Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Wal-Mart Controls Modern Game Design?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Apr 11, 2006 01:46 PM
from the telling-you-what-is-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes "That Wal-Mart smiley face is looking pretty evil now that Allen Varney has explained how much influence they have on virtually every modern game: 'Publisher sales reps inform Wal-Mart buyers of games in development; the games' subjects, titles, artwork and packaging are vetted and sometimes vetoed by Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart tells a top-end publisher it won't carry a certain game, the publisher kills that game. In short, every triple-A game sold at retail in North America is managed start to finish, top to bottom, with the publisher's gaze fixed squarely on Wal-Mart, and no other.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart 731 comments
Charles Fishman, senior writer for Fast Company magazine has recently published a book entitled The Man Who Said No To Wal-mart. It's an excellent book (Yes, I've read it) that talks about the intersection of making good stuff, the commodization of products, and the changing world that we work in; not exactly high tech, but tech nonetheless.
[+] Your Rights Online: Wal-mart's Wikipedia War 778 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust is running an article which claims that lobbyists for Wal-mart have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia's Wal-mart page. From the article: "Although Wikipedia maintains a 'Neutral Point of View' (NPOV) policy, the Wal-mart page is highly biased. Additionally, all criticism has, contrary to policy, practice, and the general opinion of those concerned, been moved to a Debates Over Wal-mart section. Even that page has noticeable resistance to negative points of view about Wal-mart."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Komarechka (967622) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:47PM (#15107604) Homepage
    Wal-Mart has had this impact on developers and publishers for quite some time. One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX - Wal-Mart didn't want to sell it because of its nature, so they toned it down to fit within Wal-Mart standards. It is unfortunate that one company with so much buying power runs the market. Gamestop is second though, with their recent merger with EB Games. But that's like comparing Godzilla to Oprah. You don't want to make either of them mad, but only one of them is powerful enough to destroy the planet. unless... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Oprahsaurus.jpg [uncyclopedia.org]
    • One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX - Wal-Mart didn't want to sell it because of its nature, so they toned it down to fit within Wal-Mart standards.

      The problem is, this effect appears to be entirely unintentional. Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly "Bible-belt" image. As a result, they have never in their history carried games that didn't meet their current criteria. As gaming moved away from Shareware and into Hollywood-style productions, they obviously started needing bigger outlets to sell their games. Now since Wal-mart is the biggest consumer shopping center at the moment, that means that producers are going to follow Wal-mart's rules to maintain profits.

      If this was still the 80's, game producers would be complaining about K-Mart or Sears instead.

      On the flip side of this, Walmart has done some good. The smaller packaging of games has made them easier to store, produced less waste, and has generally been good for consumers as a whole. Which is nice, because the GIGANTOR boxes was really getting out of hand for awhile there. Especially as game producers packed less and less in the box. Anyone remember how Wing Commander included Blueprints, a manual, offers, etc? Good luck finding that stuff in a modern game. :-/
      • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:47PM (#15108192) Homepage
        On the flip side of this, Walmart has done some good. The smaller packaging of games has made them easier to store, produced less waste, and has generally been good for consumers as a whole.

        That may be the only good Wal-Mart has ever accomplished.

        They've dirven their competitors out of business with unfair practices. They've reamed North American manufacuring as they insisted on cheaper products until they had to go off shore, causing a replacement of manufacturing jobs with low-end retail jobs. They've made something greater than 50% of supply-chain for retail in North America become beholden to them.

        I'm not at all surprised to hear that Wal-Mart has the gaming industry by the short-hairs.

        Wal-Mart is EVIL, aggressive, and far too powerful for anyone's good.
        • by GigG (887839) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:51PM (#15108736) Homepage
          If you replace "Wal-Mart" with "people that shop at Wal-Mart" I'd mod you up for insightful.
        • by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:53PM (#15108757)
          Wal-Mart is EVIL, aggressive, and far too powerful for anyone's good.

          I would agree, but unfortunatly people's solution to the problem... i.e. get the government involved... is worse than the problem.

          If Wal-Mart is EVIL, agressive, and far too powerful for anyone's good, because it lowers prices on Rubbermaid trash cans, then what does that make the government?
            • by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @06:10PM (#15109722)
              When has the government had a positive effect on competition? And I am not talking about the government breaking up the monopoly it helped create in the first place ("Bell"), or doing something like deregulate the airline industry (which is government getting rid of its intervention into the market).

