unforum

[SeanB]

I think the best thing to do is look at how Hollywood has done their film marketing and mix it with direct marketing to get players in for your game. The pre-game would be the "trailer" and get people in. If it's purely an entertainment game and no sponsor, then charge at the end of the trailer, the trailer/pregame has to hook the propective player and pull them in. The same Hollywood does, except opening weekend is opening month or bi-month.

Hmm, ok, I think I should write an article on this... keep an eye out.

[Katsurame]

After a lot of thought on the matter (not that it means much, coming from me), I've come to the conclusion that PM's would be hard-pressed to create an ARG which they could charge players to play. I think the directions ARGs will ultimately go in is Ad-Campaigns. Ad-Campaigns, and product placement. Another videogame ARG? Money for PM's. Have one of the characters drinking a Coke or eating at McDonalds? Money for PM's. Personally, I wouldn't pay to play an ARG, but if I see a character drinking Mountain Dew, I might go out and buy one, just because of it. If Dana said she liked Burger King, how many of you would go eat at Burger King, just because Dana does? I'm guessing a lot.

Advertising is a brilliant business. PM's should take advantage of that. Showcase your skills to executive boards. Say "I can do this for your company.". Tell Coca-Cola that you'll put their products in a few times for some money. I don't know how much you could get, but hey, it's still money, right?

So yeah, that's my opinion.

[krystyn]

"I'd like to get a quarter pounder, with extra honey, please."

[MageSteff]

[ammonite]

Fitting TV into the picture

[catherwood]

Re: Fitting TV into the picture

[ammonite]

ooh, that's interesting

[misuba]

I hate to see people come to the conclusion that ad-driven, product-driven ARGs are the only way to get PMs some rewards for their efforts. Here are a few (possibly controversial) assertions:

1) ARGs are basically role-playing games.

Specifically, ARGs are LARPs – leave aside any prejudices you might have about that term, I'm serious. Although the solve-a-puzzle-get-a-toy aspect of ARGs can almost be called a game system, and many other ARGs develop unique systems for subgames, ARGs are essentially freeform; but hey, if you have ever taken any kind of in-game action, you have played a role as part of a game and that meets my definition. (There are those in the RPG world, which I have to interact with as co-editor of a news site about tabletop gaming, who would argue with that definition and with most of the rest of this post, but, well, I'll get to that.)

2) Role-playing games are essentially theater.

This shouldn't be controversial – "playing" and "role" are right in the name – but tabletop RPGs have only just started to shake off the dead hand of wargaming and numbers. Computer and console RPGs likely never will, and really aren't part of this argument, but people like Brenda Laurel would likely have more to say about their theater connections. Anyway, print RPGs are starting to incorporate elements of everything from improv-theater games to Survivor (another LARP!) and in my opinion will eventually be making more money on the performing-arts business model than on the model of taking home a box from the store. If you count Survivor, they already are.

If you don't buy that games can be theater, you can go with the short-circuit argument that ARGs are theater because Jane McG and Sean Stewart seem to believe they are.

3) Most theater supports itself by begging.

Yes, this is rife with exceptions – there are commercial theater productions which support themselves on ticket sales (pay-for-play), to say nothing of the art forms (film and TV) that derive what they are from theater. I'm talking about your regional theater companies, your smaller productions. They charge for tickets too, but that is not fundamentally how they get by. Even a high-profile theater trying to do new plays or anything but the most commercial material is going to subsist largely by soliciting donations from people who like to see their names in the program under titles like "Platinum Patrons Circle" or something. (You could argue that this, on a large scale, is exactly how 42 is subsisting now.) It is going to survive by both building and taking advantage of social structures that make people with some money feel that they are getting something of value by giving it to the theater in question.

Pay-for-play doesn't enter into this. It doesn't need to. If there had been a PayPal donation button as part of the final curtain of Metacortechs (and the PMs had made a real point of it – forgive me if there was such a donation box, but I see no evidence), I can tell you that had I gotten in on that game (I only started following things in earnest with Bees) I would have put down $50 at least. That's what that entertainment experience was worth; it would not have taken any arm-twisting. I am 100% sure I am not alone in this feeling. By conservative estimates, I think the PMs of that game could have gotten enough donations to cover costs and more. (And maybe they could have kept a few more domain names, but the preservation of ARGs is another rant.)

If you'd rather not (or can't) wait until your game is over, or if you are attempting an indefinitely long game (which I wish someone would), it doesn't take lots of imagination to see how to work in your donation button. I see it as being similar to how Mind Candy is handling their PM-hood as a kind of open secret, with a wink and a bit of story. Sure, PayPal accounts likely can't be assigned to fake names or organizations… work around it. I think players want to help support this art form badly enough that they'll give PMs some leeway.

ARGs are the most decentralized, distributed art form there's ever been, but we're still thinking as though beneficence has to come from one big source. It doesn't. (Although the ARGs-as-theater thing begs the question of large and large-ish grant-giving institutions. Said orgs are probably afraid of genre fiction, but hit 'em with enough stuff about player interaction and audience as performers and they might overlook that. Has anyone hit up the Digital Storytelling Foundation?) Print RPGs are having great success with the Street Performer Protocol (fundable.org is an example) and a trusted team of PMs might be able to pull that off. Lots of possibilities.

