Wal-Mart Controls Modern Game Design?

An anonymous reader writes "That Wal-Mart smiley face is looking pretty evil now that Allen Varney has explained how much influence they have on virtually every modern game: 'Publisher sales reps inform Wal-Mart buyers of games in development; the games' subjects, titles, artwork and packaging are vetted and sometimes vetoed by Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart tells a top-end publisher it won't carry a certain game, the publisher kills that game. In short, every triple-A game sold at retail in North America is managed start to finish, top to bottom, with the publisher's gaze fixed squarely on Wal-Mart, and no other.'"

Too much buying power...

[Komarechka]

Wal-Mart has had this impact on developers and publishers for quite some time. One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX - Wal-Mart didn't want to sell it because of its nature, so they toned it down to fit within Wal-Mart standards. It is unfortunate that one company with so much buying power runs the market. Gamestop is second though, with their recent merger with EB Games. But that's like comparing Godzilla to Oprah. You don't want to make either of them mad, but only one of them is powerful enough to destroy the planet. unless... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Oprahsaurus.jpg [uncyclopedia.org]

Cheap household goods, maybe, but not games.

[Spectre]

Every gamer I know buys from Amazon, EB Games, Gamestop, Best Buy, CompUSA, etc ... but NONE of them go to Wal-Mart for their games. Cheap furniture, office supplies, food, automotive products, maybe. But not games. Wal-Mart in this area doesn't even begin to compete on game selection, price, or in any other way with the more specialized stores.

Hand Raised.

[christian.elliott]

Wal-Mart has a better idea of what you're buying that you do yourself. The know what gets sold, then know what popular. They could probally tell you how many video games they sold last month, and the result would scare you.

Don't be so quick to call everything a load of shit, because it probally isn't.

It is a bit upsetting that so many companies are at the mercy of Wal-Mart. This doesn't just happen with video games. If Wal-Mart says that this years Easter Bunnies will have 3 ears, your ass better be making some mutant rabbits to scare the kids, or risk getting overthrown by the guy who will.

Wal-Mart holds to much control in the USA (and Canada now) than most people would want. It should be interesting when it all comes crashing down (sooner or later, it will).

true, but..

[xusr]

it renewed my sense of horror for Wal-Mart's current management and policies. Just because you have the ability to determine the products that reach consumers shouldn't give you ethical license to do so. I wish Walton Sr. was still around, back when Wal-Mart stood for high wages, good benefits and US made products. Whatever happened to hereditary behavior?

Don't Blame Walmart

[schnablebg]

Walmart has a right to decide what it wants to sell. The publishers and developers are the ones making a concsious decision here. Support independent game publishers that don't go through this channel, the ones that understand their customers enough to realize that there is a market that may lie outside of the Walmart shopper demographic and are willing to take the risk to sell to them. Remeber, only YOU can prove there is a market outside of Walmart.

Good old capitalism

[multiOSfreak]

This is hardly surprising. Wal-Mart has had quite a stranglehold on the supply sie of the market for a number of years. Technically, they're not a monopoly, but for all practical purposes, they wield the power of a monopoly from one end of the supply chain to another. You have to admire their innovation (they've revolutionized the modern retail supply chain), but it's also quite scary how much control they have.

Although it's been linked to numerous times here and elsewhere, I'd like to point those interested in learning more about how Wal-Mart deals with supppliers to the now-famous Fast Company article [fastcompany.com] on the subject.

Re:Too much buying power...

[Gulthek]

You cite Wing Commander as a prime example of gaming swag? Man, you should've played Origin games in the 80s. The Ultima games always came with great stuff (a Brittanian coin for V, a dark moonstone with VI, etc.).

Look up some Origin (Autoduel, Ultima series) or Infocom (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) games on The Legacy [thelegacy.de] and see the great swag of yesteryear.

Re:Sorry, no

[Saeul]

You might also point out that other nations directly censor content of video games must more harshly than WalMart. When I worked at Microprose, for instance, Germany wouldn't allow distribution of SKUs that showed red blood.

But the greatest censor of all of content is the whim of the RETAIL buyer. What the buyer doesn't buy eventually doesn't get sold. Of course, there are niche markets that could sustain some of the content, but even Hollywood is changing its product mix in response to economist analysis of various ratings.

Simply put, even when you take artistic expression into account, media entertainment is commercial art. If you can't sell it, it doesn't get done.

Re:Too much buying power...

[dougmc]

One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX

... a game that should have never been made.