              Perhaps you can argue the whole Standard Oil thing, but by the time the government got to breaking up Standard Oil, Standard Oil was already losing market share. There is speculation that the breakup of Standard Oil was masterminded by J.D. Rockefeller.
            • by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @06:20PM (#15109778)
              The government is elected by the people, for the people. Remember?

              And a sucker is born every minute!
              • by rilister (316428) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @07:46PM (#15110212)
                I'm amazed that there seems to be a generation that seem to think that capitalism is equivalent, or even in some way superior to democracy.

                Here's the difference: a company is *bound by law* to maximise it's profit for the benefit of it's shareholders. It 'cares' about it's customers and doesn't giving a flying crap for society in any wider sense. tis true. This is why Walmart screws its employees and the communities it works in without blinking.

                Democracy is a system by which you have 1/230millionth of a say in which your country is run. I hate to break this to you, but that's all you're entitled to, unless you wish to stand for election and other people happen to agree with you.

                Your government doesn't have a *vested interest* in screwing you. For a moment imagine you didn't live in the world's most dysfunctional democracy, and take a look around the world for other examples: say Sweden, Canada, Switzerland.

                Democracy and capitalism are compatible and, arguably, complimentary. But quit talking about 'government' being a worse problem. Save me your fashionable contempt for the Democrats/Republicans. Government is fine, necessary and totally desirable.

                If you disagree, give me one vaguely plausible alternate and *an example of it working well*.
            • by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:35PM (#15111264)
              The regular people don't have a say in government. Government regulation is the last thing that is going to address the concerns of "working stiffs" or "small buisness". Government "regulation" just means that the government is selling "protection", like the mafia, to the big corporations. The corporations will have to work with the people in power to make the deal suitable to the political elite, but the little guy will never have any real say in the deal.

              Once the people who are in power decide who is elegible for election, once they decide how funds for campaigning are going to be distributed, once they decide how groups are going to be gerimandered together to give certain parties advantage, and once the laws become so complicated they have almost endless regulatory power to punish non-supporters, and vast resources to give to reward their supporters, then there is no real Democracy. Democracy works on the small scale, but once you get to the size and power of the modern state, it becomes a meaningless abstraction.

              More often then not, the regulation is designed to help the big corporations (in fact, the modern day mega-corporation couldn't exist without the government)... the regulation is used to make the cost of doing buisness too high for the little guy to afford the initial investment, or the liability too high that the little guy can't afford the insurance, or the fixed regulatory cost that doesn't scale for company size. The government takes land with eminent domain in order to give to the chain store.

              If you look at markets that aren't regulated by the government (such as the drug trade), or under regulated by the government (computer software), you will see that the small guy has a huge advantage over the big guy. In the software industry, Microsofts biggest competitor is a product that doesn't cost anything and began as a hobby. Microsoft has such institutional entrophy that it is hard for them to compete on the merits of their product (and so now they compete using the government to enforce "intellectual property"). In the drug trade, no-one ever dominates for long before someone smaller comes along and starts shaking things up. It is not natural for large monopoly style corporations to exist, unless the government creates the regulatory infrastructure for it.

              My alternative? Don't shop at Walmart. I have never walked into a Walmart, EVER, in my life... let alone purchased anything at a Walmart. I wouldn't be able to find the closest Walmart without looking it up online. And that is entirely accidental, without me trying to not shop at a Walmart. The vast majority of Walmart shoppers are suburbanites or urbanites who have plenty of other choices to shop besides Walmart. The overwelming vast majority of Americans live in urban or suburban areas and have access to plenty of other places to shop. Even if the people living in rural areas who are "forced" to shop at Walmart really mean that they would have to drive an extra 20 miles to a larger town - or would have to spend a little more money somewhere else - they are not forced, so much as can't be bothered.

              Walmart has to be the easiest company in the world to boycott! They have a razor thin profit margin, so that it only takes a boycott of a small group of people in order to cut into their bottom line. (that is why religious groups, who actually take the time to boycott once in a while, are always getting Walmart to do whatever they want). Walmarts are only profitable if built where land values are low, and where there is lots of wide open space, which means for most American consumers, it is actually a bit of a drive to get to Walmart. And they have a reputation for being "low-class", which means that any affluent Americans, or middle-class Americans pretending to be affluent, are not going to be caught dead in anything as declasse as a Walmart.

              In the Revolutionary War, a bunch of poorly armed and untrained American farmers managed to defeat the elite armies of the most powerful empire in history. And now American
      • by chill (34294) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:49PM (#15108212) Journal
        The problem is, this effect appears to be entirely unintentional. Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly "Bible-belt" image. As a result, they have never in their history carried games that didn't meet their current criteria.

