A few days after my last post, a long time associate emailed me with some comments and a thought provoking query. He asked "Why is there no mention of Mobile Games in your analysis?".
I thought it worthwhile to add my response here as it is very relevant.
I am very glad you enjoyed and found value in my ramblings. I have been lax in responding to you as I wanted to think about and do some research into, your query regarding mobile gaming.
In my research I found that I had to adjust some of my thinking regarding psychological needs in gaming to account for the mobile casual game scenarios. It was an interesting discovery.
First, the US I believe, lags behind Europe a year or two in regards to the implementation of communication technology. The US does not have a central communication or nationalized communication company. The primary players are Verizon/ALLTELL, AT&T, and Sprint/Nextel. A year ago I was working for a software company positioning their mobile workforce automation software and selling them through the various wireless carriers. There are differences between the various carriers in terms of their market strategy, market focus and what technology is available to 3rd party vendors. For example, Verizon which is the leader in the consumer market, does not allow third party vendors to access the GPS chips in the phones on their network.
I see mobile gaming being developed in three primary forms.
#1: Casual Amusement games: As a casual gaming platform with offerings that provide amusement to the consumer. This is short term Nagara type offering that are designed to provide humor as well as some minor short lived strategy game that takes no more than a few minutes to complete. Competition is against a high score or against other folks score in what I call "Serial competition". There is a "game" and the competition is chalked up in a series of games which provide performance metrics that are compared against the players past performance metrics or against other players performance metrics. The "Serial Competition" becomes the "hook" for this type of offering.
#2: Information Extension of Persistent Games: Imagine playing a MMO where as a guild member or leader you can get information updates and a "light version" of the MMO client where it is possible to make administrative decisions. This would be a secondary client to a game that is played via console, web or PC.
#3 Proximity games. We have not seen this type of offering to my limited knowledge, but this very unique design aspect could trigger a social explosion if it is done correctly. In this concept we blend the proximity of players to each other to create unique interactions that either are scored and stored in a serial global competition and/or give unique tokens that have ramifications to a persistent game world that is played on a global basis. The ramifications of this concept is enormous in terms of the amount of players, psychological hooks, and revenue stream.
The overall conclusion is that Mobile Games fit well into the future and will be with us a very long time. It has untapped potential, that is not being addressed at this time by what I can determine.
The basis for this analysis is that all technology is rushing towards the sovereign individual, which is that state where no matter where a person is, they can work and play using technology. National Borders dissolve and the concept of "web services" that apply to today's enterprise applications will apply to individual people, a "loose coupling" of a persons expertise and services to a larger project.
Best regards,
Jim
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
What tomorrow may bring..
Hello all,
It has been too long. I have been very busy with the second version of Prophesy of Pendor 2.0 and it should release inside of a few short weeks.
Several important things are happening in the game industry right now.
I will say this: The only constant is change, and in any tech industry, those who embrace change will win over those who refuse to admit that change is happening.
Last month a paradigm shift was introduced into the gaming world. You may not realize it yet, but it changes everything. The name of the company is OnLive.
http://www.onlive.com/
Think of this as Cable Television except for games. You pay “X” $ per month and receive games to your computer and/or television from the game providers, which right now look to be the bulk of the high end game publishers such as EA among others.
I have talked to several folks, including some game designers, who apparently do not get it. So, let me illuminate the dark shadows for you.
The consumers of games want amazing products, great graphics, total immersion. Blah blah, blah.. You have heard this for dozens of years.
So.. how? How do they get this? For years it was "Computer" or "Console".
Previously it has been either they fork over $150 to $500 for a base system, then spend $59.95 or $49.95 for top games and $29.95 to $39.95 for last years great games or this years “B” list games. So, roughly on the average I am going to pay $500 in a year, for base system and a handful of good games.
Or.
I am going to purchase a PC with great graphics (that I will have to replace every 3 to 5 years), low end systems gaming systems are $1200. High end are $3500. Great games are a bit less, as they lose their shelf life quickly. So, figure that the average PC gamer will spend the same $250 a year in games.
In three years, with Option “A” I spend $1000.00 and with Option “B” I spend $2250.00.
Now with On-Live I can spend say $19.95 a month, have better graphics and performance than with any system or box I can purchase, and am not limited to 5 games a year.. but 20 or 30. What I spend in three years? $720.00.
So the value to the player is more games, better performance, and lower cost.
That is just the economic side of the equation. The real question to be answered is “How does the game company or game publisher get paid?” If it is based upon “time spent” or any form of a player usage model, then my friends, the corner in game development will have turned.
As I have talked, seemingly endlessly before, about product and service based game design, the usage model highly favors offerings that are service based. This means that those offerings that are eye candy, quick to grab attention but not hold it for a long period of time will not be cost efficient to produce.
It will take a few years of operation for those people who are making the decisions for game development companies to to come to terms with this concept. By then, it may be too late for them.
The other innovation is creeping up on America from Europe. More and more gamers in the United States are following, (yes following), the lead of gamers in world-wide markets. They are jumping to low cost “free” web based browser games.
