looking at the marketplace it'd seem the item mall model is coming out victorious. You can't argue with the victor and so S.MG is open to having BTC-based item malls as a revenue model. On the theoretical side, looking at the strengths of BTC and so forth it'd seem RCE is the best fit. S.MG will try to promote that within reason.
I feel like S.MG is unprepared at this moment. Mainly due to the general consensus of the game community in regards to marketplace models, and if you fully represent S.MG, some of the things you've stated are contrary to the reality of the game industry. I don't want to rehash what many individuals smarter than I in the game development community have already analyzed in depth (
http://www.bogost.com/blog/cow_clicker_1.shtml), so I'll briefly reference the attached article as needed.
Item malls are secondary revenue streams and have failed plenty of times due to this new developer mantra of "Fuck the user as long as we get paid." The reason games such as Team Fortress 2 have been successful in applying the mall-model is due to a previously developed user base surrounding a quality game. Sacrificing quality for revenue always leads to disaster, one may profit initially, however this always catches up to you (see NASDAQ:ZNGA).
A quote that really hits home:
In recent years, massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) frequently have been accused of doing little more than compelling players to keep playing; amounting to "brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money"
This insults the user, and ostracizes would-be fans from what could be a very successful brand.
You stated:
The "boxed game" distribution model seems pretty much dead in the way the VHS tape is dead: nobody's arguing with the folk keeping their VHS collections around, but nobody is releasing anything on VHS anymore.
I don't think this metaphor applies to video games in the way the above individuals were pointing out. Of course no one buys VHS's anymore, but they still buy movies. Games are still distributed, Lord British (Richard Garriot), of Ultima Fame still creates old school point and click RPG's alone at his home, and has quite the audience. He has enough of a fan-base, albeit niche, in order to continue his independent developments, likely indefinitely.
At every game meetup you'll find some schmuck preaching about how his new "item mall micro-transaction revenue model" is going to revolutionize the game industry, attempting to recruit developers blindly to work toward a vision that has already been proven a failure by those much smarter than him.
If Mircea is trying to develop a game in house, why not start with a quality game first before moving onto revenue models? With nearly $1 million (USD) raised (or will be raised) from the IPO (extrapolated from the initial 15%), Mircea has more than enough capital to compete with AAA titles.
Taking the metaphor literally, it still doesn't apply. Companies still release products for dead consoles, (games are still being released for the Dreamcast), players still buy them, the cycle continues.
if people don't know/don't care about that statement then you can hire them. If everybody knows and cares about what me/MP says then you can always find people to hire because you're the only thing so cool on the Internet that EVERYONE knows and cares what you say. Either way....
With your logic you should have Miyamoto, Inafune, and Kojima all lining up to head up the lead design role for S.MG. Alas they are not, I understand the quote was meant to be slightly humorous, however all three of the listed individuals were once novices, and during the infancy of their tenure, they certainly faced failure on a daily basis. At one point in time their names meant nothing.
Most designers and developers worth hiring who have the potential to reach this capacity care most about their artistic vision and how those leading them affect the realized version of that vision.
More importantly, why is it so important to establish conceptually what is or isn't a game? If people play it, that's all it takes (also known as the "I know it when I see it" legal standard).
That's not entirely true...(I'm referring to the "If people play it, that's all it takes"). In fact many game critics and highly regarded designers would completely disagree. The anecdote of one playing ET for the Atari 2600 is the classic example of something that can be played that is far from a game.
What makes a game? Johan Huizinga answered this long ago before any of us were born:
http://www.nideffer.net/classes/270-08/week_01_intro/Huizinga.pdfThis has subsequently become a standard in the game development community, a very good read for anyone claiming to be a game designer.
By not making this distinction you are again insulting the player, the one person you'd best not to insult. The player may never know or care about the distinction, but they will feel it in the game. This distinction allows the designer to create an experience that is fun, rather than depending on "brain hacks." It is subconscious by nature.
The user originally asked:
Games based on skill? Feeding alpacas on your little farm with carrots that you bought for Bitcoins in a microtransaction and posting every fart of said animals on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Diaspora, the hidden wiki and Bitmessage?
You replied by insulting the would be player:
I'm not sure the distinction you propose makes any sense. Is WoW a game of luck or a game of skill by your definition? Sure, skill plays some part, in that if you can't play you can't play.
Come on. Really? The article I referenced at the beginning of this post by Dr. Bogost, analyzes the distinction you are willingly ignoring. I'll start with a quick quote from the attached article by Dr. Bogost:
Most games require some non-trivial effort to play. Challenge and effort are often cited in definitions of games, as is a tendency toward meaningful interactivity. In these cases, a game's meaning emerges largely from the choices a player makes within a complex system of many interlocking and contingent outcomes, both user- and system-generated.
