unforum

[ItWasntMeISwear]

[MageSteff]

Re: Two things

[HaxanMike]

Don't have time to respond to everyone right now -- I'll post more later, but I want to say that the budget for Blair Witch was raised by us with NO money but what we had in pocket. If you want to do something and you need some money then raising it is part of the process -- if you aren't raising $100 when you need it, then you really aren't making an ARG, right? I don't think it is appropriate to separate writing an ARG and raising the money (even if raising the money means charge it to Visa) -- you need to do it all, as an indie.

And the buzz from Blair Witch came from the website, which we made, not the distributor, and it pretty much costs whatever the cheapest web hosting solution at the time was -- today would be around $7/month.

You are right -- you can't make a movie for $0, so why should anyone think they can make a game for $0? An artist has to buy canvas and paint. Sculptor buys clay, a writer buys paper and a word processor, etc.

I also don't buy into the "audiences don't want it" argument. Audiences don't know what they want until they see it -- that is a truth -- every year you read the same old stories "Audiences don't want [insert genre] movies anymore because the box office of the last three [insert genre] films was bad." So the studios put those films in turnaround, they tell writers "no one wants those films anymore, write me a comedy" or whatever, then somebody actually makes a good [insert genre] picture, it becomes a hit, and then headlines scream [INSERT GENRE] MOVIES ARE BACK!

I maintain that all audiences want is an entertaining, engaging, and perhaps thought provoking experience, regardless of how it is done -- only that it is done well.

Sure, people may say "I don't want live events" or "I don't want sites on free webs" but if there is an ARG that uses free webs in the right way, and the game is great, they'll love it.

[Fi]

Well said, Mike.