They are innovating quicker than the larger established companies. Already they are nearly caught up with good, albeit not great as of yet, graphics. The game play is just a tad lower than most “AAA” titles. However, it is just a matter of time before they hit on the right game formula and then another shift in how games are designed, produced and delivered will take hold. It is almost to the level of critical mass. Again the emphasis is not on quantity of offerings, but on single service based offerings that engage and hold players for years.
Just this week I was out looking at “Free browser based games”, and was stunned to find multiple sites of 100+ entries keeping track of the best and most popular etc.
I predict, and you can quote me back on this, that within 5 years these two forms of gaming will be the predominant methods of how gamers try, consume and pay for their interactive entertainment.
When our children are grown, they will be engaged with interactive entertainment offerings that from start to finish will last years. Purchasing a game for $50.00 will seem absurd, and if it does not offer a free trial for a week then they will not even give it a second glance. Those titles that they engage with will reach across to them no matter where they are or what they are doing. Player Guilds will be similar to fraternities and will be both in and out of game, and will reach to social-cultural, economic and political circles. It will be a lifestyle and a way in which people interact with the world much as we do now, taking our news of local, regional and world events and organize our lives around favored programs on television.
Enough for now.. I am off to enjoy spring.
Best,
Jim
It has been too long. I have been very busy with the second version of Prophesy of Pendor 2.0 and it should release inside of a few short weeks.
Several important things are happening in the game industry right now.
I will say this: The only constant is change, and in any tech industry, those who embrace change will win over those who refuse to admit that change is happening.
Last month a paradigm shift was introduced into the gaming world. You may not realize it yet, but it changes everything. The name of the company is OnLive.
http://www.onlive.com/
Think of this as Cable Television except for games. You pay “X” $ per month and receive games to your computer and/or television from the game providers, which right now look to be the bulk of the high end game publishers such as EA among others.
I have talked to several folks, including some game designers, who apparently do not get it. So, let me illuminate the dark shadows for you.
The consumers of games want amazing products, great graphics, total immersion. Blah blah, blah.. You have heard this for dozens of years.
So.. how? How do they get this? For years it was "Computer" or "Console".
Previously it has been either they fork over $150 to $500 for a base system, then spend $59.95 or $49.95 for top games and $29.95 to $39.95 for last years great games or this years “B” list games. So, roughly on the average I am going to pay $500 in a year, for base system and a handful of good games.
Or.
I am going to purchase a PC with great graphics (that I will have to replace every 3 to 5 years), low end systems gaming systems are $1200. High end are $3500. Great games are a bit less, as they lose their shelf life quickly. So, figure that the average PC gamer will spend the same $250 a year in games.
In three years, with Option “A” I spend $1000.00 and with Option “B” I spend $2250.00.
Now with On-Live I can spend say $19.95 a month, have better graphics and performance than with any system or box I can purchase, and am not limited to 5 games a year.. but 20 or 30. What I spend in three years? $720.00.
So the value to the player is more games, better performance, and lower cost.
That is just the economic side of the equation. The real question to be answered is “How does the game company or game publisher get paid?” If it is based upon “time spent” or any form of a player usage model, then my friends, the corner in game development will have turned.
As I have talked, seemingly endlessly before, about product and service based game design, the usage model highly favors offerings that are service based. This means that those offerings that are eye candy, quick to grab attention but not hold it for a long period of time will not be cost efficient to produce.
It will take a few years of operation for those people who are making the decisions for game development companies to to come to terms with this concept. By then, it may be too late for them.
The other innovation is creeping up on America from Europe. More and more gamers in the United States are following, (yes following), the lead of gamers in world-wide markets. They are jumping to low cost “free” web based browser games.
They are innovating quicker than the larger established companies. Already they are nearly caught up with good, albeit not great as of yet, graphics. The game play is just a tad lower than most “AAA” titles. However, it is just a matter of time before they hit on the right game formula and then another shift in how games are designed, produced and delivered will take hold. It is almost to the level of critical mass. Again the emphasis is not on quantity of offerings, but on single service based offerings that engage and hold players for years.
Just this week I was out looking at “Free browser based games”, and was stunned to find multiple sites of 100+ entries keeping track of the best and most popular etc.
I predict, and you can quote me back on this, that within 5 years these two forms of gaming will be the predominant methods of how gamers try, consume and pay for their interactive entertainment.
When our children are grown, they will be engaged with interactive entertainment offerings that from start to finish will last years. Purchasing a game for $50.00 will seem absurd, and if it does not offer a free trial for a week then they will not even give it a second glance. Those titles that they engage with will reach across to them no matter where they are or what they are doing. Player Guilds will be similar to fraternities and will be both in and out of game, and will reach to social-cultural, economic and political circles. It will be a lifestyle and a way in which people interact with the world much as we do now, taking our news of local, regional and world events and organize our lives around favored programs on television.
Enough for now.. I am off to enjoy spring.
Best,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