[MageSteff]

Re: Fitting TV into the picture

[rose]

Just a note - LCP chat

[FLmutant]

Confessions of a PM

[HaxanMike]

There are financial opportunities in ARG's that haven't even begin to be explored yet -- think of the way movies changed in the wake of Star Wars for some idea of the potential.

As Brian says, whenever you are dealing with stories and characters you are creating intellectual property, which has an almost unlimited potential.

I really think grassroots PM's could learn a lot from indie movie producers. As a producer, try to look at ARGs as entrepreneurial.

[ItWasntMeISwear]

I think that you have to look at this like you would a resume. The better the resume looks, the more likely it is that people are going to be willing to pay you for your services.

I'll give the company "42 Entertainment" as an example. We all know the quality that this company has been able to deliver. We all pretty much know who is going to be working on the product that we will receive. And I can pretty much say that their resume is something to be proud of.

If they were to develop a game that charged a low monthly fee, I am pretty sure that most of us, given what we already know about them, would be willing to fork over the money.

This is the same for any industry, gaming or otherwise. You first build the confidence of your potential audience/customers by providing a product or service and then, over time, you will hopfully gain enough confidence in these potentials to start charging them larger amounts of money for your product (in ARGs' that would be like producing no-pay grassroots and no-pay corporate sponsored games and then moving into "pay-to-play" games).

Look at the XBOX 360... despite all of the bugs that need to be fixed there are still millions of people who can't wait to get their hands on one. Now that's a comfortable base of supporters to ensure the survival of your company for atleast a little while... unless you keep screwing your product up.

Movies are a good example of this theory. From the trailers you see on television, you have a pretty good idea about what the story is about, who the actors are, who the director is and who is making the film. You can pretty much make up your mind at that point whether or not it's something that you are going to pay money to go see and experience.

I think what this whole question boils down to is two things:

1) Trust
2) Fanbase

If you have built up enough trust by creating great games and have built up enough of a fanbase to ensure a high quality end product, then I do not see how the "pay-to-play" area could not work.

Also, another added point: If you received an initial investment of $1,000,000, it would only take 10,000 people paying $10/month for a game that lasts for 10 months to make that kind of money up. Just think about what kind of game you could create with $1,000,000 and then you will see that 10,000 players is probably not an unrealistic number to throw at potential investors. Especially given that some of it will probably be spent on advertising.

[taozero|Qatar]

Ok, so having been away from a computer that I can use to log in to UF for over three months, I just now realized that I can post without being logged in.....yes, I'm an idiot.

Anyways, I've been following this thread since it's inception, and seeing as it's moved down a bit in the Meta forum, thought I would give it a bump with this recap:

1) Ad campaign: A company hires the PM team to do an ARG as a marketing campaign for said company. The effort is 100% backed from the get-go.

2) Branding/Plugging: A PM team launches a game that draws much media attention. A company decides to contribute funds to said PM team, in return for in-game advertisements or plugs (ie the main character sipping on some Red Bull....oooooo a Red Bull ARG.....)

3) Donation model: A PM team launches a game that runs for a time, then launches a donation system (in-game or oog) to receive compensation.

4) ARG Gifts: A PM team launches a game, and provides a system within the game that allows players to buy parts of the game (ie puzzlecards) and send them along to said player's favorite auntie/uncle.

5) Purchasing Items: A PM team launches a game where players can buy products, such as puzzlecards, t-shirts, bumper stickers...you name it. This includes buying hints, be it via email, text message, etc.

6) Pay-to-play (all the way): A known PM team/entity puts together a new game and charges players from the get-go to play. This can be a one time fee for unlimited access, or a monthly fee.

7) Pay-to-play (movie-style): A PM team puts together a game and launches a pregame trailer of sorts, to build a fan-base and let players know what is in store for them....if they pay the fee for the game proper.

Cover charges: While this seems similar in essence to buying items and pay-to-play, it doesn't neatly fit into either, and gets its own number Cover charging would be charging players to get into a live event.

Now, I'm sure I missed some, because the potential for money making in this genre is stupendously outrageous. However, the main question is: are any of these viable?

My opinion is that some, but not all, are viable *money making* models for ARGs. Obviously all the models involving sponsorship can make a PM money. Some, like buying items, gifting items, cover charges, etc are simply not going to be enough to off-set the costs of an ARG. It would take a large fan-base to approach anything over 4 digit figures with these models. Seems the only way to get a large enough fan-base to hit those figures is to invest some serious cash up front.

Now, assuming you have that serious cash on hand to throw into an ARG that may well flop, and of course assuming you aren't microsoft, and care about your money, *and* that you get that large of a fan-base - their donations/purchases, IMO (without reviewing financial figures from PPC) will never be enough to make a profit and keep an ARG alive for any substantial amount of time.

And yes, imbri, I'm talking about large, public ARGs, not private ventures meant for corporate team-building exercises

[imbri]