I saw a post at http://penny-arcade.com today that cited this post "It's a Man Ray Kind of Sky," an article that can perhaps be shortly summerized as asking gamers to 'buck up.' 

It's a good read you should check out yourself, if you need further persuasion here as a quote: 

"People often ask how wargamers justify their fascination with playing games about mass destruction....The best argument I’ve heard is who cares, because if you don’t like it, you’re free to go to hell."

America, F*#& Yeah! 

Ben Cousins, whose business insight I immensely enjoy, granted an interview leading up to his talk at the Free to Play conference in London.  Following a great GDC presentation on the future of consoles, he spoke about platform holders’ resistance to the free to play model and the risks this creates considering the huge investments platforms require. The interview ended with the following line from Mr. Cousins, “I just think the platform holders’ billion dollar investments in new hardware is no longer sustainable.”

If given only a binary ‘yes/no’ choice, I would agree with Mr. Cousins, but I think you can’t count out the platforms completely.  To quote an engineer friend on why he decided to purchase an iPhone rather than an Android, “For better or worse, I came to like the idea of having a small guard dog around my phone at all times.” A closed platform has a gatekeeper and security staff of sorts, standards and controls that have a real effect on the quality for fans and opportunity for developers.

More to the point, I think the question can best be rephrased as is the problem with platforms structural or cultural? Are platforms simply not willing to consider innovation or is their ecosystem just unable to compete with the coming free to play tide?

I think it’s worth considering what consoles do right: they deliver a quality experience that isn’t the highest, but is high enough and saves players the many, many headaches and issues that can come with playing PC games.   Platforms also have done a pretty good job of developing exclusives. I’m not going to say that Halo alone is worth the purchase of an xbox, but I think if you asked me mid-many-a-warthog-jump I would quickly reply “hell yeah!”

There is a cost to the ‘flat’ social games market to be considered as well. The result of a market with instant, near-0 distribution, lower up front costs and ongoing revenue streams is already clear: a flooded market.  There are no lack of console games to be sure, but at least they are few enough that a statistically significant sample of reviewers can give gamers a decent idea of quality via Metacritic. (Not that it’s perfect, but I dare you to find a better relationship mediator between an entertainment business and critics.) 

What I worry about is the day when the market is so flooded that brute force spam like marketing, viral antics, and the occasional hard left differentiation are the only way to cut through the clutter of options. One of my favorite things about the games industry is how it's one of the few entertainment industries where sales are so tied to quality and critical success.  The high entry point of consoles, to quote an old Calvin and Hobbes line, like a cover charge, “keeps out the riff raff.”  

I have to say it is too bad CCP decided to cancel their planned ‘cover charge’ for their upcoming free to play First Person Shooter, Dust 514. I probably would have made the same decision, the market proof behind free to play is simply too strong to mess with it, but as an outsider it would have been nice to see if it worked.

Back of the envelop math can make one think well, free to play is awesome but it will never fund a game with the production values of Modern Warfare because the costs are simply too high. The better question is if that is a function of the market size or monetization rates, that is are there not enough people playing core free to play games or are the people playing not paying enough.  In either case, perhaps a studio with a strong brand like CCP could hurry that nexus along by charging a small fee to start playing. 

Of course, when it comes down to it I bet the conversion rates would be so low that it just wouldn’t work in real life, or at least not fast enough to pay for what was probably a hefty investment.  Still, be nice to see if it would have held up
-Posted by Dylan Tredrea on March 5th, 2012

The Future! With Explosions!
If you’re at GDC don’t forget to stop by Yetizen’s pitch competition on Wednesday at 2pm in Ryby Skye to see Coray Seifert unveil our upcoming Facebook action game!

Creo Ludus is proud to announce that we've been chosen as one of the five finalists in the Yetizen Get-in-the-Game Pitch Competition! We're incredibly excited to have this amazing opportunity to get our game in front of some of the top talent in the industry.

Our CEO, Coray Seifert, will give a five minute presentation to a panel of judges to prove that our game is the cream of the crop. The judges include Tim Chang, Managing Director at Mayfield Fund; Michael Chang, Director of Corporate Development at Electronic Arts; and Terence Fung, Head of Corporate Development at Zynga.

