unforum

[buff]

Making ARGs Business.

[GuyP]

I think charging could just about work. One model that might work is a shareware ARG where there's a mechanism allowing players to donate a suggested amount of money if they're enjoying the game and whatnot, similar to the micropayment / "tip jar" mechanisms offered on some blogs. You might even be able to write it in-game: "Hey, I think James/The Cube/etc is in Latvia, but the plane ticket costs $800 and I only have $300... if 100 people all donate just $5 then I'll be able to go search over there, and I'll make sure you guys are the first to hear about my quest..."

This try-before-you-buy mechanism also allows the game to grow organically. You can run "free" for a while and then open up for donations to come in. At $5 a head you might get, oh, $300 perhaps - you can then reinvest this money into the game, making it cooler, attracting more players, donating more money... a nice ole' feedback loop. Especially if you combined it with a little bit of advertising or promotional revenue.

[konamouse]

When Puzzlecards was introduced in Urban Hunt, we (the players) thought it was a great idea and I would have invested a little money to send one to a relative or a friend. These were email puzzles (like ARG puzzles) with cute messages at the end of the trail.
http://www.puzzlecards.net/

definitely a viable option to help fund ARGs - maybe Dave S. is working for PPC?

[QBKooky]

I like the idea, in theory, but the dilemma is this:

- You're not going to pay for something unless you know you're getting a quality product.

- Will people trust it's a quality product if they don't know who's behind it?

- If they know who's behind it, won't it ruin some of the mystery?

There are ways around this - for example, PPC had a very promising and active pre-game. I think people would've been willing to pay for things like the cards, even without knowing that Adrian and such are behind it - the quality of the pre-game was incredibly impressive.

I think as much as people want a good game, they also wouldn't want to be cheated out of their money. ALSO not everyone is even able to invest even a small budget for things like an ARG. Also, I think it must be done realistically... because there are many ways in which installing a fee can limit (or kill) TINAG.

Just my $0.02.

[cerulean]

One relatively subtle way of getting money out of players that I have thought about is charging players for in-game SMSs. Everytime IG charcters SMS players, the player is billed 55c, 16c of which goes to you. You could even increase it to 75c or $1 if you were game. Players would be given the option of not receiving SMSs (and so miss out on information), giving them at least the illusion of having choice.

[buff]

I don't think you guys seem to get my point, must be my horrible explanation

For those of you that have read "This Is Not A Game" - you should recognize my statement; "Unless someone creates a way of making a profit large enought to sustain the people behind the game - ARGs will never be more than ad-campaigns or grassroot-games".

Am I alone in believing this?

[cerulean]

I agree with you.

The question is how do you generate money, which is a question that has been asked by many people on this and similar boards. Bill has posted a good article about it on deaddrop.

As I see it, the money has to either come from the players or from corporate sponsors. Ultimately, both sources of money depend on the number of players that are involved. Which creates a circular argument because it is difficult to present a game that is going to attract 2 million players unless you have a $1 million budget (well, that may not necessarily be the case...)

[imbri]

Do ARGs, by your definition, have to have a large, public playerbase?

If not, then I can point to several examples of people making a profit on them already, myself included. Of course, these are smaller, private games but a number of the other elements are present. In fact, for some time, that was my business model... run a number of private games (which at this point are nearly self-maintaining, though we do shake it up each game in order to test a new approach) in order to be able to run a larger, public, entertainment piece... sure there would be some 'loss' incured, but the publicity achieved by the public piece would increase the demands of the private games. It seems to me that Virtuquest has a similar model and, thus, their opening up their games every once in a while.

I also question the need for a million dollar budget. Looking at Metacortechs, for example, there were 8 of us that developed the project and even assuming a generous wage for each, it was still produced for far less than that. Granted, we didn't reach a 2 million player audience, though we did reach 6 figures (I believe the only grassroots game to do so). Had we actually made a decent attempt at mainstreaming the game, I have no doubt that we could have achieved that number with little additional cost, certainly not enough to take the budget needs to the million dollar mark. Not that we wouldn't have been able to do some really amazing things with that sort of $$$. The increased budget serves to make the game more impressive, not to increase the players, but to increase the events and possibilities for additional press notice... that's the real value for the sponsoring company. If you take that need away and only make a game for entertainment purposes, you can decrease the budget rather dramatically. Honestly, you don't really think that Microsoft/Bungie or Audi or CompanyXYZ cares about you, do you? It's all about the press. (the puppetmasters... sure, they care. the companies... not so much)

- b

[buff]

Of course ARGs don't need a large and public playerbase.

I can't see the need for a million-dollar budget either, and that is not what I'm talking about. I totally agree with you (imbri) regarding the amount of money needed to produce an entertaining game for entertainment purposes. As always, more money doesn't necessary mean more players or more impressing events/stuff/happenings. But that is not my point, either. My point is that in order to receive as a player those games that really stand out - like The Beast or (so far) PPC - someone has to stand for the money. And if it's not a corporate sponsor (and not an ad-game) then it must be the players. A game produced for entertainment purposes alone requires some form of financial input from the players. And this financial input needs to be "stable" or in some way measurable in an accurate way ahead of the costs - as in all business models.