        This is so not true.

        I was in Walmart the other day, browsing thru DVDs and what did I see: The uncensored version of Comedy Central's Pamela Anderson Roast; the Director's Cut of Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"; the "Uncensored" Director's Cut of "The Girl Next Door" -- you know, the one where the porn stars move in next door to this high school kid? Tons of "uncensored" and "director's cuts" of almost-porn and very, very violent slasher movies. DVD seasons of South Park, Tripping the Rift, etc. Family-friendly fare it ain't.

        Their "criteria" is, and always has been, whatever sells the most without making too much of a PR stink. Music and games are easy targets, so Walmart forces censorship and gets to wave the "family" flag. Since no stink is made with video, they sell damn near everything except hardcore.

          -Charles

        • I was in Walmart the other day, browsing thru DVDs and what did I see: The uncensored version of Comedy Central's Pamela Anderson Roast; the Director's Cut of Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"; the "Uncensored" Director's Cut of "The Girl Next Door" -- you know, the one where the porn stars move in next door to this high school kid? Tons of "uncensored" and "director's cuts" of almost-porn and very, very violent slasher movies. DVD seasons of South Park, Tripping the Rift, etc. Family-friendly fare it ain't.

          Gee, I'll have to stop by Walmart on my way home!!

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:01PM (#15108297) Journal
        Well, Walmart is selling Brokeback Mountain, despite the protestations of those freedom-loving Bible Belt types, so clearly, at the end of the day, despite the image, what counts to them is making money.
      • by OctoberSky (888619) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:01PM (#15108304)
        Anyone remember how Wing Commander included Blueprints, a manual, offers, etc? Good luck finding that stuff in a modern game. :-/

        You just don't buy the right games. Grand Theft Auto: New Jersey (Q4/08) is rumored to come with a used condom, a hypodermic needle and a dead hooker in the packaging.

    • by cyngus (753668) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:20PM (#15107926)
      Wal-Mart doesn't get "their" power from some magical source, it gets it from us, the consumers, exercising our choice of where to shop. If you don't like how much Wal-Mart influences what producers produce, DON'T SHOP THERE. If you're willing to trade their influence over certain products for lower prices on them, then do. The world's victim mentality really pisses me off. If you don't like the values that Wal-Mart promotes, stop giving them the ability to advance them by not giving them your money. Capitalism only works if you vote with your dollars/pesos/euros/yuan (okay, I'm not going to list currencies of all the countries where Wal-Mart operates).
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:27PM (#15107992)
        That is a good idea unless you live in a rural or low density suburb where the local Wal-Mart has created a monopoly on retail access. If you don't shop there where do you go? Drive 20 miles for everything? And don't say "Buy everything online". Capitalism has an Archilles heel.
        • by drsquare (530038) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:22PM (#15109001)
          Surely the only reason they have a monopoly is because people were going to Walmart rather than smaller shops? In that case, the PEOPLE have decided they want Walmart to have a monopoly. This is a great example of democracy and freedom.

          Maybe you'd prefer the government to mandate that people shop at locally-owned shops to stop them going out of business?
      • by Henry V .009 (518000) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:29PM (#15108009) Journal
        If you don't like how much Wal-Mart influences what producers produce, DON'T SHOP THERE."
        No. If you don't like how Wal-Mart influences what producers produce, your shopping there or not doesn't matter. Instead you have change the habits of the entire buying public. A vastly different thing.

        I like that you make the comparison with voting. You probably subscribe to the "your vote matters" fallacy. Nothing is more silly. Only votes in mass matter. Single votes do not. (Interestingly though, for popular figures, saying that peoples votes matter, does matter. Because that moves the masses.)
        • by cyngus (753668) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:55PM (#15108251)
          Instead you have change the habits of the entire buying public

          I can not control you, I can not control the masses. I do not wish to control you, I do not wish to control the "buying public". They should be free to do as they wish, just as I am. I have no desire to waste my resources on the uneducated or illogical. Saying that I need to change the habits of the buying public somehow implies that I must make people act against their will. I have no desire to do this. I may think that they are stupid and lack the ability to think, but that does not give me the right, ability, or desire to compel or trick them into acting against their will. Exactly that section of the public that believes what Wal-Mart believes should shop there, and give Wal-Mart their buying power.

