I would definitely pay to see more gaming programming ala the Icons series, which, before they changed the theme from gaming to pop culture, was a must-see G4 show for me.

Game reviews are somewhat meaningless in today's environment. There are plenty of free sources to get game review ratings plus plenty of ways to test the water without an actual purchase (decent demos, renting, buying preowned with money-back guarantees), so there's no real need/demand for game reviews in paid-for media.

I can just imagine a site/channel like www.ted.com with game development material.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst I would definitely pay to see more gaming programming ala the Icons series, which, before they changed the theme from gaming to pop culture, was a must-see G4 show for me. Game reviews are somewhat meaningless in today's environment. There are plenty of free sources to get game review ratings plus plenty of ways to test the water without an actual purchase (decent demos, renting, buying preowned with money-back guarantees), so there's no real need/demand for game reviews in paid-for media. I can just imagine a site/channel like www.ted.com with game development material.

I loved early Icons, too. [smile]

The TED comparison is quite apt, because the fundamental concept is deep subject matter experts sharing novel, intriguing or even humorous findings and performances with lay audiences. One of the basic errors I think has been made in the past is targeting "gamers" as an audience demographic. This has led to a poor selection of material, typically focused around the preview/review/cheats angle. In addition to having been obliterated by the internet (Metacritic and a hundred other review sites), the prevalence of demos to let you actually try before you buy has, as you correctly note, Silvermyst, made such material moot.

I think the audience to target is a cohort of game creators on the one hand and "suburban moms" on the other. It sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The conversation over gaming in the popular media is essentially between these two parties, the people who make the games and the people who do the bulk of purchasing (for children and spouses; I'd cite ESA/ECA stats here, but I'll assume we're all familiar enough that I don't need to). The problem is that neither side has really had representatives at the table, with reporters and "advocates" acting as intermediaries while completely garbling the messages and the issues.

A format that addresses, head on and with no sense of irony, legitimate concerns over what sort of material is appropriate for children of different ages, the right balance of play time (spousal EverCrack, WoW addiction, etc, for instance), and creative/editorial intent (why did Rockstar think it was a good idea to potentially let you have sex with a hooker into your car, gun her down and recover your "fare"?) and so forth, alongside exasperations with the stereotyping of games as exclusively "children's toys" or the legitimacy of mature-themed games that explore sexual and other themes for appropriate audiences... such a format could be highly compelling, and maybe even influential. If this stuff is out there and it begins to percolate, eventually it serves as an elevation of the discourse that exists in mainstream media today.

Most people think this works as an internet play, and that's absolutely true. It almost certainly does. But it also almost certainly will only attract previously interested, dedicated audiences. The power of television as a medium often lies in its "passivity" and its serendipity. Who among us hasn't stumbled onto something new and interesting while channel surfing, perhaps on a topic that had never warranted much thought? This is why having this sort of material on TV in some fashion is an appealing objective, particularly from a gaming advocacy perspective. So the challenge is to find a sustainable, cost-effective means of doing so.

An idea that's come up in other discussions I've had is not to operate an entire channel, but instead to provide a "block" of programming to an existing channel - similar to the "Horsepower TV" and "Powerblock" automotive programming that airs on Spike TV weekend mornings in the US. That's quite an interesting model, and can be a way to gradually grow capacity to produce television-quality content over time. There are many channels with too little content to fill their daily schedules.

G4 was dropped because all they ever had on were reruns of Cops... I mean they were marketing their channel to gamers and actually airing stuff that was completely not related... They had less views then some YouTube channels. Personally if I were the owner of a network I would drop them as well...

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi What would a sustainable gaming-oriented TV channel look like?

ESPN

Seriously though, with XBox and PlayStation capable of streaming video, why fuss with a television channel at all?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Oluseyi What would a sustainable gaming-oriented TV channel look like? ESPN

Doubtful. ESPN carries professional athletic engagements (yeah, yeah, college sports; they're de-facto junior pro leagues, which is why most people care; I wish we'd just be honest about it and stop pretending athletes need to go to college for a year or two to prepare for the pros) for spectators. The overwhelming majority of its programming is built around those games and commentary on those games, with only minor quantities based on examination of intersections of sport and society (Outside the Lines). I'm not convinced that there is a significant enough North American gaming audience that would pay to watch others play any one game, or even six. This isn't South Korea and StarCraft.

What I propose is what ESPN would look like if the majority of the programming was Outside the Lines, with an occasional smattering of ESPNEWS. It may fail, but at least it's a different tack than what's been tried before. ("ESPN for gaming" sounds like the old G4 show "Arena" in many respects.)

