Game Matters

One year down, a few more to go...

It was just a tad over one year ago I fired up this blog, and I've can't say I regretted it, even though it's eaten up some valuable time now and then.  It's been fun having a private little outlet for opinions and advice.  It's also been rewarding to see the numerous intelligent comments contributed by visitors.  That was entirely unexpected, since I hadn't seen other blogs with high numbers of comments on a consistent basis.

Just for the record -- and this is what prompted today's update -- I hit 200,000 visitors today, which means the daily average is around 550 since I started.  Actually, the real average is higher nowadays, around 1000, because the first few months were slow going.  Not that I really pay attention to these numbers, but it's nice nonetheless.

I'm expecting the next twelve months to be more action-packed around here, because, well, just because...  ;-)

Still haven't finished H-L 2, which is my goal before the weekend is up, so better jump back on my buggy...

It doesn't get any better than this!

Just a quick post, while I'm halfway through Half-Life and loving every second of it...

Is this about as good as it gets for fans of action gaming?  Methinks, yes.  In the last few months we've had releases from four of the biggest action franchises going:  GTA: San Andreas, Doom 3, Halo 2 and Half-Life 2.  For those of us who dig action, I don't think we've ever seen a short period like this were it's been any better for us.

I also tried Men of Valor: Vietnam, and it simply doesn't stack up.  Not sure if I can push myself to complete it.  It's not that it's a bad game, it just doesn't compare to the greatness it finds itself standing in the shadow of.  Killzone might be worth trying out, too, but first I need to finish the fab four.

And while I'm here, I'm surprise that there's not been much blog-buzz about Steam.  Steam may be the most important event for independent developers in the last five years.  Independent developers should look hard into the option of using Steam.  Valve has poured $10 to $15 million into R&D and making Steam work, and I'm impressed with how well it worked with the release of HL2, despite a few glitches.

What Valve needs to do -- like they're gonna listen to me! -- is spin-off Steam as a separate company.  This will give it a better chance to succeed in the long run.  A key point in doing this is to avoid the conflict-of-interest inherent in Steam being a division of Valve.  Developers and publishers (yes, publishers might even consider Steam in the future) might be concerned about Valve having access to sales numbers.  Steam as a separate company removes this as an issue.

Back to the game...

What's gone wrong with marketing?

Dr. Pepper has given us the definitive answer to this question:  Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper.

The absurdity of this drink should be obvious.  My question to the Dr. Pepper company is, What flavor is Dr. Pepper?  You see, when you keep messing with your soda brand by bringing out new versions, you erode the meaning of the brand.  Coke and Pepsi are even worse off.  Crystal Pepsi, Berry Pepsi, and all of the many flavors of Coke (Vanilla, Lemon, Cherry, Lime), have done nothing for each company's bottom-line, but they have sent us the message these soda brands are still searching for a winning flavor.  Remember Coke's slogan, "Coke is it"?  Well, which flavor, exactly, is it?  Now Coke is using the slogan, "Real."  Will the real Coke please stand up?  With all of these different flavors, the Coke brand is now the equivalent of Shasta, coming in a long list of flavors.  Anyone count the number of flavors of Sprite or Mountain Dew lately?  Isn't it even crazy to have to talk about different flavors of Sprite, or Coke, or Dr. Pepper?!  I can only imagine that next we'll see a new flavor spin-off of root beer?

RC, a perennial third place in the cola wars, has a sparkling opportunity to capitalize on the self-destructive habits of their competition.  Here's what RC should do:

o Drop RC and go back to using Royal Crown.  Initials cheapen a brand and make it less memorable.

o Use real sugar cane, and promote how bad high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is -- and it's really unhealthy vs. sucrose, a.k.a. cane sugar.  Also promote that sugar cane was how sodas were originally made and why they use to taste so good.  Dipping a hand in pure white sugar vs a hand in goopy HFCS would offer a stark contrast, with the question:  "Which do you prefer?"

o Only have one version of Royal Crown, the true blue non-diet version.  When you do just one thing, you tend to do it best.  Promote the idea that Royal Crown doesn't need to experiment with new flavors every month -- "we found the best one and we're sticking with it."

o Mock the fact that no one knows what flavor a Coke or a Pepsi is anymore -- vanilla, lemon, lime, crystal, cherry, berry?!

o Promote Royal Crown as the premium cola brand, not the value brand.  And the reasons above support this premium positioning.  And this is another reason to use Royal Crown rather than RC, as "Royal Crown" sounds like the king of colas.

Bingo, Royal Crown's market share quadruples in the first year.  Coke and Pepsi are too big and stuck in their ways to counter effectively.

What does any of this have to do with the gaming world?

Plenty.

Brand management is one of the most important duties of a company that generates revenues through IP (intellectual property).  And the game industry is just as foolish as soda companies when it comes to creating and maintaining their brands.  But I'll save this for my next update.

Show versus tell

Came across this article on the value of giving a visual demonstration, which I agree with entirely.  In summary, show works better than tell.  From the article:

A powerful demonstration snaps a customer out of her reverie, because of one simple reason. Explanation is nice but not va-va-voom. It's a monologue. It's pretty one-way, if you know what I mean.

Demonstration, on the other hand, begs for involvement. And involvement, as we know, is a very persuasive selling factor.

If you cannot give an actual demo of your game, then at minimum put together a poster board show with high quality artwork that shows what the game will look like, revealing its art style, atmosphere and excitement.  I read somewhere that George Lucas convinced Fox to fund the original Star Wars by showing them several illustrations that he himself paid to have made, an unusual practice back then.

