Tweet
Kinda long reply to benstandby's "Tell me what you think" post. He raised several points that I wish to respond to.
< mega snipping engaged >
While this sounds good please consider the realities of what you are asking. Look at what Ralph Nader has had to go thru to protect the public from big corporations.
Here the biggest problem is that a lot of these sites and publications receive income from ads placed by the developers and the publishing houses.
Here again the gamer doesn't see the game until after it is released by the publisher. The pre-released games are reviewed by staff whose job it is to help promote the games. Even publications that have rating systems say from one to five will give a very poor game a 2.5.
And once the game is out it would take over three months for a buyer's review to get to the readers. And then you have games that appeal to certain people and not others. If I reviewed some of the games my children play I'd rate them from very poor to so-so, while my children would rate them as top of the line.
I don't know how you'd remove subjectivity from the game testing and more importantly from the game reviews.
The problem with using "fan" sites is that it is too easy to start flame wars when making a bad review. And as these are fan sites the moderators are usually fans too and the reviewer faces banning or warning for making flamitory posts.
Lofty idea here. You should consult with Ralph Nader.
When was the last time you bought a new car, or even a used car, and looked for the Ralph Nader seal of approval?
There is a much better way of dealing with companies like IG/Atari and QSI. A simple class action suit where it can be shown the what you payed money for was not fit for public consumption. Basis for the suit is the comparison of "BOX" games and "PC" games. How many BOX games have had updates after release to fix programming problems? How many PC games?
Simply put the publishers for PC based games are taking advantage of the buyers by releasing buggy software with the idea that they can patch it after release. Atari/QSI went way beyond this doctrine with MoO3. The only way to make the game industry publishers clean up their act is to hit them in the pocket book. There are only two ways to do this. First is to pass laws that require ALL retailers to accept game returns for a full refund of the purchase price in CASH including shipping charges which the game publisher will be responsible for covering! Second is hold the publishers accountable, in court if necessary.
< mega snipping engaged >
Taking a step-wise approach, I think that the first major piece would be to form an advocacy group: a not-for-profit consumer development organization that would serve to advance the cause of the gamer by bringing the full force of gamers, their websites, their magazines, and most importantly their money down on the corporations that fund, design, and manufacture the games they play. The objective here would be to hold these corporations accountable for their business practices by compiling a database of those practices, publishing both an online and printed journal, and serving as a place where complaints can be synthesized and presented to corporations, the public, and- if necessary- the authorities.
This would be a formidable task indeed, however. So the first thing that would have to happen is to grease the wheels of the machine we call free market. Grant money and loans would need to be secured before anything major could be done, but while the grant writing (read: waiting) is taking place, gamer’s magazines, websites, and forums could be contacted. These institutions are key to keeping the gaming community cohesive, and relationships with them would be critical to the success of any endeavors in this arena.
I have broken this step down into three areas. Each would need to be approached in slightly different ways due to the culture of each. The most formal and professional of these institutions would be the gamer’s magazines like PC Gamer, GMR Magazine, and PC Zone. With these kinds of institutions, press releases and letters to the editor would be the most effective way to get information about our organization into their publications and to their readers. Until some measure of success has been achieved, there would be no point in wasting our effort on anything other than letting them know that we exist. Later, these institutions would be a wonderful tool to direct against corporations that exploit the gaming population, but they tend to have a view of the video game scene that is magazine and industry centered. A grassroots style organization like the one I’m proposing would not be considered newsworthy until it has done something.
And once the game is out it would take over three months for a buyer's review to get to the readers. And then you have games that appeal to certain people and not others. If I reviewed some of the games my children play I'd rate them from very poor to so-so, while my children would rate them as top of the line.
I don't know how you'd remove subjectivity from the game testing and more importantly from the game reviews.
This is why I would start with the more humble, but pivotal forums and websites. Sites like Civfanatics (www.civfanatics.com), Apolyton (www.Apolyton.net), and Game Rankings (www.gamerankings.com) are the water temples of this industry and its communities.
These sites would have to be enticed with some kinds of incentives, but links on their sites to a website that we create for the Video Game Research Institute (or VGRI [the independent research organization/consulting firm that I would create]) would be too important to miss. This would be the most important aspect of the entire networking process.
The VGRI seal of approval would be a program that upon implementation, absolutely creates the kind of feedback needed to truly assess the organization’s power in the industry as a force for equity and accountability. It would be a set of criteria that any game must meet in terms of both quality and honesty in how a game is designed and marketed. This seal would be totally voluntary for companies to seek out and obtain the rights to display for a game’s box, but if enough gamers were on board the mission of the organization would buy only games that are approved by a private, reputable organization as up to a certain quality, functionality (as in, “does it work?”), and that they are indeed what they are advertised as, the industry would feel the weight of VGRI. On the other hand, if we haven’t made any impact at all, we’ll know it within a year when nobody cares about our little seal and people are still getting gouged at the checkout stand.
There is a much better way of dealing with companies like IG/Atari and QSI. A simple class action suit where it can be shown the what you payed money for was not fit for public consumption. Basis for the suit is the comparison of "BOX" games and "PC" games. How many BOX games have had updates after release to fix programming problems? How many PC games?
Simply put the publishers for PC based games are taking advantage of the buyers by releasing buggy software with the idea that they can patch it after release. Atari/QSI went way beyond this doctrine with MoO3. The only way to make the game industry publishers clean up their act is to hit them in the pocket book. There are only two ways to do this. First is to pass laws that require ALL retailers to accept game returns for a full refund of the purchase price in CASH including shipping charges which the game publisher will be responsible for covering! Second is hold the publishers accountable, in court if necessary.
)
Comment