09.15.06

All Things Inequal

Posted in Gaming, Rants, Writing at 6:13 pm

Taking a quick break from the site work, I came across the lovely little spat between former best buds Joystiq and Penny Arcade. I’ve been slowly growing far more irritated with the “blogging” style of news reporting, where apparently common sense and rational thought have no place in favor of inciting fury and flames. The whole deal is currently centered around this editorial. The central point of the piece is as follows:

All else equal, shouldn’t a rational consumer choose the console with the largest built-in subsidy?

I don’t know about you, but I’m a gamer. I consider myself to be marginally “hardcore”. But the fact of the matter is that when you are dealing with video game consoles, you can never, never use the phrase “all else being equal” because “all else” will never be “equal”.

A gamer doesn’t care about subsidies or profit margins. The only time that a gamer even thinks about this sort of thing is when the item in question is priced higher than its perceived value. The fury is apparently that Nintendo is daring to price the Wii at $250 and is going to be making money on all of their systems. Heaven forbid! A company can’t be allowed to make money, that’s just wrong!

And lest you think I’m being a Nintendo fanboy here, let me explain this. I am seriously considering buying an Xbox 360 (in addition to the Wii) here, a year after launch, after they must undoubtedly be making money on the machines. I’m even considering the full system and not the crippled core system. Why?

Because cheap crap is still crap.

Most gamers will go buy the system that they feel is the best value for the dollar; they won’t buy a system they don’t like or don’t want just because it’s $XX cheaper, because they don’t freaking want it. Thus, even though it has a lower price than the higher-priced system, it has a lower perceived value. How value is computed depends entirely on the gamer’s perception of what that particular system has to offer. In other words, value is entirely subjective. It can’t be separated from the price. There’s no point in saying “if all else is equal” because if all else truly was equal, the systems would be priced identically and this whole stupid problem would not arise. Manufacturing and marketing costs drive up the price point of a system, and a company can choose to lower the price point by gambling that game sales will make up for the “subsidy”. These subsidies are really nothing more than loans taken out against the software sales revenues.

Just because a company can lower their price point doesn’t mean they have to. It may be customary, but there’s also the perceived value to take into account. I’m learning an interesting lesson during my job search: there is such a thing as pricing too low. I have to play a dangerous game when people ask me for my salary requirements, because if I go too high, I’ll be considered not enough value for the money (there’s that “V” word again!); but if I price myself too low, the employer immediately becomes suspicious, saying “what’s wrong with him that he has to undercut himself to make us look at him?” If the price is too low, the perceived value can take a major hit. If Console X is priced too low, the consumer looks at it and thinks, “What’s wrong with it, why should I buy it when this other system is probably much more powerful because it’s more expensive?” No, it’s not a rational thought.

But gamers seldom emply rational thought when it comes to games. Thus, we have fanboys.

It is literally impossible to separate the human element from an evaluation of anything. Not only do you have the critic’s prejudices and perceptions to take into account, but that reviewer has taken into account the general prejudices and preconceptions when writing his own work. True objectivity may be damn near impossible, but folks have shown that they can come really close. Just look at the old news reporters we all claim to be the “best”. The fact of the matter is, all things are never equal.

Now, I’ve said that, and it is a defense of Nintendo. Let me say this again: I know I’m a bit of a fanboy when it comes to Nintendo. But the thing is, to me, the perceived value is there in both the Wii and the 360. The Wii has a control scheme I like, games I’m interested in playing, and interoperability with tech that I already own. The 360 has games that I’m interested in playing, the XBLA system (and the Live framework and opponent base that go with it), and graphics and storage capability that make it attractive to me. Both systems are priced at a point that I think is fair and “worth it”. Would I be happier if they were lower? Yeah, who wouldn’t; but if they’re priced too low, then I would be suspicious of the quality of the devices. The PS3 has only two games I’m interested in at this point, is (in my opinion) less visually impressive than the other machines, and has the added “bonus” of Blu-Ray which I don’t want or need now. The fact that those two games I’m interested in are FF 13 and MGS 4 adds a significant amount of perceived value to the machine; but the lack of impression that the graphics have made, coupled with the clunky addition of Blu-Ray (which I consider to be useless and stupid right now– and yes, I’ve seen it, and no, I couldn’t tell a difference between that and an ordinary DVD running on a high-end HDTV) decreases the perceived value too much to be congruous with the price tag.

Those are my reasons. I don’t expect them to convince anyone else, and they’re not intended to; in fact, the only thing I really wanted to convince my readers (all two dozen of you) of is that the Joystiq editorial is predicated on an incredible logical flaw. I’m stating them just to say that I’m making the decision not out of mere fanboyism, or out of a hatred of Sony. If I was being a fanboy, I’d be getting the PS3 just for Final Fantasy (like I did with the PS2). If I was hating on Sony, I’d have trashed my PS2 (and likely taken pictures), and I wouldn’t be looking forward to a few big-name PS2 titles. I’m choosing the systems I have chosen because to me, working from my set of biases and preferences, those two decisions are rational. From the perspective of a non-gamer, it’s still completely irrational.

But, like I said, gamers aren’t entirely rational to begin with; that’s why we buy high-priced toys.

It’s slightly insulting to be called “irrational” by a fellow gamer just because I like a different system. Not out of a sense of being a fanboy, but because quite frankly it’s like walking up to me and shouting, “Hey you! You’re a white guy! HEY!! WE GOT A WHITE KID HERE!!” It’s obvious. It’s rude. And it’s more than a little uncalled for.

My basic point is, people really need to learn to keep their preferences to themselves in certain matters. I used to say that politics, race, and religion are the three big areas where I just won’t say anything because I don’t want to start any trouble. I may have to add gaming to that list, simply because I’m starting to get the feeling I’ll be lynched if I go to pre-order a Wii.

It’s just games, folks. Let people play what they want in peace, and we’ll let you play in peace. That’s not to say that you can’t have an opinion and express it. Just be prepared to take the backlash when you sound like an idiot.

Permalink