Wednesday 16 May 2012
Thursday 22 March 2012
GAME's administration: A gamer's view
I'd be lying if I said I was an expert in economics, but there are one or two things about the coverage of GAME's potential collapse which I - as a gamer and consumer - find it hard to accept. There's lots of talk about credit terms and competition with supermarkets - which is the downfall of so many high street retailers - but for me this doesn't cover GAME's failings.
Years ago there were two specialist high street retail chains: GAME and Electronics Boutique (since I'm digging out brain cells that have been dormant for a while, I think EB was Futurezone before that - that's going back a bit). GAME successfully bought out all of EB's stores, but never consolidated them, resulting in the current situation in which most major retail-oriented city centres have two branches of GAME. This must have meant a lot of staff and property overhead for little extra profit. Buying games isn't like wanting an overpriced coffee, you don't need to just turn your head and see a branch.
Some time later, a new chain emerged which specialised in the then-fledgling trade-in market, Gamestation. GAME decided to buy out the competition again, acquiring all of Gamestation's branches, many of which were - again - in cities which already had two branches of GAME. Additionally, by this time GAME had also adopted a major pre-owned strategy of their own and for most gamers, to be honest, GAME and Gamestation had become interchangeable.
It never made sense to me why GAME continued to maintain so much duplication on the high street. In many cities they effectively had three stores, often within a couple of streets of each other. I always though it was the perfect opportunity to compare which branch enjoyed the most footfall and conversion and to close the lesser locations.
The talk of supermarket's undercutting GAME is also confusing. As a gamer, I have to say that I find neither supermarkets or GAME to be a particularly competitive option. Play.com and Amazon pretty much set the standard best price for new game releases. GAME's best feature, for me, was the regular weekly deals and occasional discounts they would offer. There was always a good reason to visit GAME regularly and for me it simply wasn't the new releases.
Obviously the high street struggles to compete with online. What is particularly irritating about GAME's practices over the last few years is that they don't even compete with their own website. The same titles would regularly be £5-£10 cheaper on their website than in-store and local staff were powerless to price match. Perhaps the branches were having to pay for their multiple presence in the high street?
I think it would be a sad day for gamers in the UK if GAME and Gamestation disappear, leaving HMV left as the only struggling retail chain to specialise in entertainment products. For those towns with a decent independent game shop it will be a good season, but I fear many gamers will be left with only online options and for the casual gamer it will be a very confusing time.
Years ago there were two specialist high street retail chains: GAME and Electronics Boutique (since I'm digging out brain cells that have been dormant for a while, I think EB was Futurezone before that - that's going back a bit). GAME successfully bought out all of EB's stores, but never consolidated them, resulting in the current situation in which most major retail-oriented city centres have two branches of GAME. This must have meant a lot of staff and property overhead for little extra profit. Buying games isn't like wanting an overpriced coffee, you don't need to just turn your head and see a branch.
Some time later, a new chain emerged which specialised in the then-fledgling trade-in market, Gamestation. GAME decided to buy out the competition again, acquiring all of Gamestation's branches, many of which were - again - in cities which already had two branches of GAME. Additionally, by this time GAME had also adopted a major pre-owned strategy of their own and for most gamers, to be honest, GAME and Gamestation had become interchangeable.
It never made sense to me why GAME continued to maintain so much duplication on the high street. In many cities they effectively had three stores, often within a couple of streets of each other. I always though it was the perfect opportunity to compare which branch enjoyed the most footfall and conversion and to close the lesser locations.
The talk of supermarket's undercutting GAME is also confusing. As a gamer, I have to say that I find neither supermarkets or GAME to be a particularly competitive option. Play.com and Amazon pretty much set the standard best price for new game releases. GAME's best feature, for me, was the regular weekly deals and occasional discounts they would offer. There was always a good reason to visit GAME regularly and for me it simply wasn't the new releases.
Obviously the high street struggles to compete with online. What is particularly irritating about GAME's practices over the last few years is that they don't even compete with their own website. The same titles would regularly be £5-£10 cheaper on their website than in-store and local staff were powerless to price match. Perhaps the branches were having to pay for their multiple presence in the high street?