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Seriously though, with XBox and PlayStation capable of streaming video, why fuss with a television channel at all?

Quote:

From my earlier post Most people think this works as an internet play, and that's absolutely true. It almost certainly does. But it also almost certainly will only attract previously interested, dedicated audiences. The power of television as a medium often lies in its "passivity" and its serendipity. Who among us hasn't stumbled onto something new and interesting while channel surfing, perhaps on a topic that had never warranted much thought? This is why having this sort of material on TV in some fashion is an appealing objective, particularly from a gaming advocacy perspective.

I agree that the TV is a better medium for this, due to its passive status. Sure, a 360 or PS3 might be able to stream it, but... I'm not watching media on a 360 or PS3, I'm interacting with it. (And I just found a new way to interact with my Wii, thanks to this Johnny Lee lecture on cheap Wii hacks that I found on ted.com yesterday when browsing for "gaming".)

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst I agree that the TV is a better medium for this, due to its passive status. Sure, a 360 or PS3 might be able to stream it, but... I'm not watching media on a 360 or PS3, I'm interacting with it. (And I just found a new way to interact with my Wii, thanks to this Johnny Lee lecture on cheap Wii hacks that I found on ted.com yesterday when browsing for "gaming".)

An interesting point that came up in conversation yesterday is how devices like Google TV are poised to formally bridge the gap between internet video and television (without laboring under the label of "toy" or "video game console" like the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii), particularly by offering the possibility of "channels."

PS. Johnny Lee is awesome. Maybe I should build a rudimentary "virtual reality" gallery shooter using his tech, just for kicks... [smile]

http://g4tv.com/

- Entire network dedicated to gaming. Though oddly, I just tried to flip to it and my receiver says "G4 is no longer available on DirecTV"? WTF? I never watched it all that much, but doesn't make any sense. I'm sure they're still thriving, as they have been for years and years. So of course, a gaming-related TV show can be big.

- A show targeting game DEVELOPERS? Not on large national television networks; I would seriously doubt it. As someone said above, you'd want to start on the internet and try to work your way up and expand your audience.

- Contrary to popular belief, it does NOT take millions of dollars to make and get a TV show on national television. My older brother runs his own outdoors (hunting, fishing, outdoor sporting) television show on the "Pursuit Channel" (DirecTV Channel# 608). They are a very "young" show compared to others which have been running for years, and they are already really great. If you're into hunting/fishing, you would probably love it. Yes, it is quite expensive to run. But like almost every other show, revenue from commercials and sponsors keeps things going. So the point is, you don't need a million dollars to get a show going. Though you might spend many thousands and get started on local TV/internet before you're able to break out onto the national stage. Some of the things you would need:

1) VERY high-quality video camera. I would suggest nothing lesser than a Cannon GL series.

2) VERY nice PC and a high-end video editing suite (my brother uses a custom Mac and (I think) Final Cut Studio for the editing they do themselves. But they now have professionals editors at a 3rd party studio as well.

3) Not to be broke after buying that stuff. If you can't get this stuff from the start, you'll have to work your way up from more humble roots. But this is about all you *physically* need to create the show itself.

Getting the show on the air is a different thing altogether. The idea has to be good, you must find willing sponsors and advertisers, you have to find a network willing to run your show (or start privately, online), and much more. But anyone with a little sense, ambition and some skill (or the ability to develop the skills) can at least have a good chance at making it. There is no guarantee of success, and it will be HARD to make it to the national level, but don't think this is the exclusive territory of super-rich people with millions of dollars of "play" on their side. A show like this will NOT cost as much as something like a sitcom on Fox using high-profile actors, for example.

Hope that helps!

I used to love some of the shows back when it was TechTV. Call for Help and the Screen Savers were good shows. Screen Savers kind of evolved into Attack of the Show, but they kind of got rid of everything that made the show good.

After they became G4, they really did go downhill.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi An interesting point that came up in conversation yesterday is how devices like Google TV are poised to formally bridge the gap between internet video and television (without laboring under the label of "toy" or "video game console" like the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii), particularly by offering the possibility of "channels."

I wonder if the "on demand" aspect of all the new media will improve the long-term experience. Continuing to use ted.com as an example, I love the way I can just search a term, start playing it while I do my work, and then just select the next "you might also like" video once the first one is done. But we may lose out on that captive audience aspect of the older media. Would we know songs like "I Will Survive" and "Maggie May" (both B-side songs) if our parents and grandparents could've just downloaded the A-side songs?