Wal-Mart Controls Modern Game Design? 696
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.'"
Not forever. (Score:5, Interesting)
The corrupted capitalist lifestyle (Score:3, Interesting)
Expect "unrated" versions... (Score:5, Interesting)
- PG-13 (the Wal-Mart version)
- unrated (the online version)
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:5, Interesting)
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. As gaming moved away from Shareware and into Hollywood-style productions, they obviously started needing bigger outlets to sell their games. Now since Wal-mart is the biggest consumer shopping center at the moment, that means that producers are going to follow Wal-mart's rules to maintain profits.
If this was still the 80's, game producers would be complaining about K-Mart or Sears instead.
On the flip side of this, Walmart has done some good. The smaller packaging of games has made them easier to store, produced less waste, and has generally been good for consumers as a whole. Which is nice, because the GIGANTOR boxes was really getting out of hand for awhile there. Especially as game producers packed less and less in the box. Anyone remember how Wing Commander included Blueprints, a manual, offers, etc? Good luck finding that stuff in a modern game.
Re:Raise your hand... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if they caused "pickpocketting" to be renamed "sleight of handing". The conversion of Thief to Rogue, however, probably preceeded their influence.
Actually Wal*Mart is #2 on the list. (Score:5, Interesting)
That this happens shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Given the current system of putting games on discs and putting discs in boxes the retailer must be appeased or there is no place to sell the product.
This is exactly what we need. (Score:5, Interesting)
We aren't far off from video game companies realizing they can maximize profits by raising their own capital and self publishing. In a world with broadband, buying games off the shelves just seems dumb. So everyone, lets gather around and thank companies like Wal-Mart for tightening its grip on the markets. The markets will choke to death and be reborn into something better.
Or if not, look on the bright side. You can still buy guns at Wal-Mart and go for the ultimate grand theft auto experience.
The Wal Mart Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, you want to buy a pair of socks. You happen to like Brand X socks. Since Brand X sells socks at Wal Mart, they have to lower the quality of the product to meet the price point that the buyer demands. These same socks are then sold to Kmart, Target, Sears, etc. In order to get a good pair of socks that last, you have to move up to a brand like Gold Toe that isn't sold at Wal Mart. To get this sock, you now shop at JC Penneys, Dillards, etc. Yes, you gladly pay more, because you want your socks to last more than a few months.
If you want quality, don't buy from Wal Mart. (It wasn't this bad when Sam Walton was in charge.)
Re:The corrupted capitalist lifestyle (Score:2, Interesting)
GTA (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want that must have game, and Walmart doesn't carry it, are you saying that people will not buy the game elsewhere?
I think it is pretty ridiculous to assume that Walmart has any control over software titles. I mean, I would easily agree that if you were making a brand of toilet paper, catering to Walmarts every whim makes sense because you want your toilet paper product in every Walmart. When people shop at Walmart, and they see your toilet paper there, they will buy it. More market exposure means more sales. People don't go out of their way to buy toilet paper, they buy it when they are at the store buying other things.
But can the same be said for video games? I am sorry, I don't feel that video games are impulse buy items, not these days. I don't wander into a Walmart (actually, I try to avoid them like the plague), and just happen to say, "Hey, there is a game that looks intersting, lets drop $56.97 on it thats just burning a hole in my pocket!"
How many times have I been screwed over with that mentality, dropping $40 - $80 on a video game only to bring it home and bored to tears 2 hours later. Or the game keeps me entertained for about a week before it gets old. I don't impulse buy video games any more. And I don't go to Walmart on the off chance there might be some new video game I haven't heard about sitting on the shelf.
With the Internet, I keep an eye out for new game titles and when they are released I either demo them or get reviews and user opinions about the game. I.e. I am making an informed choice about the games that I buy. When I decide to buy the game then I go out specifically to buy the video game, and usually Walmart isn't my destination. Sure, Walmart might be the cheapest place, but generally its because they sell something $0.97 cheaper then other retail stores. Hardly worth the nightmare of trying to park in a Walmart parking lot, weave my way through all the slow moving buggy people, and then stand in line for 2 hours to make my purchase.