I think it would be a sad day for gamers in the UK if GAME and Gamestation disappear, leaving HMV left as the only struggling retail chain to specialise in entertainment products. For those towns with a decent independent game shop it will be a good season, but I fear many gamers will be left with only online options and for the casual gamer it will be a very confusing time.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Does the PS Vita add any value?
Today marks my last opportunity to pre-order Sony's new handheld console, the Playstation Vita. To be honest I'm still uncertain as to whether I want it or not. To get my own thoughts in order and to provide you with some food for thought, below is the summary of my current thinking. This is not consumer advice, nor is it an analysis of the specification of the console; this is purely my experiences as a buyer and as a gamer.
I have a lot of games systems. Currently vying for my attention are the Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360 and Nintendo 3DS. Really I need to consider what the Vita offers that these do not.
Compared to the 3DS
On the one hand I love the 3DS as a portable games system. Poor battery life aside, the increase in power and resolution over the DS makes it a highly credible machine for more serious games. By "serious games" I mean bigger adventures, with deep stories and levels and cinematic presentation.
Having said that, the 3DS (as is often the case with Nintendo platforms) still lacks a generous quantity of these kinds of games. Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars (3DS) and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (3DS) have been good examples of the kind of excellent games at which the system can excel. However, I still haven't caught up with Super Mario 3D Land or the new Resident Evil and around the corner is Rhythm Thief and the Emperor's Treasure and Heroes of Ruin, so I still have plenty of opportunity for decent adventure games on the 3DS handheld.
But with the PS Vita I wouldn't have to wait ages for good quality singleplayer adventures to appear. The PS Vita will allow for much the same kind of games as are released for the PS3. Uncharted, Killzone, Unit 13 - these are all the kinds of games that can and will make a regular appearance on the handheld. If I'm going on a trip and I want a single game to really involve me and keep me company, I know that with the Vita I will be able to walk into a shop and find something I fancy, whereas the 3DS library may possibly let me down. The 3DS is still unable to deliver comparable ports of big console titles, as is demonstrated by the Lego games. The 3DS versions tend to be upscaled from the DS, rather than downscaled from the Wii.
Online
Multiplayer is a possible issue. Multiplayer gaming on any Nintendo system is usually a horrible experience, and online is often not offered at all - except in a few excellent exceptions, such as Mario Kart 7 or Tetris 3D. The Vita will benefit from Sony's existing expertise with PSN and most of the Vita games look to be highly supportive of online multiplayer.
Having said that I don't really like multiplayer all that much. Shooters aren't really my thing, although I do love anything that offers online co-op. Ironically (apart from Uncharted 2) the most fun I have had online has been with Nintendo's Pokemon and Animal Crossing and also the Wii diving game Endless Ocean. I'm certainly not interested enough to fork out for a 3G Vita so I'm really only going to do multiplayer on my home wireless (where my PS3 and 360 are already located).
Backwards compatibility and watching movies
I did have a PSP once, until it was stolen. I still have cartridges of a few games which I dearly loved on the PSP and would love to play again, such as Metal Gear Ac!d 1 & 2. It disturbs me that the only way I will get to play these games is to pay to download them again from PSN, IF they ever become available. Sony are very bad at offering backwards compatibility because it cuts into their profits, hence why my PS2 is still connected to a TV in the house.
I liked my PSP at the time because I could transfer DVDs and music to it and use it as a portable movie player. At the time this made it a killer machine. I'm still hugely disappointed that Nintendo have not made good on their promise to bring full 3D movies to the 3DS in Europe. Times have moved on since the PSP, though, and now my phone now delivers all of the peripheral benefits the PSP once offered. Now the Vita must stand up as a games machine alone.
Remote and cross-platform play
The remote play feature looks interesting, but from what I have seen around this will be extremely limited. I love my PS3 games and I would love to be able to sit in bed and play them on the handheld. I think I would be more committed to the Vita if Sony sounded more like they were going to follow through on the promises of universal remote play.
It will also be good to be able to engage in multiplayer across the Vita and PS3 networks. Although, as with the remote play feature, it remains to be seen how extensive this will be in practice.
Conclusion
I really like the look of the PS Vita as a piece of kit and its ability to play great games without compromise to limited hardware. If I didn't have a PS3 or Xbox 360 I would definitely get one to use as a serious games machine.
