Site Search
User login
Online users
- taylorgreen
E3 2010 - It's about the Hardware and a Console Middle Age
Nintendo 3DSIn an interesting twist, this E3 has been about hardware and a console middle age. How is that a twist and what do I mean by that? Well, instead of the usual E3 when the focus is on hardware and the usual new, dedicated platforms, this E3 has really been about enhancing two of the three existing platforms with hardware add-ons, and, as a nod to the maturity of this console lifecycle, a rash of sequel-itis from the big three, with new entries in well worn game series. With no sign of either the Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3 being replaced any time soon, it's all about distinguishing your particular platform in a particular manner--Microsoft and Sony went with new, relatively expensive hardware add-ons (and the former one fairly slick redesign), and Nintendo went with its usual franchises. And oh yes, Nintendo slammed the gavel down with full details on the extremely impressive 3DS, the logical successor to the DS line (and thank goodness they went with the 3DS name and not some of the other names being bandied about).
So, let's take a look at what the big three offered up both right before and during E3, and provide some analysis:
Microsoft:
Sony:
Nintendo:
Though you certainly don't need me to say it, the 3DS is going to change a lot of things and is all but assured of great success both here and abroad. This type of screen and option WILL find its way into more and more devices, particularly once a touch screen option is figured out. Naturally, at first the software will be gimmicky, but so was the initial DS line-up, and that improved dramatically over time. Just taking the possibilities, there's much to look forward to.
_
By the way, now that all three platforms have some type of motion controls/tracking, all three platforms will be getting a rash of both performance and fitness games. Do I smell a sequel to Wii Fitness for Dummies?
So, what are some of your E3 thoughts?
Comments
What is seedy or immature about a promo? It is just marketing, plain and simple. I have never had anyone tell me they were offended.
What is seedy or immature about a promo? It is just marketing, plain and simple. I have never had anyone tell me they were offended.
I agree with you there. Sex appeal sells, even when it's not in any way related to the product in question. In other words, while having a beautiful woman in a bikini selling a bikini is advertising in its most direct and related sense, having a beautiful woman in a bikini selling a car - while having nothing to do with the car - certainly brings attention to the car.
The problem is, gaming is rife with stereotypes and has a bit of an image problem, and having "booth babes", i.e., using sex appeal to bring attention to a product even though the product itself has no direct connection, does kind of feed into and extend those stereotypes and the image problem. So, while it's marketing 101, it's not necessarily helpful to gaming as an industry, and frankly is unnecessary in this particular instance (a trade show), because many of these products have enough of interest to stand on their own.
What is seedy or immature about a promo? It is just marketing, plain and simple. I have never had anyone tell me they were offended.
Okay, let me make a few things clear about my position. I was under the impression we were talking about scantily clad women like this. If you're talking about some other type of promos, that's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned. Also, I assume (like Bill) we're talking about sexual appeals that have nothing to do with the actual product.
On the other hand, if we *are* talking about "booth babes," that's a different matter. I enjoy seeing attractive women as much as anyone, but never cared for that kind of thing. You're talking about women objectifying and degrading themselves for the sake of a few dollars. True, it isn't downright prostitution, but it's in the same broad category of sexual services. I won't point at the elephant in the room, here, but shouldn't a person such as yourself especially worry about sending a bad message? Also, don't you want people to respect you for your mind and personality, not just your body? I think the kind of message these "promos" send is that women are not people to be respected but only objects of physical desire.
I wouldn't have a problem if they just hired attractive people to work their booths. But the costumes and blatant sexuality on display here need to be toned way down.
So, guys, you would rather have only unattractive people working these shows? It is good that you are not trying to market anything. As for setting an example, it is to be proud of yourself and who you are. There is nothing illegal or sinful about a career in promotions. It is merely capitalizing on what God gave you. I see it as simply another form of cheerleading. I was on the dance line in high school, and that was what inspired me to seek out this career. Do you really see it as wrong for me to be doing this?
I don't think anyone is saying "unattractive" people should be working the shows (that's all relative anyway), I think the point is there's a way to be a bit more tasteful about it. Scantily clad women using sexiness to attract attention to a booth at a game show doesn't help the industry's often negative perception. That's the main point. You can still have reps hired for their attractiveness and personality over their technical or product knowledge, but it doesn't have to be done in such a juvenile manner. Gaming is more than unmarried males 18 - 34.