I'm not quite a hardcore gamer, but I do like to play computer games (RTS, FPS, RPG, Simulations.) And I'm not a prude -- I like my games to be a bit gritty, and a little blood, swearing or nudity never bothered me, and in many cases it enhances the game.

But I've seen BMX XXX. And I have to wonder `what were they thinking?' The game was stupid, uninspired, and not fun.

Duke Nukem had strippers. No nudity, but the strippers were appropriate. I thought GTA3 was OK -- sure, it was violent, but that fit in with the game. The latest Leisure Suit Larry? Well, it's crude because it's supposed to be, and that fits in with the theme (though the game itself was pretty mediocre.) But BMX XXX? It's like, `we'll take one of these `extreme' (which usually means `bad' by itself) games, and make it even more `EXTREME TO THE MAX' by adding lots of swearing and strippers!' Bah.

It's a pity WalMart didn't kill it entirely.

(And GTA: San Andreas and Hot Coffee? Yawn. More games need to acknowledge that people like to have sex. Though I'd prefer they take their clothes off first, unlike the Hot Coffee stuff. And really, it's amusing to no end that people don't really mind how violent the game is, but the moment it suggests somebody having sex (Odds are that 1) your parents have never killed a hooker or stolen a car, but 2) that they have had sex) it must be the Devil! (And nevermind that nobody could ever find the content by accident.)

Re:Too much buying power...

[chill]

The problem is, this effect appears to be entirely unintentional. Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly "Bible-belt" image. As a result, they have never in their history carried games that didn't meet their current criteria.

This is so not true.

I was in Walmart the other day, browsing thru DVDs and what did I see: The uncensored version of Comedy Central's Pamela Anderson Roast; the Director's Cut of Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"; the "Uncensored" Director's Cut of "The Girl Next Door" -- you know, the one where the porn stars move in next door to this high school kid? Tons of "uncensored" and "director's cuts" of almost-porn and very, very violent slasher movies. DVD seasons of South Park, Tripping the Rift, etc. Family-friendly fare it ain't.

Their "criteria" is, and always has been, whatever sells the most without making too much of a PR stink. Music and games are easy targets, so Walmart forces censorship and gets to wave the "family" flag. Since no stink is made with video, they sell damn near everything except hardcore.

  -Charles

Sooo...

[Chr0nik]

My idea for a "sim-mart" game, replete with bouncing smiley faces knocking prices down, white trash beating their kids in the aisles, and ra-ra sessions in the back room would probably go over great!! There could even be sub games, like "spot the psycho" in the sporting goods gun section.

Ah yes, the free market

[ronfar]

Wal-Mart, the Abuse of Eminent Domain and Corporate Welfare [reclaimdemocracy.org]

Most of Alameda Square's businesses are profitable. Together they generate about $125,000 a year in sales tax revenue. But if the city of Denver has its way, these small businesses will be evicted to make way for a Wal-Mart super-center. The city's Urban Renewal Authority has threatened condemnation if the property owners refuse to sell and has offered Wal-Mart $10 million in public subsidies. That's right: Tax dollars would go to one of the country's most profitable and powerful corporations.

That free market sounds like a pretty sweet deal where you can buy your own city government...

Wal-Mart leads the pack in attracting subsidies, this year collecting $10 million in Denver; $500,000 in Dallas; $36.7 million in Scottsdale, Ariz., (as part of a shopping center that includes Lowe's); $9 million in Bartlesville, Okla.; and $17 million in Lewiston, Maine.

Re:Too much buying power...

[joystickgenie]

That's 10% of the entire retail market. Not the video game market. In the video game market Wal-Mart has more around 25% market share. That's 1 out of every 4 games sold are sold from Wal-Mart.

So when you think about this in mass numbers Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2) made 5.1 million. Cut Wal-Mart out of the loop they may have only made 3.8 million.

There was never a question of making this an anti trust case, because it's not. But, that is a huge chuck of sales and no business man is going to tell you to ignore ¼ of you potential market and that is why Wal-Mart is a driving force in the game industry.

Sources:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8409492/ [msn.com]
http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=365981 &page=0 [yahoo.com]
http://www.npd.com/press.main.html [npd.com]

Re:Too much buying power...

[MightyMartian]

Well, Walmart is selling Brokeback Mountain, despite the protestations of those freedom-loving Bible Belt types, so clearly, at the end of the day, despite the image, what counts to them is making money.

Re:It really isn't a free market

[Jonny_eh]

How can you even consider Wal-mart a video game retail monopoly?

Here in little Ottawa, Canada, you can buy games at Zellers, Sears, EBGames, Microplay, Futureshop, Best Buy, Compusmart, Toys R Us, amazon.ca, etc.