          You probably subscribe to the "your vote matters" fallacy. Nothing is more silly. Only votes in mass matter. Single votes do not.

          To believe that your opinion does not matter and that you can not control your life is the first realization one makes on the path to self destruction because you believe you lack control in a general sense. First you believe you hold no control over politics, then you believe you hold no control over whether you are hired or fired, then you believe you have no control over what choices you make, then you believe you have no control over your anything, and finally you cease to be, either literally or you exist as walking death unable to muster the courage to get rid of the walking. You have exactly as much control over the world as your resources (money, talent, and intelligence) will buy you.
            • by mrchaotica (681592) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:46PM (#15108687)
              And I hate Steam because it places undue restrictions on the games I own. For example, there's no guarantee that games that require Steam will be playable if Valve goes out of business (or gets bought out by some company that doesn't care about the user base). Because of this, I'm boycotting Valve -- I refuse to buy Half-Life 2, even though I'd certainly like to play it.
              Odd that I couldn't find the word "steam" anywhere on this first page.
              Maybe more Slashdotters are like me rather than you.
              • by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @06:44PM (#15109915) Journal
                Of course for all this added convenience and direct profit to the developer I get the chance to pay the exact same price as I would at retail.

                Simply not true. You can buy Half Life 2 for $29.99, and most of their upgrade packages are $10 to $20 (completely different games are the same price).

                You also don't have to authenticate to play, except multiplayer. What about with 360 and other consoles that support multiplayer? You have to authenticate, just the same. Its no different.

                I bought HL back in 1998, and when I activated my steam account, I just punched in the code off the cd, and havent used the cd since. I bought HL2, and now they just GAVE me all the extra games that I would have paid for for HL1, including Opposing Force and Blue Shift, neither of which I paid for with the original. Of course, counter strike and tfc are also included free.

                So I hear a lot of people complaint about Steam, but I'm as rabid about privacy and DRM as anyone, but as an actual USER of the system, I can say it has been 10x more pleasant than anything else. I installed everything at work, at home and on my laptop from the same account, no problems. If I am offline, I play any single player game without authentication. I can NOT play from two machines in multiplayer at the same time, but you couldn't with CD keys before (the whole idea behind authentication). There is nothing to prevent me from playing single player on two machines at once.

                Steam isn't perfect, but it is an extremely affordable ($10 to $30 per game) system that offers reasonable authentication for multiple player games, fast updates. NO more going to freaking fileplanet and "waiting in line for 40 minutes, or pay $5 per month" crap either. Hell, I will pay twice the price to avoid that mess.

                Everytime I do log on (I have is so I only do that manually, a simple toggle in setup) it automatically starts downloading any patches, shows their "news" (ad for games, can be disabled but I don't mind since I want to know) and has a built in program for finding game servers that is better than Gamespy.

                And since 1998, all this has cost me about $100, and has many games I play, and they have never sent me spam. What a freaking bargain!

                The only guys I see bitch about Steam, are the ones who have never TRIED it because of (fill in lame excuse here) reasons.
      • by twofidyKidd (615722) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:47PM (#15108700)
        If you've ever lived, or at least spent enough time in a small town, you'd know that Wal-Mart comes in like a monster (Super Wal-Marts) and disrupts the local economy to such a degree that they manage to wipe out all other businesses, including most mom and pop shops, grocery stores, mechanics, furniture stores, florists, gardening shops, day care facilities, etc. The problem is this: small-town economies, such as they are, rarely generate income beyond a level of sustenance for small businesses. These businesses goods and services are priced so that they sell to the local consumers at a profit enough to keep the shop open, and provide their owners with some income. Wal-Mart comes in, and undercuts these businesses with greater inventory, larger selection and considerably lower prices, taking the local shop's customers and their owner's income with them. These shop owners sometimes leave town, or sometimes they look for work, finding it at the Super Wal-Mart. In fact, a large percentage of the town becomes employees of the Super Wal-Mart, who are generally low paid. Their low pay is usually spent at the Super Wal-Mart since it's all they can afford (plus they get a discount) much like the company stores of the mining and industrial era. Soon, the whole town is in some way dependent on Super Wal-Mart for everything from employment and benefits, to groceries, clothing, medicine (pharmacies are driven out of business), eyeglasses, you name it. Wal-Mart understands how this works, and essentially exploits these small-town economies.