Of course, there are also games that one plays for relaxation instead of for challenge—zoning out with Solitaire or Bejeweled, for example. In both these cases, the gameplay may not entail the complexity of Go or Civilization, but the results are earnest and, at times, profound. - Dr. Ian Bogost
"Non-trivial effort to play" is the key phrase here. This distinguishes the "brain-hack", from legitimate forms of play.
By ignoring the distinction or an effort to find a distinction, you are not doing your homework, and a disservice to the end user. This goes back to, "I know a game when I see it." I can't implore how critical it is to have well-thought design in the play experience. Nintendo in the 1980's with the release of the Famicom (known as the NES in the west), focused on a fun play experience. A young Miyamoto, was given the task of designing "fun" games, as opposed to trying to drop a flood of games on the market to produce cash flow. Instead, he brought us Donkey Kong, Mario, Metroid, and The Legend of Zelda, all in under a decade. He focused on fundamentals - fundamentals that you seem to be ignoring based on what you are saying.
The user above was clearly comparing Farmville to say a game like Dark Souls.
Farmville's mechanics can be broken down into a very simple "click the cow" action, whereas a game like Dark Souls or Nethack require strategy, tactics, and skill.
Cow Clicker (referenced in the Bogost article), was created as a satire of games like Farmville. You are given a Cow on your Facebook games page, and you are allowed to click it every 8 hours. You can post that you've clicked your cow, trying to get your friends to click it, to gain the in game currency, Mooney, which you use to buy decorated cows. You can pay real cash for all this to go away, bypassing the gameplay entirely. (All of which is described very well by Dr. Bogost in his article). The game became successful, as many people didn't realize it was satire. As well people who wouldn't be caught dead playing Farmville, started playing Cow Clicker because they understood the comedic and satirical nature of the game. All of this was merely an experiment for Bogost, who created a "Cowocalypse" where everyone's cow was raptured...essentially killing the game: he never intended it to be a "real game".
That's all a game like Farmville amounts to, clicking a cow every 8 hours, or paying money to make the tedious gameplay optional. What kind of game is that?
However Harvest Moon, the game Farmville and others are inspired/based on, is a lot more fun than Farmville, came out nearly two decades ago, and still has a cult following. Why? Because the design is superior, and not following the "fuck the player" mantra.
In contrast to Farmville, despite it's difficult nature, people pick up Dark Souls just to submit to the challenge.
Yes, at some point there will be someone who defeats a world champion at Street Fighter by button mashing, but the probability of that happening is very slim.
For my curiosity, make a list of ten companies where management regularly pissed off developers versus ten companies where management regularly catered to developers and then compare their business results.
This is as easy as going to a list of defunct game companies (like the glorious Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_video_game_companies), and picking your lot.
I'll cater to this curiosity, but 10 of each is a large number as you'll see below.
So I'll compromise, I've interleaved a few companies: successful companies that cater to their developers and companies that piss of their developers and have felt the repercussions in business results.
EA)
Okay so you started us off with EA. They do regularly piss off their developers, and had good business results...until recently. EA was extremely successful over the past decade, but as stated above with Zynga, the "fuck the user (and additionally fuck the developers)" mantra will and is catching up to the company. EA is successful by essentially buying fans through acquisitions: Maxis, Bioware, and Popcap to name a few. This definitely is a valid business tactic, until the developers who made the IP successful jump ship due to frustration (Will Wright as a prime example).
The most recent CEO resigned due to issues involving long term fan base growth, rather than financial reasons.
News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22801311Mojang)
The studio that grew from the success of Minecraft. Notch hired staff, including his management (and Officers etc.), based on their ability to contribute to his vision, and making the process "fun". There have been a few hiccups, but one could argue that the company caters to developers on all fronts, (for example: their physical studio setup, lack of deadlines, freedom in adhering to the designer's artistic vision etc.), and maintains profitability vs. company size. (Minecraft has over 10 million purchases as of now if I am not mistaken).
Atari (3 Failed Subsidararies)
Atari's console the 2600 has the exclusive rights to quite possibly the worst "game" on the planet: ET. I don't want to lecture on what has been thoroughly discussed, someone else can beat the dead horse.
This product (ET) is a microcosm of some of the bad decisions Atari took in terms of growing a great development staff. Atari instead focused on making money off of the licensing process, rather than moving quality games. This contributed to the dark age of games, where companies that had no business developing games were getting published by Atari and sent to market. This is the exact reason how ET made it to shelves. ET should have never made it to shelves. (See the legend of the landfill filled with ET cartridges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial).
