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 02:46 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This discussion has been archived.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, @02:47PM (#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, @03:47PM (#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 chill (34294) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:49PM (#15108212) Homepage 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

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:01PM (#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 cyngus (753668) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:20PM (#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, @03:27PM (#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 cyngus (753668) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:55PM (#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.
  • Raise your hand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XorNand (517466) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:48PM (#15107616)

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



    Me neither.

  • Not forever. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:49PM (#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 hal2814 (725639) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:10PM (#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.
  • by thefirelane (586885) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:53PM (#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, @03:27PM (#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.
  • That's not evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitsujTPU (19263) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:54PM (#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, @03:58PM (#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 xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:54PM (#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, @02:55PM (#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, @03:44PM (#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, @02:56PM (#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, @03:00PM (#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, @03:03PM (#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, @03:05PM (#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, @03:08PM (#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, @03:09PM (#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.

      • by iocat (572367) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:14PM (#15107868) Homepage 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.