UPDATE: My interest in this project has basically plummeted. If I had to give a percentage, it'd be.. maybe 1%. The idea is lovely, but for the price and the fact that the team behind this project may have good intentions but are so wishy washy it's laughable to think that they'll receive 10,000 pledges of 300 based on nothing but 3D renderings and good will. Now they are no longer using Kickstarter because they have not bothered making any physical demonstrative prototypes, which is a major no-no. Quite a few red flags have been raised over the past few weeks. I suppose that you could apply the same thoughts expressed here to whichever platform they're holding their fund raiser on, although I've lost nearly all hope for this thing having even a short-lived "launch".. It was very 'niche' to begin with, unfortunately.
I'm going to stick to burning PC games to high-quality discs, having the game's art logo laser printed onto the front of the disc, and then printing out a front/back insert for a jewel CD case. I think that'd be a cool way to always own a physical copy of your games regardless of what happens to the files on your PC, if you don't buy your games through gaming library streaming services.
UPDATE/EDIT: May I add that this new funding site, Indiegogo, may or may not function in the same way as Kickstarter. So beware.
Anyways, If you're still reading this, understand that kickstarter.com is solely intended for people to get an idea off of the ground - a fundraising site. You are donating money, there is no required transaction where you receive something of equal value to the amount of cash you gave. That "something" will be the guaranteed existence of whatever product is being pitched, should it meet it's funding goals. The donation rewards are optional, as far as I'm aware, but obviously help to persuade donations.
Here is the official Kickstarter site's FAQ, should anyone desire to read it.
If you support the idea behind this product, and prefer physical over digital ownership, this may be the chance for us to carve our own path in this industry, should we amount to a sizable enough demographic within the industry to sustain our own software device-platform.
Even if you are iffy on the idea, I'd imagine it wouldn't hurt to donate 5$ - your money won't be transferred unless the project meets it's goals. Imagine if a much larger number than the targeted 7,000 backers pledge much less than the required pledge to receive a console. The funding goal would be reached without folks having to literally pre-order an unborn, potentially stillborn console just for the thing to get off of the ground.
The Kickstarter reveal will come, and will either be a rude awakening for the console's well-meaning but under-prepared team, or the first step towards establishing a legitimate video game device. In the end, only time will tell where this thing goes. Personally, I love the idea of the product, if executed properly and fairly.
Having said all of that.. Here are some of my thoughts. With the reveal looming and everything hopefully falling into place, I'd like to say my piece in the hopes that it's heard, and potentially influences some positive change, however major or subtle.
The General M.O
I believe that this console's general direction is clear. It fills a physical niche in an ever-growing digital market. Physical DRM-free copies of games that will be on internal storage encased in shells designed to last as long as possible, should they choose to take care of their purchases and wish to keep them. Physical cartridges of the past have so far proven to be durable and long-lasting.
Regardless of the aesthetic focus of the game library, physical preservation of otherwise digital only games is one major driving force of reason behind this. In my opinion, there should be no limitations. There should be games developed that push their games as far as games in their chosen graphic style can go based on what is capable from the console's hardware. Also, as I've mentioned in the previous post, if someone is an ?-bit purist, they can choose to only purchase the titles released in that fashion and ignore the rest.
Considering the primary target audience for this console would be "retro" video game enthusiasts who may already own technically "obsolete" consoles - the ability to purchase adapters to plug in old cartridges and play them in an up-scaled manner would also be a major benefit if it goes beyond mere emulation with the FPGA cores.
I would hope that, considering the adapters may be 20$, that there may be an option to purchase a single wire with multiple cores inside, where you can move a little switch and go between NES/SNES/N64/PSX/Genesis/Saturn/etc. I don't know if 20$ would cover the cost of a single core, or if anywhere from two to several cores can be included in one 20$ adapter, but I believe that there should perhaps be themed adapters; one for NES, SNES. One for N64, PSX. One for Genesis, Saturn, and so forth. The general idea here is that with the adapters and cores, the more consolidation, the better.
Certainly, exclusives are crucial for any console. Once upon a time, it was the reason why we made the hard decision of choosing one game platform over another. They may come in the form of negotiated spiritual successors, revivals of older established IPs, proper sequels.. This console can be a wish granter, in a sense.
It would undoubtedly be wise to scout for talented upcoming developers, and discuss the possibility of some sort of mutually beneficial partnership, much like Rare ltd. working with Nintendo in the 80s/90s. This may be more difficult earlier on, although if the developers are attracted to the idea initially, it may be possible to release the game at the upper end of the proposed cartridge price range to ensure that their profits are increased. Either way, a sizable player base is likely necessary before courting developers.
The Console Name
I believe that a compromise could be made in regards to the console's actual name, which I have no personal issue with, but believe it lacks a strong sense of self in branding terms.