        Now, I don't really know where you live, but if you've ever had the distinct displeasure of driving across the United States, you'd discover that most of the middle of the country consists of a lot of small towns. What do you suggest all those people do, stop shopping at Wal-Mart? You might as well tell them to pack up, leave town and head for the coast, or at least a large metropolitan area like Dallas, or something. If you're not living in a small town, then you might have the good fortune of having a choice of where you shop, but for lots of people across the U.S., there isn't many options.

        Lastly, don't underestimate the buying power of the low-end of the market. The Median household income for 2004 was around $44,000 with the poverty rate ringing in around 13% [source: ESRB-Income [whitehouse.gov]] You can bet those people aren't spending their money at Sak's and Banana Republic. Wal-Mart's huge margins are created by buying product at dirt prices, and selling them at rock prices to the lowest end of the market, which also happens to be a very LARGE market base in the United States. And for that market, Wal-Mart is about all they've got.
  • Raise your hand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XorNand (517466) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:48PM (#15107616)

    Raise your hand if you've ever bought a PC game from WalMart.



    Me neither.

  • by Swamii (594522) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:48PM (#15107618) Homepage
    "I like your game but we have to change the rules."
  • Not forever. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:49PM (#15107624) Homepage
    This won't be true forever. Companies that pride themselves on quality [snapper.com] have given Wally World the heave-ho, choosing to create lasting quality goods instead of cheap crap.
    • Re:Not forever. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pizzaman100 (588500) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:05PM (#15108334) Journal
      Does anyone know of a list of companies that don't supply Wal-Mart (like Snapper)? I would like to give such companies more of my business.
      • Re:Not forever. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Deagol (323173) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:24PM (#15109026) Homepage
        That's easy. Just research up on the top 2 or three brands of what you want to buy. For many classes of products, you just won't find them.

        Take De Walt power tools (you know, those construction yellow and black tools with a good , solid feel to them) -- you don't see those at Wal Mart. Ditto Husqvarna chainsaws. Both damned good tools. Much more pricey then the piece-o-crap Black and Decker and Weed Eater branded tools you find at Wally World.

        Of course, some good manufacturers still sell via Wal Mart, and, as far as I can tell,their quality is still good. Take the Ruger 10/22 rifle. Sure, it's accuracy is somewhat limited, but damn do those things are built like tanks and are rifles you can count on your grandkids using, if you don't pawn it for beer money.

        So, some companies, like Snapper, just don't do business because it will hurt their perceived image of quality or they know Wal Mart will force them to actually lower their quality. Others, like Ruger, don't care because Walmart is the single largest distributor of their products.

      • Re:Not forever. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hal2814 (725639) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:10PM (#15107828)
        "Unfortunately, companies don't make the rules here. Consumers do."

        You mispelled "fortunately" by putting an "un" in front of it. I sure don't want anyone else telling me where to shop or what to buy. If Wal-Mart has what I want at a good price, then I'll buy it there. If not, I'll get it somewhere else. Wal-Mart is on top of this game for a reason. The only thing they are dictating is what their customers will buy.
  • Supply and demand (Score:3, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:52PM (#15107655) Homepage Journal
    If you're biggest destributor isn't going to sell one of your products you're going to care. Welcome to capitalism.

    Of course the morals of how Wal-Mart became such a big distributor are debatable. But this outcome is quite obvious. If this article is a surprise your head's in the sand.
  • by thefirelane (586885) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:53PM (#15107666)
    New title:

    Slashdot shocked to learn Wal-Mart does to gaming industry, what it does to every other industry

    Nothing to see here, please move along.
      • Re:true, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TopShelf (92521) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:27PM (#15107994) Homepage Journal
        Ethical license? WTF?

        If anything, WalMart is doing game companies a favor by working with them during the development stage to let them know what titles they may or may not be interested in carrying. Far better to hear early on that your "Sim Crack Whore" idea isn't going to fly, than to have blown zillion$ producing something that isn't going to get onto WalMart shelves.

        By and large, when people bitch about WalMart, they are really complaining about WalMart consumers - who demonstrate time and time again what they prefer. From there, if you want to create a big-selling game, then take those preferences into consideration. If you want to create your own piece of work for your own reasons, and commercial success is a secondary concern, then fine, go right ahead - but don't expect anyone to champion it for you.
  • by American AC in Paris (230456) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:53PM (#15107672) Homepage
    1. Pitch your idea to Wal-Mart/get approached by Wal-Mart.
    2. Get a good deal--if you can supply enough product for Wal-Mart.
    3. Grow your company in leaps and bounds to meet the demand of your newest and most important sales outlet: Wal-Mart.
    4. Have it good for a year or two.
    5. Cringe when Wal-Mart tells you just how much less you're going to start getting per unit next year.
    6. Quail when Wal-Mart tells you just how much less you're going to be getting per unit the year after that.
    7. Whimper when Wal-Mart tells you just how much less you're going to be getting per unit the year after that.
    8. Cower when Wal-Mart tells you exactly what's wrong with your product how it is, and how very beneficial it would be to your continued business arrangement if you'd just make the following changes.
    9. Wake up one morning and realize that your company is barely scraping by--and can't afford to ditch Wal-Mart without massive layoffs and restructuring, which you can't afford to do anyhow.