Anyone who is attending GDC  2012 is invited to drop by. So, if you're in the area of Ruby Skye at 2pm on March 7th, come by and cheer us on!

Zynga recently commented during a conference call with investors the strong future they see for social games that appeal to core gamers as the social game audience grows. 

The news certainly indicates an exciting new core gamespace that could quickly be competing with XBLA and PSN titles. 

Like anyone in technology who doesn’t own VIACOM, we’re against SOPA.  For more information on exactly what this is here are some great resources.

Stanford Law Review’s Article on SOPA Entitled “Don’t Break The Internet”

Gamasutra has a Nice Analysis by a game industry attorney on SOPA and its effect on Digital Distribution.

Last but not least, a handy tool to update your twitter or Facebook image with a STOP SOPA banner we highly recommend. http://www.blackoutsopa.org/

In what could be a case study for independent development for the next few years or so, HourBlast Games will release “Dueling Blades” for Facebok, iOS and Android in March.  The title is built on the Unity3D game engine and the studio has plans for a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to (supposedly) game through release. 

The Unity3D engine allows the team to rather easily port the Facebook game to iOS and Android later in the year and HourBlast Games says that kickstarter supporters will get some cool in-game benefits for supporting the project.

 The screen captures look interesting enough (who doesn’t want to beat each other with thick wooden sticks now and then?) and one can only hope this becomes another drop in what will soon become a torrent of core titles on Facebook.  

The fundraising method is particularly interesting though one has to wonder how long this type of development will be sustainable.  While Facebook games currently can be bootstrapped, as the technology races forward and the platform expands one can reasonable expect that the technological and creative resources required or a marketable game will only increase.

As a result, it’s a bit of an anxious irony for core gamers like ourselves who see so much promise in Facebook games.   It’s probably only a matter of time until the development costs creep above the point of bootstrapping, crowd funding or even angel investment (typically up to $1,000,000) and we’re back to huge teams and begging publishers for 8 figure budgets. 

In the meantime, we'll be keeping close tabs on Facebook games like Dueling Blades and seeing how they navigate the waters of this huge, but crowded market as an independent developer. 

Facebook games is certainly still very casual centric.  The market is only going to get bigger though and as a result bigger and better core games are sure to arrive.  Which leads me to wonder, what happens when you can start blowing stuff up and bleeding out on Facebook?

Blaming media for people being crazy or crappy is a time honored tradition.  It was only a few hundred years ago that legions of English people were being tortured and killed because they just want to translate the bible into English.  Our parent’s parents freaked out because of comic books.  Unfortunately even our own peers still propagate the ‘dangers’ of media usually via image problems or violent video games.  Apparently they miss the ironic of positing that ‘other people’ can’t handle the media without being under the influence to make bad or dangerous decisions while at the same time being influenced by something they learned of from the media, not peer reviewed studies.

The point of this post isn’t to rehash all that madness, just to try and predict when it will happen with Facebook games when core titles start arriving on the platform.   I’m willing to bet when it does happen, it will arrive with extra vitriol and vigor because of the ubiquity of the platform and the tendency for young kids to simply lie about their age in order to access the service.   I can see ‘family’ activis’s website now about the tens of millions of underage kids ‘only a click away from gore, violence and suggested sexual perversion.’ 

Facebook has already been taking plenty of hyperbolic heat for kids using the platform. Though Facebook’s rules say you have to be 13, apparently kids have figured out you don’t really have to tell the truth.  (Pay no mind to my decades long internet record of being over 18 almost as long as my father). 

The good news is that no matter what the public’s reaction to violent video games on Facebook the constitution remains a firewall for the far majority of the reactionary mob’s proposals.   It’s almost to the point where I would say that the game industry really doesn’t need to worry about it, because the courts will take care of it for us.  That’s not entirely true, but I’ll go as far as saying that any activist calling for legislation regulating video games is so far away from anything that is constitutional it can reasonably said the only reason they are doing so is self-promotion.

Facebook’s use by practically every kid in the US will give these activists a juicy new target though and I wonder if Facebook will, can or even maybe should embrace a few controls to prevent kids from playing violent video games.  I don’t really see how it would be possible though, because at the end of the day everything is just a fake over 18 profile away.