A budget based on entertainment purposes "only" requires not even close to a million dollars. On the contrary, that would probably be a bad model (look at Majestic/Search4E/Terraquest) where the numbers needed far exceeded what the players were prepared to pay. I belive that the minimum amount of money needed to create a good entertainment-game can be calculated as follows:

Total Demand($) = Costs of sustaining Crew + Expenses in the Game + 10% buffert.

Thoughts?

That Metacortechs reached those numbers of players is really impressing, considering budget and all. Then imagine all those players pitching in 10$ to the budget - and recalculate. More possibilites, henceforth more options and (hopefully - though not guarranteed) more entertained and larger playerbase.

One thing that must be clear though is that money alone does not guarrantee a good game. But it sure helps along...

The problem that remains is the actual administration problem. If one were to pay for something, at least I want to know what I'll get for my money...
And with TINAG to keep in mind (which in my mind is the most important thing of all) it's all but impossible. I believe that a good ARG could be produced for the same amount of money as a ticket to the cinema (I know I've said otherwise but I've changed my mind, ok?) and hopefully, any game trying to charge its players will be worth it - but how to conceive that to the players?

Actually, my point can be stated very shortly...

How can one charge players a fee/payment without ruining the TINAG, the feel of the game and everything else to consider?

[QBKooky]

[Dorkmaster]

While I fully endorse the Perplex City cards venture, and see no problem in PM's trying to make the game work for them financially, the plain old truth is this: People like free. There's no getting around that. You can pregame to lure them in, and sure you'll get takers. And the video game industry has proven that people will play for games that will only keep them occupied for a period of time. Paying for swag is always a great option, but not necessarily a boon to those looking to make mad cash... The twist Perplex City has taken is to make the product viable in-game. It appears (note that word... in fact, I'll repeat) appears that Mind Candy is what PC is advertising. If so (again) If so, then I think this is a brilliant way to make money at ARGing... (if they do...) Cuz it makes sense in game. Pay-per-play in other circumstances automatically takes one out of the TINAG concept and says (after you've handed me some money, then pretend, but until then, PAY ME.)

I just see it that way, and of course, this is just one dork's opinion... but The truth is that people just plain like free. Unless the game is internally consistent with making money (which is why I contend that Mr. Hon's PCPC (perplex city puzzle cards) strategem does, indeed, work) then it's just a curtain-tearing experience. People will put up with that at a movie. They'll do it with a video game. But that's cuz the movie or the game doesn't start until they want it to... ARGs by nature are organic and uncontrolled (by the player's standpoint)... you just hop on a current, and while you may swim once in a while, you're still getting pulled where the PMs pull you...

My point in this is that once you add a pay-to-play infrastructure to most games (not disallowing future innovation, of course) you entitle the player to some rights, such as "I want to control a little, since I'm paying and all." Without control, or without a guarantee that the player will "get into it", then there's no incentive to pay.

Anyway, long story short, while I definitely see the coolness and potential of ARGs as true business, I still think that we have not come up with a way to really make that happen and still keep true to the fundamental ideas that make ARGs ARGs.... (Imbri is not allowed to question what those fundamental ideas are (at least in this thread), BTW... ) And while I really do hold out hope that ARGs in and of themselves could be a profitable venture, I have to admit I'm more skeptical than anything else. It just contradicts itself all over the place (see: Virtucube for a true feeling of "I paid for what?" in terms of the clues/T-shirts [although admittedly, that was not an ARG as much as it was a puzzle game...])

But in the meantime, can I just say that I really love these talks we have, people? Y'all rock.

[imbri]

So, while we're on the topic...

Just what are those fundamental ideas?




I completely agree with the one that considers himself a master of Dork. People do like free. If there was a cost incurred on the onset of the game, as most ARGs are played out at least, I believe it would be difficult to attract people to once the game has begun. Think about it, you don't like to plop down $10 to go to the movies just to see the last half. Would you pay for a story driven pc or console game if the first 1/3 of the game was locked because you discovered it (or finally had News & Rumors the $$$) a couple weeks/months after it released? Then, let's not ignore the collaborative & public nature of the player resources... how would you block non-payers from that? How would you encourage the viral spreading of the game in order generate more players?

Honestly, I do think that it is possible. There are tips that could be utilized to explain a number of those things and, I think, one of the better methods would be to have some sort of subscriber benefit. Another way to get around it would be a sort of serial game. I spent some time this fall building up a concept along those lines and I do think that it is not only very possible, but could be a ton of fun to do. There are a number of issues to consider on that front (suck as open access and how to deal with it), but they're not deal-breakers.

And, just because it's driving me a bit nutty... I don't believe that this argument has anything to do with TINAG. At least not as I see it (more on that here) I do think that you could have a game experience that includes a payment model and still be true to TINAG as it is really nothing more than a philosophy that allows the game, itself, to not consider itself a game.

- b

[cerulean]

[buff]

Free is good. No argument there.

Those fundamental ideas...good question? Need to think on that one.

More in-dept answer when I come home...

[buff]