What's A Slow News Week?

So, what is a slow news week in gaming? It is a time when there is not much to report. Not much information being released about new games. Really, that is the reason why we read through the gaming websites. I don't really care about the financial statements of gaming companies and there seems to be a lot of crap reported about how much money they are or are not making. The news that EA have made a massive loss is not really news because they didn't make as big a loss as they expected. Well, that is a comfort to me. I was not sleeping at night worrying that EA might go out of business. God forbid, who would make those endless rehashed sports games which don't really change year from year? Who would make games across multiple formats and cater for the lowest common denominator? I am sure that if EA went out of business then someone else would fill their place. A good example of how the EA yearly sports game release works is Tiger Woods Golf. For me, Tiger Woods 2004 was the best release of this game. They introduced some excellent concepts and did them very well. Multiplayer was excellent and the game had a great deal of variety. Since this release they have actually made the game worse. Changing the putting system to make it more difficult (not that Golf isn't difficult anyway). Removing some key multiplayer features and slimming the game down somewhat. Why would I bother purchasing 2005 and 2006 if they have dramatically changed or improved the game? Essentially the game of golf hasn't changed.

Another news item which has been floating around this week has been the news that E3 will be dramatically changed. Big Deal. Never been there and never will. What does E3 really do for gamers except release excellent pictures of booth babes and exclusive game footage? Well, I am sure another event or circumstance will present itself so that these things can still be released. But as a gamer how does the decline or fall of this event affect me? It doesn't. So, why would I bother noting this down as a significant event in gaming? I wouldn't. In the end the excessive cost of this event means that gaming companies will continue to charge high prices for games because they have to offset the cost of their First Class lifestyle to the consumer. In the end it is not the game companies who were paying for the event out of the goodness of their hearts, but the gamers who paid for the event through game purchases. Unfortunately, I hate to say that this event will not reduce the pricing of games. Furthermore, you don't just have the news article to say that E3 is changing, you have all of the subsequent fluff stories to go with it. How is the industry reacting to the news? What will replace it? If E3 farted would it cause a hurricane on the other side of the world? Who really cares? I don't. If there's no news to report then don't report it. Just because you have space to fill on your website doesn't mean you have to fill it with drivel (that's what this blog is about). It was reported on one gaming website that the new E3 would be more intimate. What does this mean? There will be slow dancing and quiet mood music. Or, they will provide spaces for game developers to shack up together and have a love in.

A news item which did catch my interest was that the Murdoch owned broadcaster Sky is reported to be looking to get in to PC gaming. Obviously with Murdoch's purchase of ign.com he believes (or his advisors tell him) that there is good money to be made in gaming. What does this mean for the industry? Who knows. Certainly Murdoch's publishing interests are not known for maintaining high risk low return ventures. So, does this mean that they will not be looking to break the mold, but produce highly marketable mainstream regurgatated products which add nothing to the industry. There are many TV series which I have enjoyed but have only managed a short run on a murdoch owned network (The Tick, Greg the Bunny, FireFly, even Family Guy was cancelled by the network and brought back to life because of popular demand). The only TV show which manages to criticise the network consistantly is the Simpsons. The only reason they can get away with this is becuase of their huge following. Do we need a Murdoch owned company in gaming? Do we have a choice? Well, no we don't have a choice. But the thing which I like about the free market world we live in is that the consumer holds the power. The unfortunate thing about this principle is that consumers just don't know it and aren't organised enough to utilise their buying power to hold any potential sway over a multinational.