your fan base on dead platforms?  It doesn't work very well.  The iOS is a whole different story.  Not only is the platform evolving (iPhone 4, 4S, 5, etc.) but there are plenty of people who already have one variation of the machine, so it's easy to gain new converts through existing fans.  Yes, it's too bad for the folks who have a PSP/VITA but not the iOS.  But there are bound to be an overlap.  I'm sure a lot of fans who have a PSP also have an iOS device.  Put yourself in Namco's position and you can see that - if they are serious about growing their fan base - the PSP/Vita option is the more limiting choice.

This is the main thrust of my argument but your blog also points out a couple other issues I wish to address.  Now I didn't read the original article on this announcment, but you mentioned that Namco didn't give anyone warning regarding the iOS decision?  But isn't the warning the news piece itself?  It seems to me this announcment IS the warning you've been looking for.  Afterall, the game isn't out yet (am I right?  I'm not sure).  And of course, there are also the issue of price point, and their mismarketing (in your opinion) to their target audience (the fans).  But on that second point, I argue that there is no mismarketing.  Why?  Because this is their first attempt to bring any Idol Master title to North America.  So any marketing they do now is brand new, at least from Namco's perspective.  For you, who have been enjoying the titles since the beginning, it feels like a betrayal.  But to Namco, it's their first foray into new territory for a 'new' IP.  In order to launch successfully, they must not only balance existing fan base, but also to consider a new audience.  Which, I think, means taking a few risks.

Which is exactly what I think is happening here.  Let's consider several facts:

1)  It's easy to port games to Android, PSP, Vita.  Relatively speaking.

2)  It's easy to lower the price of a title on iOS.  Happens all the time.

Put those two together and what we have is classic risk versus reward.  Only, in this case, the risk isn't as great as you think.  If Namco localized for PSP, they are guarenteed a niche audience.  But why stop at that?  With the iOS, they have a potential hit on their hands beyond what can be provided by niche.  And here's where iOS flexibility comes into play.  What Namco is doing is simply this.  They are testing the waters.  That's it.  No more, no less.  They publish for iOS, not because they are shooting themselves in the foot, but rather because iOS is the perfect test platform.  If 55 bucks don't sell?  No big deal.  Slash it in half!  They are free to set whatever price until it's optimal.  Even if noone buys at 55, someone will at 45.  Then 35.  Then 25, and on and on.  And, if the game takes off, even a little, you can bet on an Android port and maybe a PSP/Vita version, too.  Now you say that price adjustments are easily done on the PSN.  Yes, however, I think, they are not just testing the price point, they are testing iOS itself.  It's no secret that console sales are down and developers are flocking to mobile.  What better way for Namco to get into the mobile action than to port over something with a small but installed fan base just to get it's feet wet?

So that’s my answer.  Why did Namco do what they did?  Simple.  They are making a gamble, testing the iOS waters, and going from there.

 

To Shoot or Not to Shoot?

Several years ago, my boss at the time asked me a question.  This was around the time the first Black Ops came out.  Knowing what a big gamer I am and the hype Black Ops was getting, she asked me if I was getting this game.  I said no.  She ask why.  I said, 'because I don't want to play a game about shooting other human beings.'  She was surprised but impressed by the answer.

Fast forward several years, though, and what are my favorite games of 2013?  Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite, two games where there are plenty of human targets to shoot in the face (or arms, or legs, or stomatch).  Clearly, I'm no saint, but at the time of the first Black Ops, I meant what I had said.  And I still do.  So how can I say one thing, and do the other?  Because I WANT to play games with less violence rather than I MUST.  That's the difference.

You can call me a hypocrite or a player of semantics but in my defense I play plenty of other types of games.  Just in 2013 alone there's been Atelier Meruru, Fire Emblem Awakening, Metal Gear Rising, Resistance 2, Metro 2033, Devil May Cry and Pandor's Tower.  Not all of these games involve killing fellow human beings and some of them are barely violent.  Out of the ten games I've played listed here, half of them feature human beings as the enemy, the other half are monsters, demons or aliens.

So if I don't want to play violent games, if I don't want to shoot at other virtual humans, then why still do?  Because the violent games are....  Just.  Too.  Good.  Its' clear after the first 15 minutes of gameplay that a lot of blood, sweat and tears when into the making of both Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider.  Very high production values, lovely graphics, great story, and fantastic atmosphere make both must play experiences.  If I wanted to be a pacifist, I'd be giving up two of the best gaming experiences of 2013 and there's no way I can do that.

I do imagine what would happen if some of those great gaming goodness rubbed off on the other, less violent games.  If Pandor's Tower had just a tad bit better a story and more interactivity and benefited from a higher production value, I wouldn't be thinking of quitting this game.  If Atelier Meruru was just a little less focused on crafting I'd stick with that to the end, too.  Or, how come they don't just make Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite… and just tone down all the blood and violence?  Both games would still work extremly well without both.  At least, that's what I think.

So that's the delimma.  Give up on some great gaming experiences or stop complaining about game violence.  A stark choice, but it's a razor edge I've been living on for years.  Luckily, there is a silver lining.  A truly excellent game doesn't glorify violence.  Yes, there are blood and yes, there are shooting other humans but usually, well made games also come with a bit more… art to it.  It doesn't entirely justify the gore but it does put things into perspective.  In the case of Tomb Raider, it tells the story of Lara's rise from innocence to hardened survivor and in so doing, elevated this already iconic character to legendary proportions.  You can say the story and character benefitted greatly from what happened in the game, blood and violence being only parts of the whole, the others being determination, perserverence, resourcefullness and courageousness.  Though I have yet to beat Bioshock Infinite, it is already somewhat less violent than the first game and the focus of Infinite is decidedly away from blasting people to other lofty ideas, such as patriotism, facism, racism and the dangers of a personality cult.  Basically, more than just the shooting and the destruction, the game's atmosphere is the true attraction.  Though it helps that the action itself is quite top notch.

There will always be an effort on my part to avoid the truly gratuitous depictions of violence.  I will never enjoy Madworld, for instance, and I do try to stay away from most military shooters (the story never fully justifies the means, unless that story belongs to Spec Ops: The Line).  However, if they keep making great games I will keep playing them, shooting whomever needs to be shot.