    That's the circle of life with Wal-Mart. You'll get a huge boost at first, but Wal-Mart always gets the last laugh. Always.

  • That's not evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitsujTPU (19263) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:54PM (#15107674)
    That's called the free market. Game design studios could choose other retail outlets if they chose to do so. Wal*Mart doesn't have to carry anything that they don't like.

    There are probably lots better reasons to hate Wal*Mart than for having buyers and communicating their intentions to vendors.
    • by ronfar (52216) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:58PM (#15108283) Journal
      Wal-Mart, the Abuse of Eminent Domain and Corporate Welfare [reclaimdemocracy.org]

      Most of Alameda Square's businesses are profitable. Together they generate about $125,000 a year in sales tax revenue. But if the city of Denver has its way, these small businesses will be evicted to make way for a Wal-Mart super-center. The city's Urban Renewal Authority has threatened condemnation if the property owners refuse to sell and has offered Wal-Mart $10 million in public subsidies. That's right: Tax dollars would go to one of the country's most profitable and powerful corporations.
      That free market sounds like a pretty sweet deal where you can buy your own city government...
      Wal-Mart leads the pack in attracting subsidies, this year collecting $10 million in Denver; $500,000 in Dallas; $36.7 million in Scottsdale, Ariz., (as part of a shopping center that includes Lowe's); $9 million in Bartlesville, Okla.; and $17 million in Lewiston, Maine.
      • by Jonny_eh (765306) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:12PM (#15108387)
        How can you even consider Wal-mart a video game retail monopoly?

        Here in little Ottawa, Canada, you can buy games at Zellers, Sears, EBGames, Microplay, Futureshop, Best Buy, Compusmart, Toys R Us, amazon.ca, etc.

        Stop with the wal-mart whining already!
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:54PM (#15107675)
    I fully expect that games, like movies on DVD, will soon come in two versions:
    - PG-13 (the Wal-Mart version)
    - unrated (the online version)
  • by Spectre (1685) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:55PM (#15107692)
    Every gamer I know buys from Amazon, EB Games, Gamestop, Best Buy, CompUSA, etc ... but NONE of them go to Wal-Mart for their games. Cheap furniture, office supplies, food, automotive products, maybe. But not games. Wal-Mart in this area doesn't even begin to compete on game selection, price, or in any other way with the more specialized stores.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:44PM (#15108161) Homepage
      Every gamer I know buys from Amazon, EB Games, Gamestop, Best Buy, CompUSA, etc ... but NONE of them go to Wal-Mart for their games. Cheap furniture, office supplies, food, automotive products, maybe. But not games. Wal-Mart in this area doesn't even begin to compete on game selection, price, or in any other way with the more specialized stores.

      An interior decorator does not go to wal-mart for furniture
      An art gallery does not go to wal-mart for office supplies
      A gourmet does not go to wal-mart for food
      A hobby mechanic does not go to wal-mart for automotive products
      A gamer does not.... see the pattern here?

      For those things that interest you, you have more specialized stores. But I don't go hunting down specialized stores for every sort of product I might happen to need, if there's a shopping center nearby where they sell that. For example, I know exactly where to look for good deals on computer hardware from serious retailers. Has that stopped lots of generic electonics, or even convenience stores from selling that? Hell no. Wal-Mart is not the place you go to pick up a game. It's a place where you go to pick up "everything else", which for many people includes a game or two. Multiply that with some millions and you got Wal-Mart.
  • by vizualizr (462581) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:56PM (#15107699)
    This is nothing new, at least in the music industry. Look what happened to Spinal Tap's [wikipedia.org] "Smell The Glove" [wikipedia.org] cover.