So, I really can't see how software companies quiver in their boots if Walmart objects to one of their games. If the game is good, people will make a point to buy its regardless of where it is. There are still so many OTHER places then Walmart to buy video games.
Ultimately, if video game developers feel their innovation is being stifled by big box brand stores, then simply go the route of Valve and distribute your software via Steam or some other online service. Bypass the big box stores and their "family values" kind of crap mentality.
While I am sure that for some manufactures of many types of products losing Walmart as a retailer spells disaster, I can't see this being the case in the video game industry. F*ck Walmart if they don't like your game, its all about the customers, and if you actually make a decent game people will come to you to buy it, not Walmart.
The only game developers I can see pandering to Walmart are those crapmongers that come out with 40 lame titles a year and hope that people will look at the cover and impulse buy the game at Walmart. Few of those games ever succeed, so the more places they can fling their crap, the more chances people will get hit with it.
Thanks for posting something sensible! (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, if you don't like the quality of WalMart goods, don't buy any of their "house brand" stuff, or any of the generic stuff. Only buy when they sell the *identical* product you were wanting anyway from another store.
No matter how "evil" people think they are, they won't be able to successfully sell items the public won't buy. And they can only squeeze so hard, for so long, on manufacturers with successful products. (Of course, new ones needing a "jump start" into the marketplace want to kiss WalMart's butt. They have everything to gain when they're starting out at ground zero. But at some point, you simply can't afford to keep offering WalMart the quantities of product they want at the prices they demand you sell for. And hopefully by then, your product is well-known and in enough demand that you can cut WalMart off and keep sales alive through other retailers. Or even do direct marketing if need-be. The Internet is a powerful ally.)
Re:Cheap household goods, maybe, but not games. (Score:5, Interesting)
An interior decorator does not go to wal-mart for furniture
An art gallery does not go to wal-mart for office supplies
A gourmet does not go to wal-mart for food
A hobby mechanic does not go to wal-mart for automotive products
A gamer does not.... see the pattern here?
For those things that interest you, you have more specialized stores. But I don't go hunting down specialized stores for every sort of product I might happen to need, if there's a shopping center nearby where they sell that. For example, I know exactly where to look for good deals on computer hardware from serious retailers. Has that stopped lots of generic electonics, or even convenience stores from selling that? Hell no. Wal-Mart is not the place you go to pick up a game. It's a place where you go to pick up "everything else", which for many people includes a game or two. Multiply that with some millions and you got Wal-Mart.
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not forever. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take De Walt power tools (you know, those construction yellow and black tools with a good , solid feel to them) -- you don't see those at Wal Mart. Ditto Husqvarna chainsaws. Both damned good tools. Much more pricey then the piece-o-crap Black and Decker and Weed Eater branded tools you find at Wally World.
Of course, some good manufacturers still sell via Wal Mart, and, as far as I can tell,their quality is still good. Take the Ruger 10/22 rifle. Sure, it's accuracy is somewhat limited, but damn do those things are built like tanks and are rifles you can count on your grandkids using, if you don't pawn it for beer money.
So, some companies, like Snapper, just don't do business because it will hurt their perceived image of quality or they know Wal Mart will force them to actually lower their quality. Others, like Ruger, don't care because Walmart is the single largest distributor of their products.
The article doth protest too much? (Score:2, Interesting)
too much governmental power (Score:3, Interesting)
Not supposed to be able to happen, but how better to explain how the same group of people keep getting recycled through government service? Yes, I'm a "conspiracy theorist" [slashdot.org].
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:1, Interesting)
Elections available to the general population, not just shareholders (the wealthiest of whom have disproportionately more shares to vote, may well be foreigners, often have a short term mentality, etc.).
Voter-led initiatives. 'Nuff said.