I have to say Im with "if it works use it " crowd. Most video games (not all) are full of violence, blood and quite a bit of stuff that nobody would do in real life unless they where mentally unstable in some way. Most console game players are males (suprisingly MMORPG players have a considerbly larger female base), and its just a fact the base game player is male. ESA lists it as 60% male and 40% female (gamers) but the problem is that one game that is the jaguernaut.. WoW, if you dig deeper in that report of that 40% woman tally over 80% list wow (or other online MMORPG) as game of choice. VERY few list BF, MW2, or GTA (the standard console games) as a game they play (opps forgot Halo). In fact the most often mentioned games for females are causale, facebook, web based stuff. While its a the biggest growing market, its not one most of the E3 people are marketing at the show. I couldnt find male female attendace figures at E3 on line, but from pictures its very male. So your a big game company, you know your (at least for the days of E3) market is, lets face it, horney man/boys...You would have to be pretty brave not to run with the tired but true method of attracting people (mostly males) to the booths. Things change in the world with time, but a couple things dont, Sex sells, always has, always will, Money attracts (while it may not be real attraction, its attraction). and we slowly destory the worl dwe live in.... What does change is waht we percieve as sexy, how much money it takes, etc...
Of course one last thing, I'm on of those people who believes words (any) are nothing but that, words, and only people who get all excited when I say certian ones are the ones who make the word taboo or "bad". Its letters, a sound, nothing more. Like the guy who pretends he is going to hit you so you flinch, we are conditioned to think they are bad by people who lived 100's of years ago and thought bare ankles where to much to show. These are the people who kill women who have sex before marrige, marry 12 year olds off, etc.. (forgive me I did target one specfic religion, that was not my point, it was just he easiest one, almost all of them do so form of this). While not the best comparasion (words and bare flesh) what is the real differnece between a girl in a swimsuit (revealing or not) at a beach or at a tradeshow? the tradeshow generaly is all adults, the beach is full of kids from the youngest to the oldest. Beachs have FAR more revealing swimsuits then any pictures i have seen from the tradeshow, beaches are where "families" go for wholesome fun (swimming). Its all 100% perception,and what the "up tight" people of the past have ingrained into us. Almost naked person at beach=OK, almost naked person at tradeshow=vulgar.
But i still have to say, there is quite a difference and so many way to look at it.. Most girls at a beach wear a bathingsuit becuase thats what you wear int he water. Some wear one that attracts attention, and that is the same reason the tradeshows do it. I kinda distill it down into really simple terms. Two public places with the same cloths should equal the same perception, but they do not. The beach is (at least most of it) is just people dressed to go swimming, the tradeshow is people dressed to attract attention, so no matter what I say it is different , its just I dont see why people get all bunched up about it. generaly the people that compalin the most are the people who didnt attend, didnt have to see it, and almost every E3 coverage online has the show, and a totally unrealted peiece on the Boothbabes.. so if you want to see coverage of the show without them its quite easy.
Now if people who go to the show all the time complained and made a huge fuss, that would be different. but most of its online (here) and other places by people who didnt have to look. (keep in mind discussion like this, I'm not saying they are wrong, or even saying "why" about). My local town has a law that there can be no strip clubs in the city limits (they got around it by putting them just on edge of town). they then said within 10 miles of school (which basicly makes it so they have to be 10 miles out of town). Problem was they had to grandfather a couple in.. so there where a couple left in town. People went to town meetings to remove them. One question that was asked at one of the meetings (by a supporter) was of all the people complaining, who had been in the club? Nobody, not a one (admited it) yet it was found out later the one man spearheading it all ahd been in the club several times putting moeny in the dancers g-strings (they have cameras as there is a law about no touching here). he quietly stepped down and was not riducilued in the local papers, basicly got off. Yet the people who supported it (I'm sure by going in) where dragged throuhg the mud publicly in the papers.. (small town politics).. again after a long drone ... its just how people think, not real harm.