Here's another good article that talks about how presentations work well in Hollywood.

It's all about psychology.  People believe what they see.  Visual data literally gives us a much better picture of the product's potential than a spoken or written explanation.  If you're pitching a game, think visually.

The IP Game -- Part Two

Following is part two of William Latham's column that appeared in the United Kingdom's game industry publication, Develop.

Publishers profit from developers' IP

Independent game developers without their own IP are service
companies, not creative ones, argues William Latham...

In my August column, I outlined the typical path taken to exploit an
original IP by an independent developer. We saw how the developer -
after funding and delivering the expensive 'Vertical Slice' demanded by
the publisher and under huge cash flow pressure - gave all its IP
rights to the publisher just to finally get the contract signed.

In that moment, the developer's role has changed from being the next
potential JK Rowling to being no different to Pronto Print. It is now a
service company. Following the traditional celebratory booze-up down
the pub, the studio's CEO looks more closely at the contract that they
have just signed and realizes that three milestone rejections under the
subjective 'marketing sign off clause' means in essence that the
project can be moved in-house by the publisher, and the developer
cannot do anything about it. (This clause is standard, incidentally,
and it instantly bypasses any publisher obligation to respect the
contractual game specification and milestone schedule.)

Soon the developer also notices that its publisher's producer has
become a little Hitler, mucking around with the game based on their own
half baked ideas. And then the publisher says it wants complete
monthly source code builds, and then publisher's press department
stalls on getting the product announcement press release through the
door...

Three months go on and the CEO at the publisher says they don't like
the direction the game has taken, unaware that it's the publisher's
producer that taken it in this direction. And the developer cannot
'blow out' the publisher's producer, because as a personal favor he is
getting the milestone payments through the system as quickly as
possible.

And so the descent continues, milestones fail and eventually the
product is canned.

Now here are some nasty additions: in a scenario where the development
is actually going well (and set to lead to success for the developer),
it may actually be in the larger publisher's best interests to move
this important IP to its in-house factory as quickly as possible, to
reduce risk and significantly increase confidence in hitting the
release date. In any event, the developer's risk remains very high,
because it is still carrying a lot of debt from funding the Vertical
Slice and funding the large team during the lengthy negotiation period.
On top of all this, in handing over its IP, the developer has
significantly reduced its chances of getting any investment from VCs or
external investors - the one thing that might reduce risk in the
publisher's eyes and justify the developer keeping the product!

Where will this end? Big publisher's internal development teams need
good IP. Publishers could start to look at independent developers
merely as a source of original IP to feed their internal teams, and use
full publishing contracts merely to extract the IP and then dump the
developer. A pessimistic line, sure, but we must be getting close to
this. Some publishers already kill healthy titles in external
development to free up extra money to spend marketing a hit title, and
some financial directors will save hundreds of thousands of dollars by
deliberately rejecting milestones (irrelevant of quality) just prior to
the company year-end to boost the year-end position.

The point is that even if the extraction of an IP from a developer is
not deliberately used (it would, after all, probably viewed as
unethical), the 'subjective marketing sign off clause' mentioned at the
start of the column gives the publisher huge flexibility, and does not
really encourage it to make the business relationship work with the
developer. With this Sword of Damocles hanging over it, on top of its
risky financial situation, the developer is unlikely to give its best.

To conclude, the developer/publisher business model is broken,
publisher 'over-negotiation' is common, and management of its external
producers is often very poor. Finally, independent developers continue
to be very commercially naive as to just how far the odds are stacked
against them, and how much risk they take on. Risk which in the end can
finish them off.

Owning/controlling IP is the ultimate road to success in this industry, which is why the publishers have gotten so good at it. But, for the health of the industry, we need more financially strong independent studios, capable of following their own creative whims, and willing to make original games. Our industry benefits tremendous from originality and building our own identity. It's no coincidence that most of the industry's strongest non-sports brands were invented here, and are not Hollywood hand-me-downs. Games like Halo, The Sims, Diablo, Metal Gear Sold, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, Doom, Metroid, Max Payne, Age of Empires, Tomb Raider, Zelda, Tetris, EverQuest, Command & Conquer, Ratchet & Clank, Fable, Resident Evil, Mario, Half-Life and Grand Theft Auto.

We'd see more original games, I'm positive, if we had more financially successful studios, who, unlike publishers, do not have shareholders and Wall Street to kneel to, demanding every quarter to bring in more revenue that the previous year's same quarter. This system results in games that are rushed out to meet arbitrary end-of-quarter dates.

Another issue is that the industry is better off when the accumulation of wealth doesn't always flow toward the publishers. When it flows in the other direction, then creative mavericks are more likely to develop games that explore more risky terrain. We need more Pixar's in the game industry.

My major frustration with most publishers is that they do not take more chances (though Ubisoft has impressed me in the last year). But the reason is clear: Publishers haven't a clue how to develop successful brands, and thus their failure rate is so high they believe it's near impossible, and mostly dumb luck when it happens.

While I know that in many situations publishers can do an excellent job with existing IP, and occasionally even inventing new IP, the industry is better off if independent studios have a lot of say in the matter, too. And currently, the power shift has swung too far in the publisher's direction, and too many studios are pawns, rather than kings.

Bottom-line: Owning IP is the single most important factor in determining who's a king.