But most of the games I would really enjoy are available in some form or another on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Sure I'd like to play the Vita Uncharted game, but I do already have three Uncharted games on my shelf. Is it worth paying over £200 for another one?
If you'd like to join the debate, feel free to post below or find me on Twitter as @holdmykidney.
I have a lot of games systems. Currently vying for my attention are the Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360 and Nintendo 3DS. Really I need to consider what the Vita offers that these do not.
Compared to the 3DS
On the one hand I love the 3DS as a portable games system. Poor battery life aside, the increase in power and resolution over the DS makes it a highly credible machine for more serious games. By "serious games" I mean bigger adventures, with deep stories and levels and cinematic presentation.
Having said that, the 3DS (as is often the case with Nintendo platforms) still lacks a generous quantity of these kinds of games. Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars (3DS) and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (3DS) have been good examples of the kind of excellent games at which the system can excel. However, I still haven't caught up with Super Mario 3D Land or the new Resident Evil and around the corner is Rhythm Thief and the Emperor's Treasure and Heroes of Ruin, so I still have plenty of opportunity for decent adventure games on the 3DS handheld.
But with the PS Vita I wouldn't have to wait ages for good quality singleplayer adventures to appear. The PS Vita will allow for much the same kind of games as are released for the PS3. Uncharted, Killzone, Unit 13 - these are all the kinds of games that can and will make a regular appearance on the handheld. If I'm going on a trip and I want a single game to really involve me and keep me company, I know that with the Vita I will be able to walk into a shop and find something I fancy, whereas the 3DS library may possibly let me down. The 3DS is still unable to deliver comparable ports of big console titles, as is demonstrated by the Lego games. The 3DS versions tend to be upscaled from the DS, rather than downscaled from the Wii.
Online
Multiplayer is a possible issue. Multiplayer gaming on any Nintendo system is usually a horrible experience, and online is often not offered at all - except in a few excellent exceptions, such as Mario Kart 7 or Tetris 3D. The Vita will benefit from Sony's existing expertise with PSN and most of the Vita games look to be highly supportive of online multiplayer.
Having said that I don't really like multiplayer all that much. Shooters aren't really my thing, although I do love anything that offers online co-op. Ironically (apart from Uncharted 2) the most fun I have had online has been with Nintendo's Pokemon and Animal Crossing and also the Wii diving game Endless Ocean. I'm certainly not interested enough to fork out for a 3G Vita so I'm really only going to do multiplayer on my home wireless (where my PS3 and 360 are already located).
Backwards compatibility and watching movies
I did have a PSP once, until it was stolen. I still have cartridges of a few games which I dearly loved on the PSP and would love to play again, such as Metal Gear Ac!d 1 & 2. It disturbs me that the only way I will get to play these games is to pay to download them again from PSN, IF they ever become available. Sony are very bad at offering backwards compatibility because it cuts into their profits, hence why my PS2 is still connected to a TV in the house.
I liked my PSP at the time because I could transfer DVDs and music to it and use it as a portable movie player. At the time this made it a killer machine. I'm still hugely disappointed that Nintendo have not made good on their promise to bring full 3D movies to the 3DS in Europe. Times have moved on since the PSP, though, and now my phone now delivers all of the peripheral benefits the PSP once offered. Now the Vita must stand up as a games machine alone.
Remote and cross-platform play
The remote play feature looks interesting, but from what I have seen around this will be extremely limited. I love my PS3 games and I would love to be able to sit in bed and play them on the handheld. I think I would be more committed to the Vita if Sony sounded more like they were going to follow through on the promises of universal remote play.
It will also be good to be able to engage in multiplayer across the Vita and PS3 networks. Although, as with the remote play feature, it remains to be seen how extensive this will be in practice.
Conclusion
I really like the look of the PS Vita as a piece of kit and its ability to play great games without compromise to limited hardware. If I didn't have a PS3 or Xbox 360 I would definitely get one to use as a serious games machine.
But most of the games I would really enjoy are available in some form or another on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Sure I'd like to play the Vita Uncharted game, but I do already have three Uncharted games on my shelf. Is it worth paying over £200 for another one?
If you'd like to join the debate, feel free to post below or find me on Twitter as @holdmykidney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)