Nov 10 2010
Week 11 Responses
1. On Monday’s class we were shown a graph that demonstrated how video games were receiving more profit in the market than movies were beginning around 2006 and 2007. We also learned that 67% of all Americans play video games. My question relates to why this is so. Why are video games becoming one of the top markets today and why video games over movies? Well, I believe it has something to do with the fact that the users have control when exposed to the video game interface. They are able to manipulate and move objects, including avatars, around to do things that they normally wouldn’t be able to do in real life. Also, video games can be played on numerous monitors and interfaces including computers, hand-helds, arcade machine, iPhone, iPad, and TV, etc. This gives users a variety of options to choose from that suits both interest and convenience. Not to mention, video games do a wide array of cross-promotions with other industries (including the movies), and are able to produce advergames that bring in a lot of revenue. Video games can also be used for numerous reasons, including psychological vicarious, entertainment reasons, as well as educational, even advocacy, reasons. Therefore, the video game industry offers a wide array of options to the population to supply their interest, as well as opens up opportunities for them to play on a variety of different modes at their convenience. Although other industries may be attempting to do the same thing, such as streaming movies from your computer via Netflix, so on and so forth, it is more difficult for other industries to keep up.
2. In Professor Schells DICE address, he discusses this notion of media divergence, rather than media convergence that we’ve all heard about and previously discussed. This notion was rather a new one for me, but thinking along these lines, media divergence makes just as much sense as media divergence. I say this with hesitation after reading Ian Bogost’s response to Schell’s speech on Gamasutra. This response makes me mroe skepticle of Professor Schell’s arguments and theories. However, I do suppose its possible for both of them to exist as technologies evolutionize over time. While some conglomerate, others emerge and specialize in detail, and then converge again, and so on. I believe it varies on the company and the market that they are trying to get in on. Some companies, like Apple, can do both. They created the iPhone which represents media convergence at its finest, but they also specialize in computers. They keep building newer, more specialized versions of computers, especially laptops (such as the new MacBook Air) which opens up their markets to even more customers. It all depends upon the platform. In regards to the video game platform, there are multiple technological devices that can be utilized for gaming purposes, and therefore can be thought of as a single marketing device, such as specifically for a Playstation console, or it can be released to play on both a mobile device via an App and the computer.
3. As video games become more and more dispersed and involved in American daily lives, it is not a surprise that the US military would create the VAE project in hopes of interesting disconnected youth to join the military. I am unsure of the intensity of the morality issues involved with this project. However, I do know that dehumanizing war is wrong. With this said, it happens in everyday entertainment, including movies and TV, and not just through video games. After viewing the video today and reading the article, I realized that the military is just trying to reach out to a different demographic through the use of these games because they, too, realize the resonating effect it has on many Americans. Whether or not it actually persuades them to join the army is difficult to tell because many of the people who go to these areas and play these games are probably already familiar with the army and have some interest in joining the cause. I do not blame the US military for implementing this new type of entertainment as a potential recruiting technique. Actually, it is very similar to the ways in which the military attempted to use movies when they were first invented to gather support for World War I and World War II. Many soldiers were fired up after viewing some of the war footage and propaganda back in the 1930s and 1940s so much so that they were glad to go overseas and fight. This time they are using video games instead of movies. The interactive interface is what is really causing such an overwhelming protest due to its realistic capabilities. Although many may be upset by this use of persuasion via vicarious entertainment, I don’t blame the military for utilizing the project in support of their cause. After all, it does make sense. If it works, then people are gonna try it. In regards to governmental outlets eventually trying something similar involving an interactive gaming interface, I don’t doubt it will happen sometime in the future.