Sorry long winded and so many counter points and things I try to simplify down to a much smaller thing then they are. I myslef dont mind looking at an attractive woman, i know she is there to get me tio look, buy, etc.. its worked for Bars, stores, etcc for years... Hooters is based on it. I know a couple large companies in town that "try" to hire young girls to work the checkouts as the customer base is preimarly male (its initals are BB). they throw in a guy or what people percieve as unattractive person here and there.. but its 90% young females they emply (for checkouts).
opps off track again.. Boothbabes where removed from E3, attendance was down ( i think it was more to do with econemy and location) they where added and attendace is back to "normal". There or not.... I dont care, i guess if I did go, I would (if asked) say sure why not.. just one mroe thing to look at while I am there, i dont mind. But if most people said no, it wouldnt change my mind about going.
Sorry for the novel.
Great IGN feature: http://ds.ign.com/articles/110/1101945p1.html
A surprisingly good IGN analysis of "booth babes": http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1102032p1.html
A surprisingly good IGN analysis of "booth babes": http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1102032p1.html
Allow me to pop in this forum for a moment....
I've attended several trade shows in my time, on several different subjects (home furnishings, energy-efficient appliances, real estate, and even plumbing/electical supplies, among others), and if there's one constant in trade shows, it's the booth babes. Surprisingly, the one trade show that I attended that DIDN'T have a plethora of booth babes was when I attended a GUN show. I think I understand why, though, which should be apparent if you follow my argument.
I suspect that "booth babes" are intended to solely attract the MEDIA. They are not intended to attract the casual male (or female) , nor the people with real money (the investor). In a sense, you can look at the "booth babe" as a firewall against the true investor and the gullible geeks who are suckers for attention from "hot chicks." (sorry for the sexist metaphor, but I'm sure the booth babes know the role they are playing).
Granted, I've never seen "booth babes" dressed to the extremes described at the various videogame trade shows (the ones I've seen were always "professionally" dressed), but the role seems to be basically the same: to attract attention. Personally, I think males fall into two camps in these trade shows: a) the shy, intimidated by attractive females type, who glance and then walk on by, and b) the investors, who are not intimidated at all by the booth babes, and see them as more of an impediment than an attraction. "Show me the money," they think to themselves. In this sense, I actually wonder what purpose the booth babe serves, since they are generally "hired guns" and have no actual connection to the company in question. Then again, perhaps I've already answered the question: they are both "attention-getters" and "firewalls."
As for the gun show, I think most of the patrons were more interested in purchasing a hardcore gun than being fakely wooed by a sexy booth babe. Gun show patrons are "geeks" in that sense, and the sellers know their audience well enough not to waste time with "silicone sisters" or whatnot. "This gun will peirce armor 6-inches thick from 50 yards!" No booth babe could top that from a "gun geek's" perspective. (No, I didn't buy any guns.....it was a fascinating look into that world, though.)
Yes, you were embarrassed by the "booth babes" at the E3 (or whatever) videogame expo, but sex sells TO THE MEDIA, and the companies generally know that they're doing. In this sense, the article linked to by Mr. Loguidice fell right in line. It read (to me) like a guy trying to justify his own sexuality, then denigrating the "booth babe" phenomenon. He was both justifying his own weakness to "booth babes" while trying to achieve a moral high ground, all in verbose intellectual prose. But, it appears to me that he is THE MEDIA, and is therefore the target of such advertising techniques. Mission accomplished, it seems, from the game companies' perspective.
The "booth babes" are not at fault here. They are just trying to make a living, pay rent, and eat, while doing a good job for the companies that hire them. Surprisingly, I once engaged a "booth babe" on the subject of "tankless water heaters," of all mundane subjects, and she held her own very well. And yes, she was a "babe," even more so once I realized she wasn't a bimbo, but an actual human being with more than one brain cell. I hope she was a full hire, and not just a "hired gun." (Unfortunately for her, we went with a different company).
So, it's not the "booth babes'" fault. And since the average gamer never sees a booth babe, it's not the gamer at fault. You can say it's the game company's fault, but they wouldn't be using "booth babes" all this time if they didn't produce results in the form of attention to their product. So that leaves the fault at the feet of the real culprits: THE MEDIA!
I'm sure there's holes in my argument, but I thought I'd provide some food for thought. :-)
(P.S. I attended a computer expo in Japan circa 1986, and there were no booth babes at all there, just a bunch of guys in business suits. Cultural difference?? Probably not...)
OK I think the models are great, but it is weird to use sex to sell product in an industry that has such a childish attitude on the whole subject. The rating system is messed up so that retailers won't sell games with sexual content that would be acceptable in an R-rated DVD in the next aisle.