Stop with the wal-mart whining already!

Wal-Mart essentially controls ALL its vendors

[Anonymous Coward]

Our company makes posters and calendars, and does business with Wal-Mart. We're small (~$60million in revenue, maybe 200 employees in the whole universe) but the tentacles of Wal-Mart snake their way through every decision we make here.

Products live and die based on whether Wal-Mart will "allow" them or not. We had to turn down a license for a moderately popular program on Cartoon Network because of the number of people who don't "get" that the Boondocks is ridiculing both bigots and walking stereotypes simultaneously. We couldn't turn a profit with it if our biggest customer wasn't interested. Based on previous experience, the people that "deal directly" with Wal-Mart said "great idea, it'll never happen." Which is too bad, because I really dig Boondocks.

Frighteningly enough, Huey is becoming my social conscience...

Walmart... Karl Marx's Dream!

[RexRhino]

In the evil capitalist system, a corporate giant like Walmart uses it's enourmous power and natural monopoly to exploit the people by driving out competition and lowering prices... and it also gives it the power to sqeeze suppliers and control content of media products.

Where as in the socialist utopia, a government owned corporation uses it's enourmous power and monopoly to free the people from oppression, by lowering prices, driving out exploitive capitalist competition... sqeezing suppliers into charging the people low prices, and ensuring that the government corporation censors media for exploitive and counter-revolutionary material.

Oh, that is right, the socialist system is less exploitive because "we have power"... we get to vote... every couple years... from a small list of parties... who are highly regulated by those in power... and subject to strict requirements written by those in power... and campaigns are funded by those in power... and in which we recieve information about the election from those in power. How could there be anything exploitive like that.

Re:Walmart... Karl Marx's Dream!

[RexRhino]

In the Marxism definition of Socialism, Socialism is the state where the means of production are controlled by the state, under a dictatorship of the proletariate. That is then followed by Communism, in which the state withers away an people live in a utopian communal anarchist society. Karl Marx makes it clear how people who don't have the "very specific mindset" should be dealt with... they are counter-revolutionaries, and need to be destroyed.

Modern economists define Socialism as when the means of production are controlled by the state, and leave out all the other normative and subjective parts of the definition.

While you could have non-government voluntary collectivism, Socialism, by the accepted definitions implies the existance of a state. When people call themselves "Socialist", they usually mean that they want a dictatorship of the proletariate, or if they are not a Marxist they want a centrally-planned welfare state. Virtually no-one is advocating anarchism, and even the very few marginal groups that do advocate anarchism usually REALLY support state-socialism, and just say they support anarchism because it is "cooler" than saying you are a Socialist.

Re:Not forever.

[quakeroatz]

uh DeWalt is Black and Decker.

So do we have anyone who actually SHOPS at Walmart

[patio11]

All the self-congratulatory "I'm different than the masses who shop at Walmart. I value quality. I have refined tastes." is getting a little thick around here. I bear no ill-will in my heart for folks who bought their gym shoes at some specialty shop instead of buying them for 10% less at Walmart. You can laugh at the quality of Walmart shoes, although I regularly had them last over a year without noticeable performance problems (this is probably because all kids shoes are made in the same Chinese factories and the thing you pay for is the brand value -- people act like Walmart alone killed the US textile industry, when essentially *nobody* does any sort of commodity fabrication in the US). You can also laugh at the quality of their Wonderbread or whatnot, although personally I'm unable to distinguish it from the "local chain store" Wonderbread. I also find it relatively difficult to distinguish a Walmart Vlassic pickle from a Jewel Vlassic pickle... Oh yeah, except for that one thing... WALMART IS CHEAPER. My father was a small businessman whose income gyrated radically on a year-to-year basis, and some years my family was significantly below the poverty line. And you know what? There's a certain attraction in cutting your food bills by 10% and your clothing bills by *lots*. Do I have a really strong desire to go to Walmart as a working professional? No, not so much, the difference between a $60 bill at the grocery shop and $65 bill at the grocery shop is meaningless to me. But it wasn't once, and it isn't currently to a lot of people.

Incidentally, the whole "Walmart economic death spiral" is a bit oversold. If you operate a retail business, Walmart dropping a store next to you is not so fun. If you work at a retail business, you might well end up working at the Walmart. If you do neither, the only economic impact Walmart has on you is changing what bag your Wonderbread comes in (and, oh, saving you money).

Re:Not forever.

[pheonix]

Umm, no. Dewalt is a brand owned by Black and Decker, but as anyone that's ever used and abused a power tool can tell you, Dewalt is NOT Black and Decker. Period.