For those who hadn’t heard me say so elsewhere, I attended PAX in Seattle over the weekend. It brought to mind a smaller, friendlier E3, which is certainly an improvement in my eyes, particularly given the complete lack of booth babes. Much of my time was spent attending every single panel in which the staff of Telltale made an appearance, resulting in such brag-worthy experiences as getting called by name whenever I went up to ask questions and even playing the role of Sybil in an audience-generated Sam & Max scene, in which I got to say such classic lines as my now-favourite “I’m an orthopaedic surgeon, baby!” [1] I also ended up spending quality time chatting with assorted internet buddies in person, as well as running into a couple of people I used to know from high school. (I suppose it was bound to happen, considering that Seattle is about four hours away from my hometown.)
The one thing that bothered me throughout, however, was several game companies’ overwhelming tendency to refer to their games as “products” and to their players as “consumers”. It’s unsurprising that they would do so, really, but it also makes me more than a little uncomfortable. What does it mean to “consume” a game, anyway? Did I miss the memo stating that games are to be officially relegated as food items or somesuch? Maybe that’s the reason why they decrease in value as they get older. Hmm…
- Unlike Telltale, I spell “orthopaedic” using the Queen’s English. ↩
I think there are several reasons for the “products” and “consumers” terminology. Part of it I think is a somewhat conscious need to get game companies “respected” by traditional media and businessmen. (At the very least there are now more traditional MBAs in the games industry than ever before.)
I agree that “consumers” is a funny word for gaming culture and the only place I could ever seeing using it is in a board room with some traditional PHBs. On the other hand I guess I am guilty of using “product” a lot. I think it is as appropriate as any term… I think that I personally have a hard time considering it a “game” until it is out the door and fun and actually played by people… until that it seems more a product/project that has a number of deadlines and headaches lying in wait for me.
You make some good points. I guess the “product” thing depends on context, though; I do, after all, occasionally refer to things I create as “products of my imagination”. But then, I also think of games as “games” even when they’re not yet playable, in much the same way as people refer to embryos and foetuses as “babies” even if they aren’t yet. Yes, they cause quite their share of pain and suffering, but when they’re Made With Love™, it tends not to matter as much.
Then again, I’ve never had to make money off of a game before. Or a baby, for that matter.
“Then again, I’ve never had to make money off of a game before. Or a baby, for that matter.”
Count yourself amongst the blessed if you needn’t make money off of a baby. I’d hate to see “Baby for Rent” banner ads all over your blog.
As the Worldmaker mentioned, there are more MBAs in the industry now. The lessons learned during the spendthrifty 90s has resulted in venture capital firms far more active in the management policies of the companies they invest in…the power they wield in selection of upper management, and subsequently in lower tiers of marketing and operations management, has become substantial. Gone are the days when money flowed like a winter-swollen Rio Grande. Gone are the days when a seedy producer with a handful of overpaid artists and programmers could get development funding with little to no production or business plan.
This infiltration of business culture into gaming culture is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. For games to reach market and success requires a recalcitrant symbiosis with the power-point wielding, jargon-spewing tie-wearers.
Pardon me, I think I’m letting my spite show…when I hear games referred to as product and gamers as consumers, it chaps my hide a little. It demonstrates the innate propensity that the language of management has for putting individuals into neatly stackable and storable containers. Despite my spite, I do acknowledge that we wouldn’t have the advanced tools or hardware if that strata didn’t exist. Still, it would be nice if commerce wasn’t the all-encompassing goal.
Despite the function of conferences as network- and community-building events, their value as a marketing showcase has always been considered to be the primary function by management. I’ve never been to a Siggraph, E3 or GDC whose show floor wasn’t mostly populated by polo-shirt-clad marketing and sales people, swiping badges and toothily touting terms like “qualified leads” and “Marketing Collateral” I’ve been to a *lot* of these shows since my early days as a Softimage demonstrator…a technical position, yet one still considered as sales and marketing support…pardon me, I think I’m letting my hypocricy show.
Although I didn’t attend PAX, no matter how small, intimate and dear to the production community it is, the preponderance of sales and marketing staff will always dominate the show floor…the technical and art folks are too busy hitting up the lectures and seminars, or cruising the show.
All very good points. Still doesn’t stop me from rolling my eyes in exasperation at how our world works, nor does it make me feel any less responsible as an amateur to do things differently in my personal work.
Also, regarding lectures and seminars, it seemed like probably half the ones I went to WERE filled with marketting jargon. Perhaps it has to do with there being comparatively fewer panels than GDC; when I attended this year, I managed to pretty much only show up to design-related lectures. Also, PAX seems to be more for gamers than game developers, which also requires the developers/PR people to speak more about why people should play their games than about how to design them. *shrugs*