TV Execs' Attempts To Lure Gamers Not Always Best

Thanks to MSNBC for its article discussing the mixed fortunes of TV bosses trying to get videogamers to watch shows about games. The piece starts with the question: "Golf players watch golf, but will video game players watch games?", and points out the failures (UPN's previously mentioned CG sitcom Game Over, an "esoteric take on gaming culture [which] didn't last long. Amid dismal ratings, UPN yanked the show off the air earlier this month.") alongside more long-running shows such as TechTV's X-Play (the writer notes "...enough inside jokes to please the hardcore gamers, but listen closely enough and you may detect an almost mocking tone.")

Comments

UPN?

[mceister]

'Game Over' was on UPN? I liked it, and it was canceld so quickly; I figured it had to be on Fox.

It depends on the gamer

[drinkypoo]

Some gamers would rather play games than watch TV, myself included. We had cable TV for a while (you got $15 off if you had CATV and cable modem internet, the latter of which I adore) but we just never watched it in spite of having a 7' TV hooked up to it. In the end, we cancelled our cable, because it was a waste of $35/mo (after discount.)

If you want me to watch a show, you're going to have to give it to me free on the internet, and support it with ads or something. Stick commercials in the middle of the stream which must be played, and tell your advertisers I'm watching them (I'll probably be playing a bit of tetris at the time, but they don't need to know that.) It's not like I pay attention to the average commercial anyway.

Television is going to be with us for a long time, but eventually it'll be eclipsed by video on demand, delivered over the internet, or by your ISP in the case of the cable companies. Video-enabled set top boxes with built in DOCSIS cable modems are being developed left and right...

An unsurprising result

[wowbagger]

This is an unsurpising result if you think it through.

I would assert the success of a TV show about an activity is inversely propotional to the ease of engaging in that activity at a moment's notice.

Consider travel shows - I can hardly travel 600 miles to visit San Antonio at the drop of a hat. So if there is a show on about what there is to do in San Antonio, I may watch it to see what I might do when I have the time to go there.

Consider fishing shows - going fishing takes a degree of prep time and travel time. I might not have the time to go fishing today, but I might have the time to watch a show about it to fix my Jones'in for fishing.

Consider golf shows - if I am a golfer and I come across a golf show, I might look out the window and say "I'll bet I could get a quick nine in before dinner", but then again, I might not.

Now, in light of those examples, consider a video game show. I am ALREADY in front of the TV - you know, where I would have to be to play a video game. Now, which am I more likely to do if I am a hard-core gamer - watch a TV show about gaming, or switch on my console AND ACTUALLY PLAY A GAME?

In short, who is likely to watch a show about video game play? Just how lazy do you have to be to watch (passively) a show about an activity that is itself fairly passive?

And as far as watching to pick up tips and tricks - there is a better solution for that for most gamers. I'll give you a hint - you're soaking in it!

Is Game Over the best they could do?

[EddieBurkett]

I never watched Game Over, so I can't comment on the quality of the show, but the premise is straight out of some hairbrained marketing type's head. Take all the cliches about games, put them in one show, and the gamers will watch. That shows they don't understand what makes games so fun. The show itself may or may not have been clever, but the premise was never going to get the attention of gamers, and it certainly wasn't going to get the attention of anyone else. The problem is that gaming is such a diverse field. You have RPG's and RTS's and FPS's, etc., that no one show can (or should) encapsulate all that. The article is right: people play games because they are interactive, and tv can never be that. But the eyes of the gamers are not completely gone. Its mentioned in the article that sometimes people are so into a game they keep playing, sacrificing tv time. As the digital time shifting of programming becomes more widespread, people will start watching tv again, but after they finish their game, instead of foregoing it altogether.

Re:G4 TV

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Some of the shows on G4 are alright. I used to like their G4TV.com show [probably the dumbest name for a show ever] but on a show I saw recently, one of the women said that she'd never seen any Star Wars movie.

I think that if you're on a channel dedicated to catering to gamers and you haven't seen Star Wars, you might want to. It just makes me wonder about anything that comes out of either of the women on that show [since I don't remember which one hadn't seen Star Wars]. I mean, you don't wonder about wheather Bob Vila has ever installed a toilet, right?

I've got the same reservations about listening to Morgan Webb. First off, she's awkward in front of the camera. Yes, she is attractive but her ability to read cue cards naturally is rather poor. These networks should focus on hiring people who actually play video games regularly and have some training in the television industry as on-air talent. That may be a tall order but part of the reason I think G4 and TechTV don't do as well as they could is because they've got either non-techs working and thus driving people away because they don't know what they're talking about OR they've got people who don't know anything about broadcasting and drive people away with an inability to convey information. TechTV's Screensavers program was once somewhat enjoyable. Leo Laporte has a background in broadcasting and, while not the most technically proficient person, got the job done. Now they've got all these 20-something interns that are designed to put a young face on the network but they do their job like shit. They're really awkward in front of the camera and they don't know a thing about technology.

I guess that's the end of my rant in reply to your one sentence about G4. ;-)

My thoughts...

[josh glaser]

Game Over was dumb. Awful. It just tried waaay too hard. Refering to a mall in "Vice City" does not equal a fanbase of hardcore gamers.

X-Play is much better. It succeeds where other review shows (including Extended Play, its previous life): It's actually entertaining. Most of the other review shows I've seen have nothing but review after review with the occaisonal joke thrown in - it's like watching a gadget show review printer after printer. X-Play has sketches and stuff, usually at least one per episode, along with segments like "Uncomfortable Moments in Gaming" ("The Horror of Song," a piece on awful videogame music, holds a special place in my heart ^_^). It's much more fun to watch then any other video game show I've seen (I don't have G4 though).

Poor attempt trend

[Tyggyr]

Game Over marketed to kids, but was foul, unimaginative drivel. We barely made it through the first episode, and that was mostly due to the promotional ads which were clean and decently cut. The show was abysmal.

The Simpsons works because it's smart. Reboot (rest in peace) worked because it was innocent and forthright.

Game Over didn't know what it was, and figured that "computer generated" and "shocking" was enough.

It's not. Good riddance.

Comcast customer?

[Rayonic]

You sound like you're a Comcast customer.

Helpful tip: They actually have a special sub-basic Cable TV plan. They don't advertise it, but it covers the basic broadcast and local access channels.

The price? $13 a month.

Does it qualify you for the $15 discount on your Comcast Internet connection? Yes.

So, for $2 less per month, you could get a few local cable channels. Hey, it's always handy to have at least that.

And if you're lucky (like me) they'll forget to put on the right filter and you'll get full basic cable. :^)