Let's hypothetically say, that the console name was changed to "Chameleon".. Although I'm pretty sure it's been done, so how about "Genie"? I actually like that, even if that's likely been done as well. As was previously said above, the console promises spiritual successors, sequels, etc.. It will be granting wishes. The name seems fitting to me, especially with the Retro company branding pre-fixing the console name.
Now, I understand what the creators have done with the name. VGS. NES. I get it. The R in the RVGS was intended to mirror the N in the NES, VGS the counterpart to ES. A wink and a head nod to consoles whom have come before. Nostalgic sentimentality aside, I think it'd be smarter branding to change the name to "Retro <console name> VGS. As it stands, the name of the company is the name of the system. The Retro Genie VGS. I believe that "VGS" should be an afterthought.
What worked for Nintendo's first console is not as practical for a modern-day console. "Video Game System" in this day and age of so many old video game systems, it means a lot less than it did some time ago, as a name in itself. The reference to the NES may be lost on more players/consumers than it's worth. I would say to give the console itself an official name, to distinguish it. You could print _____ on the console's shell in it's unique font, and then "Retro" in the upper left corner underlapping it while the "VGS" acronym may under/overlap it on the lower right side, should you choose to include it while adopting a more distinguished name solely for the console.
Because as it stands, taking out the "Retro" brand namesake, the console itself is technically called "Video Game System" when that should be a description reserved for advertisements and text/audio interviews or articles for it rather than the actual name. I don't see the point in including the description of the product in the product's brand name.
Unfortunately, the "Retro" namesake may also be mistaken as part of the description of the console rather than the console name itself. But even then, in that case, you have no real name other than "Video Game System".. "Retro" is not yet an established enough brand for it to be recognized as such by many players/consumers who will become acquainted with the console before the magazine. And they may not even make the connection at all, simply because "Retro" is more of a descriptive word than a specified personal namesake of a company.
I'm not sure if a head-nod or a wink to an old system's name is worth sacrificing a degree of identity for the product that will build that sort of "NES" familiarity with time, rather than attempting to borrow it right out of the gate by taking the name.
I understand that there may be a sentimentality behind it, but even being sympathetic to that, I think a code name should go in-between the "Retro" and the "VGS". If the "Retro" branding/magazine will be recognized through the system, that's to be seen and you'd have to really push the magazine on the console player base via the retrovgs website. In any case, the magazine may obviously serve as an install base for the console, but it is no guarantee that the audience will see the absolute value in the sibling product. Being a "loyal" supporter of one product/service is no guarantee of supporting another if it doesn't make it's case.
Kickstarter Limited Editions
Instead of releasing three different model lines for the base console before the base console is even in circulation (Jewel, Treasure, Legends) and given that the potential audience for this is currently much smaller than the still relatively small demographic that it may eventually attract, I believe that there should ONLY be ONE exclusive kickstarter console for the pledgers who actually have enough faith from the get-go to donate the full proposed cost of a single console.
OR a single unique model line with two or three choices. I believe that limited edition shells should be an afterthought, once the console proves it's worth and establishes a solid, sustaining player/consumer base.
From a business perspective, if the full potential targeted demographic is statistically of a much larger number than what will be exposed to the kickstarter, and everything from the console to the carts are made-to-order, then... Wouldn't it make more sense in terms of profitability to wait until you have the attention of say, 300,000 Retro VGS players/potential players before releasing a limited edition console?
The manufacturing total limit could be raised, and result in a great overall profit. Would you rather manufacture 30,000 of a specific limited edition model later on to a user base of 300.000, or release a dozen LE's to the to-be-determined install base and only end up barely selling 7,000 because of the product's uncertain future even after being funded? (In terms of software support, at the very least.)
I realize that the kickstarter will be roughly a month long, but even in that much time, it may not reach nearly a quarter of it's perceived demographic target, and even then, the product needs to prove itself a sound entertainment investment. Many will not back the product at all, preferring to wait it out and make a decision when the dust clears. Others may donate, but choose to throw in a far cry from the cost of a single console being shipped to them in a year's time. It would make more sense, and not sacrifice the limited status of any of the LE's, to make the conscientious decision to only release a single kickstarter exclusive system.
If I were part of this project, I would personally have a single console shell design created by a paid artist who I feel would be suited to the task of creating artwork symbolic of their utter blind faith and good will, and have the artwork printed onto the console shells. Keeping in line with my whole "Genie" namesake idea, maybe artwork of a genie granting another genie's wish. Of course, it's just a quick random example off of the top of my head, based off of another split second off-the-dome suggestion. The previous points expressed above are still to be considered in my opinion.
The bottom line is that certain decisions can potentially make or break this product at this point. But at least I may have made myself heard, and hopefully gave a valid alternative point of view on some things, whether or not any changes are actually made. I will be optimistic that the kickstarter reveal will show a promising, attractive product.
No comments:
Post a Comment