Either way I can’t wait.  Facebook is a promising platform and core games will take social games only towards more awesomeness.  Plus most of the activists are so self-promoting they are more entertaining than effective, so it makes for good Daily Show fodder.  Let’s just hope we don’t have to endure too many ‘villes’ before it happens. 

It’s hardly news that the economy is a mess at home and abroad.   Almost ironically, the private market in the US and the public market in Europe have turned on their respective champions.  We’re not the first to say big problems require big solutions or to doubt political leaders offering plenty of well branded, though suspiciously too easy, solutions.  However, we do believe that for small, technology driven firms who offer their products online there is a political palatable solution that can drive growth and job creation: freeing the American investor. 

We propose that states, such as our home state of New Jersey, should petition the Federal government for exemption from the regulations that prevent average Americans from directly investing, i.e. buying shares, in small businesses.  This rule is known as the accredited investor rule as part of the 1933 Securities Act.

We believe that doing so on a state by state basis will not only be more political feasible but result in a sounder regulatory structure.  States willing to take the aggressive step can take different approaches, with the market determining the best system for both protecting individual investors and freeing up the investment dollars small businesses need to grow.

This proposal has to the potential to have a particularly strong impact on the video game industry where projects in the early or seed stages are very difficult for a traditional investor to value.  Independent game studios will surely benefit from added competition between investors in a broadened field and a day when large publishers or private investors are no longer the only source of development dollars.  

Our Admittedly Self-Interested Proposal
At first glance one can be forgiven for thinking the video game business is a great one. The recession has hardly held back growth. Expanding internet access in emerging markets and the fact that 9 out of 10 kids born in households with a compueter will be gamers for life foretell of a very rosy future.

Nevertheless, even game studios stocked with experienced veterans face a daunting process when raising funds for development.  This isn’t a story of evil corporations or finicky artists (as it’s often told), just a rough business environment.  From an investor’s standpoint, it’s almost impossible to value a video game asset until it’s been at least partially created. From a developer’s stand point it’s almost impossible to create a marketable video game without investment funds.  This is perhaps why few developers love the deals they get with publishers.  

The rules that prevent independent game developers from raising funds from average Americans were put in place with good intentions. The stock market run up to the Great Depression was rife with fraud and manipulation, indeed supposedly FDR remarked that he choose Jack Kennedy (JFK’s father) as the first head of the SEC because ‘it takes a thief to catch a thief.’ 

As a result if a company wants to raise funds by selling shares they are required to register the shares with the SEC, a very expensive and onerous process few companies can afford.  The only significant exceptions to this rule is if the firm has less than 500 shareholders or only sells shares to so-called accredited investors.  Accredited investors are either established investment firms, experienced investors, large pension funds, large companies or charities, a large trust fund, or individuals that meet certain net worth or income requirements. Loosely speaking one can even consider this the ‘1%’ in today’s parlance.

The rule is intended to protected inexperienced investors from being taken advantage of.   We believe this protection is no longer necessary and people can be made well aware of the significant risks of investing in small seed or early stage firms (if for some reason they aren’t already).

Changing this rule is not a new idea.  Given the pace, breadth and meekness of federal policy making, however, we believe it’s not likely the Federal government will get around to doing anything about it anytime soon.  So we propose for states to apply for waivers for the accredited investor rule to allow for crowd-funding small business and for the Federal government to grant acceptable proposals on a case by case basis.  

Doing so will fundamentally change the relationship between risk and reward for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Perhaps most interesting from a small business owner’s perspective is how the increased competition in the investment market will impact the large multinationals and investment firms when they ‘aren't the only show in town.’  In theory, as the result of the investment market being flooded with new participants these established investors will have to reduce their fees and/or increase their value added services to remain competitive.

As Politically Tenable as Reform Gets
Let’s be honest though: it has to be more than just a good idea.  Politics is the art of the possible, someone clever said once.  There are three political considerations that lead us to believe in the potential for this proposal to be enacted.

First, there is our Federal political system itself which grants states broad powers to create their own laws and policies so different solutions can be tried, tested and evaluated and the natural competitiveness between different state governments.

Second, there is the grass roots popularity to throw out the accredited investor rule and allow for crowded sourced funding in the technology sector, a relatively Democratic cohort.  

Third, reducing financial regulation to make it easier for businesses to grow is a core tenant of conservative and Tea Party politics.  