Kojima Productions)
This formed from the division of Konami that became "The Metal Gear" team. The original Metal Gear Solid was a hallmark for the video game industry at the turn of the century (the late 90's early 2000's, Metal Gear Solid was released in 1998), and has grown into an extraordinarily successful franchise. Before Kojima had his own dedicated studio, Konami gave him free reign to develop the first Metal Gear Solid. There were barely any restrictions to the allocated resources. This was essentially unheard of during this time period, as few designers were given this degree of freedom with the amount of resources allocated. Metal Gear Solid is nothing but revolutionary, and is the product of not only experimental freedom, but sheer hard work. Many will argue Metal Gear Solid did for video games what Citizen Kane did for film.
Double Fine)
Double Fine is a company with a lot of heart. Tim Schafer's company known for Psychonauts and Brutal Legend, is the epitome of a company that caters to developers and succeeded against the odds. Double Fine was formed by Schafer after gaining experience from being a lead designer at Lucasarts, spearheading projects such as Monkey Island, and Grim Fandango. During the production of Psychonauts the company technically failed: Microsoft who had originally invested in their first game Psychonauts, backed out of the deal completely. Double Fine was left in a state where they were developing a game without a publisher, and had acquired much debt due to Microsoft pulling their original investment deal. The company was so broke due to Microsoft's decision, there was no money to pay anybody. After this news was announced to the staff, Schafer expected everyone to quit, and began talks with his leadership staff of liquidating the company and filing for bankruptcy. The following day, the staff still came into work and continued working on the game. It took several months before Majesco picked up the publishing rights to the title. This was in 2004-2005, since then Double Fine has become successful on it's own accords, and currently maintains profitability.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Tim_Schafer_and_Cookie_Monster.jpgTim Schafer negotiates a publishing deal.
Lets switch it up:
Team Bondi)
Team Bondi is kind of up in the air as to their treatment of developers. Some said the loved working there, others state it was hell, putting in 80 hour weeks etc. etc. Either way the company catered to them monetarily, and with technical resources. They eventually made a game with revolutionary facial capturing technology (see L.A. Noire), however this took them a nearly 8 year development period. During this period they burned through cash like the Joker in that movie everyone likes. A simple Google search can easily bring up the problems Team Bondi faced, and their subsequent forced liquidation.
Rockstar)
Rockstar treats their employees like shit at times. Some will claim to work 60+ hour weeks, rarely see their families, and suffer from anxiety disorders, etc. Yet Rockstar consistently produces hit, after hit, after hit. They push the bounds of both the technology, ethics, and mechanics of games. Between the production of GTA: San Andreas and GTA IV, EA bought Criterion Software, the makers of Renderware, which powered the GTA III era of many of Rockstar's games. EA promised to honor a grandfather like clause for all Renderware licensing, but reneged on this promise. This motivated Rockstar's development of RAGE, and licensing Euphoria. Some say EA was trying to sabotage old Renderware contracts in order to cripple older IPs for easier acquisition, but there isn't a lot of substance to these claims. It wouldn't surprise me if evidence surfaces in the future.
Valve)
Valve is kind of an anomaly. Gabe Newell was one of the first 100 employees of Microsoft, making him a millionaire in the 90's. In 1996 he left to form a video game company. Half-Life was made, Steam was invented to play/distribute Counter-Strike 1.6, and the rest is history. Valve is a lot like Google for games, they have intense cashflow and a relatively small staff, so they always maintain a surplus in their budget. This creates an R&D wet dream, and one could argue, with "disposable" cashflow one can afford to pamper the developers.
This doesn't even scratch the surface.
It's in Mr. Popescu's best interest to recruit the best developers/designers possible in regards to game development, and keep them close, perhaps loyal. Maintaining a good relationship with a team that always makes the playoffs is far easier than trying to reconstruct a new team every season.
When I spoke with Mr. Popescu, I asked if a team brought him a game he believed in, would he manage them without compromising their artistic vision, and he said in fewer more concise words, "sure, as long as they have a product."
S.MG has a lot of potential, but it seems you are a bit unprepared at the moment. I hope S.MG takes a more traditional route, and helps to invest in delivering quality products to shelves, and a quality team, rather than trying to invest in profits to impress investors (the EA route). Developers need management, they aren't managers, hence how could they manage themselves? Many designers and developers realize this, but no leadership team wants to be onboard a company funded by dreams.
As stated, I agree wholeheartedly that most Indie developers that fail, or even most studios that fail is due to poor management, hence the inception of S.MG, but I would argue that you have mismatched priorities. You seem to be focused on the revenue plan, and less on the question "will players become fans?"
Many game companies have brought in defacto management, who have good leadership, and failed. Traditional leadership doesn't translate well into the game industry, it never has, it never will. Zynga has been the most recent company to prove that. The good leadership translated into great initial profits, but with the decline of a true fanbase, their business model completely buckled underneath them.
My opinion alone may not matter, but I can guarantee any game developer/designer worth hiring will have the same concerns. People can argue all day, "the underlings don't matter", but in a game company they do.