  • by Quarters (18322) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:00PM (#15107736)
    I've been on game projects that have been cancelled due to lack of interest / trepidation from retailers. The company that owns EBGames/GameStop/Babbages is the #1 concern. Wal*Mart is #2, and BestBuy is #3. That's for "regular" games. If a company is working on a budget title or a hunting title then Wal*Mart definately becomes the #1 retailer to pass judgement.

    That this happens shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Given the current system of putting games on discs and putting discs in boxes the retailer must be appeased or there is no place to sell the product.

  • Sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by (arg!)Styopa (232550) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:03PM (#15107760) Journal
    And you know what? If you could predict whether a game would be hugely successful or not, you might be right. But firstly, the fact is that it's an art, not a science, and nobody knows FOR SURE which titles are going to be hits and which are going to suck.

    "We're not going to carry any game with nudity."
    Gee, because before Wal-Mart became big, there was a HUGE market for computer-porn games?

    Are some games modified because of the tremendous buying power of Wal Mart? Sure, that's logical. But that's a big step from claiming that "every AAA game is managed start to finish, top to bottom" with WalMart in mind.

    Yes, for crapware like Deer Hunter and Barbie Fashion designer, I'm sure WalMart's giant demographic is part of their calculus "Say 0.001% of the WalMart electronics browsers buy our game? That's like....a gajillion dollars!".

    But AAA titles? I doubt it. How much did WalMart come into the design of World of Warcraft? Oblivion? GalCiv2? Peripherally, if at all.

    As usual, reality is somewhere beneath The Escapist's flashy hyperbolic copy.
  • by twifosp (532320) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:05PM (#15107780)
    If you stop and think about this for a minute, this is a very positive thing for the gaming industry. It will only serve to stiffle and choke more creative game designers. Which is why eventually they will realize they don't need the publishers. They have the internet. Valve gave it a good shot with Steam, but underestimated how egrigious its publisher, Vivendi, really was.

    We aren't far off from video game companies realizing they can maximize profits by raising their own capital and self publishing. In a world with broadband, buying games off the shelves just seems dumb. So everyone, lets gather around and thank companies like Wal-Mart for tightening its grip on the markets. The markets will choke to death and be reborn into something better.

    Or if not, look on the bright side. You can still buy guns at Wal-Mart and go for the ultimate grand theft auto experience.

  • The Wal Mart Effect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikesmind (689651) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:08PM (#15107798) Homepage
    In my family, we have coined a term - The Wal Mart Effect. This effect happens when companies lower quality to meet the Wal Mart buyer's pricing demands. This results in other stores carrying the lower quality items that Wal Mart does so they too can compete on price.

    For example, you want to buy a pair of socks. You happen to like Brand X socks. Since Brand X sells socks at Wal Mart, they have to lower the quality of the product to meet the price point that the buyer demands. These same socks are then sold to Kmart, Target, Sears, etc. In order to get a good pair of socks that last, you have to move up to a brand like Gold Toe that isn't sold at Wal Mart. To get this sock, you now shop at JC Penneys, Dillards, etc. Yes, you gladly pay more, because you want your socks to last more than a few months.

    If you want quality, don't buy from Wal Mart. (It wasn't this bad when Sam Walton was in charge.)

  • Admiration... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBraynard (653724) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:09PM (#15107816) Journal
    Am I the only one who read the brief and sensed some admiration for Wal-Mart's achievement? (Though I don't think I've ever bought a PC game ther e- maybe some console games).

    Wal-Mart isn't strong because of it's buying power - it is strong because of it's selling power.

    Anyway, please feel free to resume your Wal-Mart hating now and label me flamebait/troll/whatever.

  • This is hardly surprising. Wal-Mart has had quite a stranglehold on the supply sie of the market for a number of years. Technically, they're not a monopoly, but for all practical purposes, they wield the power of a monopoly from one end of the supply chain to another. You have to admire their innovation (they've revolutionized the modern retail supply chain), but it's also quite scary how much control they have.

    Although it's been linked to numerous times here and elsewhere, I'd like to point those interested in learning more about how Wal-Mart deals with supppliers to the now-famous Fast Company article [fastcompany.com] on the subject.
  • by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:25PM (#15109034)
    In the evil capitalist system, a corporate giant like Walmart uses it's enourmous power and natural monopoly to exploit the people by driving out competition and lowering prices... and it also gives it the power to sqeeze suppliers and control content of media products.

    Where as in the socialist utopia, a government owned corporation uses it's enourmous power and monopoly to free the people from oppression, by lowering prices, driving out exploitive capitalist competition... sqeezing suppliers into charging the people low prices, and ensuring that the government corporation censors media for exploitive and counter-revolutionary material.