A Constitutional right to free speech within the system. This is something you do not have in a corporation, and possibly never will.
-----------------------
Good intentions aside, you may be confused about which is the more unaccountable power.
Do you realize that getting the government involved may well be the only present practical way for ordinary blue-collar stiffs or smaller businesses to press their concerns? I don't see a largely unaccountable private dictatorship (i.e. a large corporation) providing those means for the little people. In Walmart's case, not even the medium-size people can effectively press their concerns. Without the government, you may be left with voting with your dollars, which on an individual basis means merely ratifying choices already made for you. Make no mistake; a corporating is legally prohibited from doing anything overly decent for workers or communities if that is not in the best interests of its investors, and it typically isn't at least for the short term. I imagine it's something like fiduciary responsibility.
Having so much power in one private enterprise means doing an end run around democracy. In any case I'd bet that Walmart has lobbying power, and I yet don't see you complaining about that kind of government involvement.
The rubbermaid thing is a bit of a strawman btw. It's really a quality of life issue for ordinary people, especially in small towns. If "government involvement" means regular people using the political process to decide what kind of mega-chain, if any, will dominate their community, I'm all for it. Hooray for them.
I can't read your mind, but whenever I hear someone talk about reducing "big government" in the regulatory sense, I get the feeling that this someone really means reducing the amount of government that is responsive to ordinary folks, available for active participation, and exposed to oversight. To find a government that is less accountable to huge sectors of the population than is a large corporation, you really have to scrape the bottom of the Third World barrel.
What is your suggested alternative?
Re:Hand Raised. (Score:3, Interesting)
Talking about games sold at Walmart, Walmart is a store that sells goods for the general public, they profit for selling quantity, that is why they can have very cheap prices (of course they also reduce costs). One of the key factors of Walmart success in bringing industries to their knees is the diversification of productds, as a side example there is the Record industries case [rollingstone.com], you can not find a more evil industry than the RIAA and they are whinning because for Walmart they are just another comodity (in that way I love Walmart).
Something similar is happening with the games industry. Walmart will push publishers in order to sell more and more items. But for Walmart games are not the primary income, and they could easly remove games from their inventory without a big loss, on the other side for the game industry (and the other industries) being removed from Walmart is absolutely unthinkable.
Now where I wanted to get is to the point that, Walmart will always sell what *sells more* to the masses, and here, Nintendo comes to my mind. You see, the question is, how many of the people that go to buy at Walmart have games that will be a good one. On that way, it is on this shop where potential consumers are. You will never see a non gamer (for example, my father) go to Gameworld or Nintendo shop or whatever, but he, as I usually goes through all the aisles in Walmart every month or 15 days when he does shopping.
So the question is, how to get the attention of those persons. I think Nintendo has it right because of its *gimmick*. Take for example if my father passes through the games/videos aisle and, after glancing at the movies sees the playstation or the xbox, he might see the box and the controllers, and he will quickly associate it as something difficult. But with Nintendo he surely will see that new *gimmick* and maybe try to give it a try (at the Nintendo demo units). And who knows maybe he will liike it.
Anyways, it may seem as a unrelated plug but I believe there is a great potential there. Walmart will always push the products that sell more, if any of the game companies can attract the people that buy tomatoes at walmart they will surely win.
As for the related article/summary, I think Walmart does "control" game design, but just because of the demand/supply economy, not because they are evil.
As another irrelevant note, I remember a professor expert in Data Mining who told us that part ofthe WalMart success is that they have on the biggest databases in existence, because for every purchase you do they save *every item* you get and all the corresponding information (date/time and quantity). He told us a story about the reason of why pampers are at the side of the beers, and that is because on fridays the husband returns very tired to the house after working, and the wife asks him to go to buy pampers for the baby, he then goes to the shop and when he grabs the pampers and sees the beer he thinks "okey, I have done good coming to buy pampers, then my wife wont be mad if I return and drink a six". It seems stupid but it is quite relevant, and is one of the things that Data Mining provide (which simple data bases query does not provide) which is data relations (information) that you do not know that existed.