Of all the potential policy ‘game changers,’ we can’t think of one with a better chance of being implemented.

Next Steps
The next step is for business owners to get involved and work with state government officials to dig deeper and find out what can be done and how.  The solution is certainly far more complex and difficult than summarized here and even considering the proposal will require significant resources.  Hopefully a few bold and brave executive and legislative leaders in state government will consider this proposal though. As small business owners we are certain it would have a dramatic impact on growth and job creation.  

Great, great post in Gamasutra entitled “No one cares about your cool game idea.” I'd like to expand the thesis from just game design ideas to marketing ideas (if not all ideas).

If there is anything I wish had been pounded into my head while I was young, it is that "your idea is worthless."  For whatever reason, so many of us grow up with the concept of success as a ‘killer idea’ that is so powerful and awesome it destroys all the lessor notions in its path.  Then reality smacks you in the face. 

So even though I'm not a designer, I loved the post because after ~8 years of working in sales and marketing it summed up everything I've ever wanted to scream from the rooftops. Indeed I've come to believe that individuals who don't 'get this' can be the most destructive force on your marketing team.*  

In the marketing world, they tend to come in these two forms: 

Engineering Success
I use the term ‘engineering’ metaphorically here to describe a situation when someone fiddles with the details (typically incentives) of a program, usually before the program actually launches. In my experience this manifests in the conception or development phase, when a marketer thinks if they can just hit the right econ harmonics the program will be a rousing success.  A key indicator of someone trying to engineer success is how hard they fight and argue for the specific scheme they have dreamed up long before there is any actual data on how the users are interacting with it.

The problem with engineering successes is anyone who has actually conceived, developed and released a product knows (or should know) that your initial scheme is really just a ‘best guess’ or more kindly a starting point. It’s all going to (and damn well better) change later when you know more. 


The pros know this.  They do their best before release and quickly move on to more important stuff. You know, like, actually attracting customers.  Once you have a stream of people giving your a look you can rather easily and methodically test your incentives, call to action text, pitch or homepage design to capture ever higher levels of revenue from those eyeballs. 

In some ways a classic ‘cart before the horse’ problem, but I think it warrants deeper mention because of the conviction and veracity of the ‘success engineer’s arguments.  To them, success is something that can be engineered with some create idea.  

These people are a drag on a marketing team. You end up endless debating the best way to present a portion of it to them without much regard for how you're going to get them to give you a chance int he first place. 

Sustainability is for Sissies
Recently one of my favorite blogs, Copyranter- authored by a advertising copywriter ranting about horrible (and sometimes, great) advertising, actually posted something I don’t agree with for a change by saying this ad for an awards show was one of the worth he had ever seen.  

If you didn’t watch it, the spot is for an advertising awards show and features an advertising pitch man droning on about buzzwords and typical marketing bullshit in a pitch to a potential client. The potential client’s team quickly gets tired of it though. So with a nod from the boss, they first shoot him with a handgun, then a shotgun and finally beat him far beyond death with a golf club.

Copyranter hated it, but god I loved it and smiled with glee when I saw the spot.  I think anyone who has sat through more than a couple pitches from advertising agencies probably loved it as well.  For all the true talent out there, it's sometimes shocking how ad agencies are able to collect and collate complete hacks. 

The problem with 'idea's people' is even if their super creative idea is really something that can generate results in terms of pure profit/loss, the results are rarely sustainable.  You can research success stories for nearly every pithy line the ad man throws out in the spot (think ‘viral’), but regardless of the individual success of the campaigns the direct result was never a sustainable business.  At most all you can hope for is a nice bump, Colbert style. 

Sustainable ideas are inherently not very sexy, because something  sexy has an inherent half-life.  The thrill 'goes,' so to speak. 

So while it’s a lot more fun to conceive, develop and green light those exciting creative ideas, few (if any) will be helping you build a sustainable business.  This isn’t to say there isn’t room for fun and exciting campaigns, by all means you have to mix it up sometimes. If someone on your team is only working on those parts of marketing though, perhaps they are better suited  at a [crappy] ad agency. 

  *Please note that while it’s certainly the job of marketing to get this and if you are a marketer who does not get it, I will never hire you, we can’t hold non-markers to the same standard.  If only because we hope they don’t think less of us whenever we say/offer some truly stupid technical or design thoughts.