Dan Adelman is our special guest for an intense look at establishing WiiWare, DSiWare, and the eShop. Plus: we discuss the effects of Phazon within the games media in Listener Mail.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rfn/38434/episode-397-rfnware-shop-channel
We don't often have full-on interviews or new guests on Radio Free Nintendo, because it's asking a lot of these people to deal with our strict recording schedule and the relatively complex procedures needed to make the show sound good every week. This time, it was absolutely worthwhile. Our special guest is Dan Adelman, the independent development consultant who recently left Nintendo of America after nine years of work on digital distribution platforms. It so happens that we on RFN have spent the last eight years obsessing over the mysterious workings of those same platforms and shop portals. Dan couldn't talk much about Virtual Console (we'll keep trying) but he answered freely and at length our very specific questions on everything from the WiiWare file size limit (40 megabytes!) to the evolution of Nintendo's digital storefronts and how backwards policies eventually got changed through the maze of Nintendo's bureaucracy. We think you'll find his answers enlightening and fascinating, as we did throughout the interview. Dan is now a freelance consultant for independent developers who need business help -- check out his website for more information, or ping him on Twitter (@Dan_Adelman). The guy knows what he's doing, as you'll hear.
It's back to just the four of us in part two, but we stay on the industry talk train with an in-depth edition of Listener Mail. Just one topic this week, but it's a big one that consumed the remainder of this episode. A listener is concerned about corruption within the gaming media and asks us to tell all. No problem! Note: Our discussion is removed from sex stories, crowd-sourced harassment, hashtag wars, etc. It's just about standards of ethics, disclosure, and professional relationships across the industry. We aren't calling out anyone, except maybe ourselves.
We'll swing hard back into game discussion next week, so keep that in mind when you write an email for the show! And of course, huge thanks again to Dan Adelman for spending so much time answering our obsessive questions.
send your hatemail on today's journalism ethics discussion to... (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/mail/rfn)
out of touch rambling that Iwata did on how home developers devalue the market by crapping $1 shite onto the iTunes store.Except that's exactly what happened.
out of touch rambling that Iwata did on how home developers devalue the market by crapping $1 shite onto the iTunes store.Except that's exactly what happened.
Not even with mobile platforms but even with Steam eventually.
Nowadays it's nearly impossible to create 2d game without people saying "it should be XBLA/Steam/eShop for 15$ tops".
That it did.out of touch rambling that Iwata did on how home developers devalue the market by crapping $1 shite onto the iTunes store.Except that's exactly what happened.
Not even with mobile platforms but even with Steam eventually.
Nowadays it's nearly impossible to create 2d game without people saying "it should be XBLA/Steam/eShop for 15$ tops".
I think the main takeaway from the readers who are concerned about gaming journalism integrity is to approach their publications with a much more critical eye, and not just consume it mindlessly. It doesn't matter what kind of news is being covered, there are always context & biases from the author or publication that flavors the article, and you need to both make yourself aware of these biases, and consider them, ESPECIALLY if you're considering making a purchasing decision based on that feedback.
Reasonable people can agree that media outlets should disclose substantial conflicts of interest, e.g. intertwined business interests. Trivial public endorsements ("Check this out!") and mere acquaintances do not meet that threshold.
So then, if most of us agree on the end goal, the question remains of how to achieve that goal. Little or nothing of what I've seen associated with that hashtag represents a productive means to do so, and much of it entirely undermines the common goal by warping the agenda to nefarious motives (sexism, etc.) or outright breaking the laws of nations and of common decency and respect.
The substantive argument here is exactly what Karl poses in his editorial, which should not be controversial at all: What are we supposed to do about it? I've yet to see anyone construct a realistic, respectful plan nor provide the organizational skills to make it actually happen. And so nothing will happen, except that everyone gets pissed off at each other, and a few people of varying emotional stability quit the business. The movement is doomed already -- your best bet is a reboot some other time, with far better quality control and an actual public relations strategy. You know, like a real social movement.