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:1, Interesting)
People often tout the large corporations as the opitome of capitalist failings. The fact is that corporations are a product of the state and could not exist in a free market; the utopia of capitalists. The major industries created by civilisations are born from voluntary cooperation generated by incentives of personal gain. I recieve a good steak from my butcher not from the goodness of his heart but from his hope of gaining a repeat customer. Banking, insurance and language were not created or helped in any way by the state and intervention by the state invariably has negative consequence- in the UK state intervention in the insurance and pension industries has done nothing but cause problems. Humans naturally crave and institue order for personal gain.
This may seem a little of topic but the point is that corporations are an entity created and supported by the state. They are an imaginary person. If I trade as a sole trader, as myself, I am responsible for my dealings - if I cannot meet a debt I will be bankrupt, my company sold/liquidated, and if I still cannot meet the debt my house and possessions will be sold. If a corporation cannot meet a debt the entity of the corporation is made bankrupt. If the debt is still outstanding the shareholders remain free of responsibility, the debt unpaid. There is a sepperation of owner and company. Limited liability is the problem here. If the shareholders could be held responsible do you think that so much money would be poured into companies like Nike.
It is totaly wrong to blame capitalism for major corporations. They are entities of the state. However, at the end of the day it is you who support the companies and create your own problems. Just dont shop there. If you are so upset by the 'EVIL' shop then put your money where your mouth is and go somewhere else.
Re:Unfair Practices? (Score:1, Interesting)
Apparently you and your pseudocapitalist philosophy have forgotten the key reason why people lament the loss of manufacturing jobs. They paid well. They paid very very well, with benefits like health care and retirement. Walmart on the other hand, has you work 35 hours a week, thus catagorizing you part-time, but working very close to the hours of a full-time. Actually you may be working 40+ hours a week, but some of that is off the clock as "favors," because the store is intentionally short-handed in an effort to keep payroll down. As a part-time worker, you have no health insurance. No retirement. Nothing, except the minimum wage. Well that, and the ability to cash your paycheck at the Walmart to buy the produce you spent all day wrenching your back to stack out of a grocery cart because Walmart is too cheap to shell out for real shipping carts. Then Walmart will unlock the doors to the building, like a 19th century sweatshop fire trap, to let you leave as one more happy employee/customer.
So yeah. The autoworker turned Walmart stock boy is really movin' on up to the east side.
One more thing. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs did not have a "constant danger" of debilitating injury. Thanks to those goddamn liberals and OSHA.
Re:Too much buying power... (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realize that even a free market could not exist without the government defining property (and by extension intellectual property) ownership? And how about contract law? Oh, I got it! You are talking about a barter system! I'm with you now!
Banking, insurance and language were not created or helped in any way by the state and intervention by the state invariably has negative consequence
Yeah, I miss the good old days where banks were owned and operated independantly so if a bank over extended themselves via loans and went belly-up all their customers would be screwed due to their mismanagement. Curse the FDIC! We all know that CEO/CFO/etc are paragons of virtue if only they did not have pesky auditors checking their books and wasting their time. Why Worldcomm, ENRON and their compatriots might still be with us today if it were not for government meddling!
Though I have to admit I have no idea where you were going with that "language" bit.
the UK state intervention in the insurance and pension industries has done nothing but cause problems
Yup - as soon as Prime Minister Thatcher moved to have their pension system privatized in 1984, it has been a new era of wealth and prosperity for the UK's retirees. Ignore those liars that say that the fees and charges have eaten an average of 30% of the savings accounts. Also ignore that the UK is now looking to the USA's social security program for their new model to get things back on track. More such lies can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/424r4/ [tinyurl.com]
It is totaly wrong to blame capitalism for major corporations. They are entities of the state.
If by that you mean legal fictions that can own property, then yes. But then so are companies and most any other institution.