    Oh, that is right, the socialist system is less exploitive because "we have power"... we get to vote... every couple years... from a small list of parties... who are highly regulated by those in power... and subject to strict requirements written by those in power... and campaigns are funded by those in power... and in which we recieve information about the election from those in power. How could there be anything exploitive like that.
  • by patio11 (857072) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @08:17PM (#15110323)
    All the self-congratulatory "I'm different than the masses who shop at Walmart. I value quality. I have refined tastes." is getting a little thick around here. I bear no ill-will in my heart for folks who bought their gym shoes at some specialty shop instead of buying them for 10% less at Walmart. You can laugh at the quality of Walmart shoes, although I regularly had them last over a year without noticeable performance problems (this is probably because all kids shoes are made in the same Chinese factories and the thing you pay for is the brand value -- people act like Walmart alone killed the US textile industry, when essentially *nobody* does any sort of commodity fabrication in the US). You can also laugh at the quality of their Wonderbread or whatnot, although personally I'm unable to distinguish it from the "local chain store" Wonderbread. I also find it relatively difficult to distinguish a Walmart Vlassic pickle from a Jewel Vlassic pickle... Oh yeah, except for that one thing... WALMART IS CHEAPER. My father was a small businessman whose income gyrated radically on a year-to-year basis, and some years my family was significantly below the poverty line. And you know what? There's a certain attraction in cutting your food bills by 10% and your clothing bills by *lots*. Do I have a really strong desire to go to Walmart as a working professional? No, not so much, the difference between a $60 bill at the grocery shop and $65 bill at the grocery shop is meaningless to me. But it wasn't once, and it isn't currently to a lot of people.

    Incidentally, the whole "Walmart economic death spiral" is a bit oversold. If you operate a retail business, Walmart dropping a store next to you is not so fun. If you work at a retail business, you might well end up working at the Walmart. If you do neither, the only economic impact Walmart has on you is changing what bag your Wonderbread comes in (and, oh, saving you money).

      • by iocat (572367) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:14PM (#15107868) Journal
        You forget the extra $600 in taxes he's paying thanks to all the health-care free Wal-Mart employees having to take their kids to the emergency room every time they get the flu. Or the fact that his kid had to wait in the eRoom for six hours with a broken leg, keeping him out of work, while he waited for the same aforementioned Wal-Mart employees' kids. Or the fact that the cheap $60 [object] he got a great deal on at Wal Mart breaks 5 times more frequently than the $200 [object] he could have purchased elsewhere, before 100% of its production was outsourced to China.

        By focusing only on the price, you are ignoring the total cost , and that can be a very short-sighted thing to do when considering Wal-Mart's overall impact.

      • by aussersterne (212916) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:18PM (#15107906) Homepage
        They save $2500 a year by shopping at Wal-Mart, and by shopping at Wal-Mart they lose $10000 a year in their own salary levels, local community services, and lost quality of goods. But they think they're richer.

        Meanwhile, the megainvestors and fund billionaires actually are richer, having skimmed all of that wealth right off the family's coffers. The family's own mutual fund invests in the megaretailers too, of coure, but their investment is so small and working-family-sized it doesn't even come close to making up the loss. It does, however, convince them that they out to support Wal-Mart, which they continue to do, losing thousands a year alongside all of their neighbords until the community's a ghost town, the remaining people are all working at Wal-Mart (there are no other jobs in the community) until Wal-Mart leaves next year (their sales have dried up in the area as surrounding communities have become impoverished, they've sucked the area dry and it's time to go), and in the meantime everyone left is on welfare and still having trouble making ends meet.

        And once Wal-Mart does leave, there will be nothing left to hold the town together, since the entire downtown area was decimated to make space for one more multi-hundred-thousand-square-food building that once empty no-one will be able to justify renting in a small town, and there's no interest or capital anywhere to reconstruct the area as it once was before they gave Wal-Mart the incentives to come an build and destroy all of the sanely-sized space and properties that might sustain small, local businesses.

        In short, saved a few dollars on groceries, lost a lot of wealth in income and savings, plus an entire community and its neighbords. And at the end of the story, everyone is jobless, no-one has savings left, the area is abandoned, a massive warehouse-sized space stands empty in the middle of nowhere for the rest of time, and megaivestors smile all the way to the bank.

        Wal-Mart is a giant purple community eater whose bait is to make unsophisticated people like yourself think that they are saving money. And yes, it does make capitalism look bad.