Thank you much for the compliment.
I have my moments. I was leaning heavily towards Ryzom over Horizons because I heard that Ryzom is making some big announcement at E3. I love predicting things in the industry and sometimes, I hit it on the nail.
First comment on the game -- I think AC was a great game and when the expansion comes out, me and several ex-players plan on returning to it. If you've never played it, you don't understand the depth of the game -- it's truly incredible.
Now, is anyone theorizing yet on where Jessica Mulligan is going next? I have a couple theories -- either Horizons or Ryzom, given her track record with poorly launched games.
There are lots of games without combat that require skill to play. My comment was only about combat -- since that is what Smedley asks in his question. Right now, MMO's mostly use stats-based combat (meaning it compares the players stats against the mobs stats, then does a roll based on those stats and that determines damage, etc.). There's not a lot of true skill involved, since it is mainly dependant on your stats -- although there may be some strategy with special moves in certain MMO's that yield a higher degree of damage when used at the right time. Skill-based is often thought of as first person shooter combat aka twitch. A lot of woman will tell you they don't play FPS because they can't master the controls. I don't think its because we can't master them, but instead its that we don't have the patience to master them. We claim lack of coordination but the truth is its lack of interest in mastering controls. We'd rather be playing the game that struggling to play the controller.
The commonly accepted figure in the industry right now is that 10% of MMO players are female. This is based off of gender polls during surveys and sign-ups for MMO's. Some MMO's have a higher percentage. Some, like Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert, have disproportionately high numbers. I've asked both of them what they think their numbers for female players are at. ATitD came back with about 50% and Puzzle Pirates said 40-50% and he thinks that ratio will keep going up.
However, the standard sci-fi or fantasy based MMORPG with traditional MMO combat and gameplay is probably about 10%. I personally plan to do some kind of study to validate that number, since although its the accepted number, I've never seen any studies prove it.
The point of all of this is that I really want to see combat that is truly based in skill with the game. How can we do that?
I don't know where all the anger and insults come from -- it's shocking to say the least. Oh right, it's the internet. Why don't you come to E3 and talk to me in person and see how that goes?
Do people really believe that having worked 3 years in the industry every single day for hours upon hours a day, sacrificing any other semblence of life, wouldn't give me some kind of expertise on the industry I work in? It's certainly more than an academic would do on the subject. I do have an intimate understanding of the way companies market, their target demographics and who does and doesn't game and why. How do I have this? Because I've worked with all of the industry, from marketing to gamers. I know this industry better than I know my own husband.
The important thing you have to know here is the difference between examples of exceptions to the standard and what the standards are. We aren't talking about women who *already* game here. We are talking about women who don't game but might enjoy it, but will never know because ads like that turn them off or tell them nothing about the game, etc.
The game developers say they want to attract more of a female audience but they aren't doing anything to do that. Women who already game are obviously fine with the offering (although there are things I personally don't like, but I generally can overlook them if the game is good enough), so when we are discussing these topics, we aren't talking about women who alread play games. We are talking about the same women the game developers are talking about. That huge percentage of the market that looks at video games as a childs toy or a man's realm -- not because those two things are true but because that is how they are marketing them.
You should really read the credentials of the women involved in the chat. I posted the two guests credentials (one of whom works for EA) and linked the regulars credentials, including mine. We are hardly women "who have no qualifications to talk about the subject."
I was surprised Slashdot linked to the chat, but they obviously found something interesting in our chat. I found the chat interesting and we had a lot of fun in the chat, which I think came across well and is *what* our site is about - fun. So if you don't know what fun is, you probably shouldn't visit our site.:)
First of all, no one was more surprised than me that this was linked on Slashdot -- although we'd had 3 articles linked last month, I didn't think this would be one. It is what it is, a roundtable chat involving women in the industry.
Second, I kept that in to show off some personality. I could have edited it out as I did some other extraneous stuff, but I thought that was a fun comment and thats what KB is about - FUN.
With a law preventing Miller's and Smith's children from buying the game, they children just go over to Jones' house to play the game and the parents never even find out what they are playing and never have the chance to discuss the ethics and morality of the video game with them since they are ignorant of its existence. Jones' on the other hand has a chance to sit down with his child and the video game and go through it, talking about it in a very real, very honest way and making an impact on his child. It's just another way of addressing socially right and wrong behaviors.
Now say Smith's child goes out and breaks a law or does something stupid he sees in a video game -- what will Smith blame? Himself for being an uninvolved parent who didn't know what his child was doing or the video game? He'll blame the video game that he didn't even want his child to play and he'll point to the law stating obviously the government agrees. Giving that kind of fuel to parents who should be responsible for the actions of their children is just another way to avoid taking responsibility for actions. It's a common trend in this country, though. Why not just add video games to the list of excuses people can use? That is *all* this law will accomplish.
Well UbiSoft brought together these girls to be more than just a clan. They are supposed to help market UbiSoft's games and, as such, are spokesmodels as much as gamers. They just happen to be able to kiss ass. It's an interesting marketing attempt and it's doing pretty well for them, although maybe not for what they had hoped. I was told that UbiSoft already has the male audience -- this was to try to bring in the female audience. Maybe thats what is being said now to justify them, I don't know. If that was their purpose, they haven't gone the right way with it, though. Unfortunately -- bringing in the female audience would be better done with a group of good looking guys women could beat, if the marketing were done correctly. But this goes again to the predominantly male dominated market not truly understanding women -- and the few women in the market are perhaps too out of touch with the average woman to be useful. I often wonder if sometimes, no matter how I might try, it would be impossible for me because of the way I am to truly represent females.
As a geeky, relatively plain looking woman myself -- I'm as threatened by the Frag Dolls as I am by the Booth Babes at E3. Which means not at all. Perhaps I'm more secure in myself than others (and maybe its because I'm off the market?) but they don't bother me on that level. Course, were I on the market, I know I would have no shortage of bidders.
You are right.
Unfortunately -- ads that are sexual in nature have a better performance and get more attention than your normal run of the mill ad. It may not be the the moral route, but it gets results and that is why a lot of companies use them. They do what works and its a statement about our society that ads that are sexual in nature work not about the nature of the companies using the ads.
The average gaming site (say like Warcry or IGN) has about 10% of its viewing audience as female. That means 90% male. With an audience so male skewed, ads of a sexual nature work really well. Of the 10% audience that is female, most will click on an ad of sexual nature as well, since women who game tend to be a little different from your average woman. There may be some men who claim they would be offended and not click on ads of a sexual nature, but experience and statistics says that these men are the extreme minority unfortunately.
Until ads like this stop working, I don't expect them to go away. I'm not bothered by them as a female either, so *shrug* Hey, they get my attention and I'm straight as an arrow.
The ads are placeholders -- we aren't in any position yet to sell ads since we just technically launched yesterday. We thought the ads were cute -- a little sexy and very tongue in cheek -- just like me and Nicole. It's supposed to be a fun site. Most women, despite the common opinion, are not offended by scantily clad women.
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentions eyetoy and the Kinetic game that goes with it.
Thank you much for the compliment. I have my moments. I was leaning heavily towards Ryzom over Horizons because I heard that Ryzom is making some big announcement at E3. I love predicting things in the industry and sometimes, I hit it on the nail.
First comment on the game -- I think AC was a great game and when the expansion comes out, me and several ex-players plan on returning to it. If you've never played it, you don't understand the depth of the game -- it's truly incredible. Now, is anyone theorizing yet on where Jessica Mulligan is going next? I have a couple theories -- either Horizons or Ryzom, given her track record with poorly launched games.
There are lots of games without combat that require skill to play. My comment was only about combat -- since that is what Smedley asks in his question. Right now, MMO's mostly use stats-based combat (meaning it compares the players stats against the mobs stats, then does a roll based on those stats and that determines damage, etc.). There's not a lot of true skill involved, since it is mainly dependant on your stats -- although there may be some strategy with special moves in certain MMO's that yield a higher degree of damage when used at the right time. Skill-based is often thought of as first person shooter combat aka twitch. A lot of woman will tell you they don't play FPS because they can't master the controls. I don't think its because we can't master them, but instead its that we don't have the patience to master them. We claim lack of coordination but the truth is its lack of interest in mastering controls. We'd rather be playing the game that struggling to play the controller. The commonly accepted figure in the industry right now is that 10% of MMO players are female. This is based off of gender polls during surveys and sign-ups for MMO's. Some MMO's have a higher percentage. Some, like Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert, have disproportionately high numbers. I've asked both of them what they think their numbers for female players are at. ATitD came back with about 50% and Puzzle Pirates said 40-50% and he thinks that ratio will keep going up. However, the standard sci-fi or fantasy based MMORPG with traditional MMO combat and gameplay is probably about 10%. I personally plan to do some kind of study to validate that number, since although its the accepted number, I've never seen any studies prove it. The point of all of this is that I really want to see combat that is truly based in skill with the game. How can we do that?
Try A Tale in the Desert :)
Here's some hard reading for anyone who actually wants to be educated about this topic.
5 84 502398/qid=1107538061/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl 14/104-5871584-4685535?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1
I don't know where all the anger and insults come from -- it's shocking to say the least. Oh right, it's the internet. Why don't you come to E3 and talk to me in person and see how that goes?
Do people really believe that having worked 3 years in the industry every single day for hours upon hours a day, sacrificing any other semblence of life, wouldn't give me some kind of expertise on the industry I work in? It's certainly more than an academic would do on the subject. I do have an intimate understanding of the way companies market, their target demographics and who does and doesn't game and why. How do I have this? Because I've worked with all of the industry, from marketing to gamers. I know this industry better than I know my own husband.
The important thing you have to know here is the difference between examples of exceptions to the standard and what the standards are. We aren't talking about women who *already* game here. We are talking about women who don't game but might enjoy it, but will never know because ads like that turn them off or tell them nothing about the game, etc. The game developers say they want to attract more of a female audience but they aren't doing anything to do that. Women who already game are obviously fine with the offering (although there are things I personally don't like, but I generally can overlook them if the game is good enough), so when we are discussing these topics, we aren't talking about women who alread play games. We are talking about the same women the game developers are talking about. That huge percentage of the market that looks at video games as a childs toy or a man's realm -- not because those two things are true but because that is how they are marketing them.
You should really read the credentials of the women involved in the chat. I posted the two guests credentials (one of whom works for EA) and linked the regulars credentials, including mine. We are hardly women "who have no qualifications to talk about the subject."
:)
I was surprised Slashdot linked to the chat, but they obviously found something interesting in our chat. I found the chat interesting and we had a lot of fun in the chat, which I think came across well and is *what* our site is about - fun. So if you don't know what fun is, you probably shouldn't visit our site.
First of all, no one was more surprised than me that this was linked on Slashdot -- although we'd had 3 articles linked last month, I didn't think this would be one. It is what it is, a roundtable chat involving women in the industry. Second, I kept that in to show off some personality. I could have edited it out as I did some other extraneous stuff, but I thought that was a fun comment and thats what KB is about - FUN.
With a law preventing Miller's and Smith's children from buying the game, they children just go over to Jones' house to play the game and the parents never even find out what they are playing and never have the chance to discuss the ethics and morality of the video game with them since they are ignorant of its existence. Jones' on the other hand has a chance to sit down with his child and the video game and go through it, talking about it in a very real, very honest way and making an impact on his child. It's just another way of addressing socially right and wrong behaviors. Now say Smith's child goes out and breaks a law or does something stupid he sees in a video game -- what will Smith blame? Himself for being an uninvolved parent who didn't know what his child was doing or the video game? He'll blame the video game that he didn't even want his child to play and he'll point to the law stating obviously the government agrees. Giving that kind of fuel to parents who should be responsible for the actions of their children is just another way to avoid taking responsibility for actions. It's a common trend in this country, though. Why not just add video games to the list of excuses people can use? That is *all* this law will accomplish.
kick ass i meant, not kiss ass /me sighs
Well UbiSoft brought together these girls to be more than just a clan. They are supposed to help market UbiSoft's games and, as such, are spokesmodels as much as gamers. They just happen to be able to kiss ass. It's an interesting marketing attempt and it's doing pretty well for them, although maybe not for what they had hoped. I was told that UbiSoft already has the male audience -- this was to try to bring in the female audience. Maybe thats what is being said now to justify them, I don't know. If that was their purpose, they haven't gone the right way with it, though. Unfortunately -- bringing in the female audience would be better done with a group of good looking guys women could beat, if the marketing were done correctly. But this goes again to the predominantly male dominated market not truly understanding women -- and the few women in the market are perhaps too out of touch with the average woman to be useful. I often wonder if sometimes, no matter how I might try, it would be impossible for me because of the way I am to truly represent females.
As a geeky, relatively plain looking woman myself -- I'm as threatened by the Frag Dolls as I am by the Booth Babes at E3. Which means not at all. Perhaps I'm more secure in myself than others (and maybe its because I'm off the market?) but they don't bother me on that level. Course, were I on the market, I know I would have no shortage of bidders.
You are right. Unfortunately -- ads that are sexual in nature have a better performance and get more attention than your normal run of the mill ad. It may not be the the moral route, but it gets results and that is why a lot of companies use them. They do what works and its a statement about our society that ads that are sexual in nature work not about the nature of the companies using the ads. The average gaming site (say like Warcry or IGN) has about 10% of its viewing audience as female. That means 90% male. With an audience so male skewed, ads of a sexual nature work really well. Of the 10% audience that is female, most will click on an ad of sexual nature as well, since women who game tend to be a little different from your average woman. There may be some men who claim they would be offended and not click on ads of a sexual nature, but experience and statistics says that these men are the extreme minority unfortunately. Until ads like this stop working, I don't expect them to go away. I'm not bothered by them as a female either, so *shrug* Hey, they get my attention and I'm straight as an arrow.
The ads are placeholders -- we aren't in any position yet to sell ads since we just technically launched yesterday. We thought the ads were cute -- a little sexy and very tongue in cheek -- just like me and Nicole. It's supposed to be a fun site. Most women, despite the common opinion, are not offended by scantily clad women.