unforum

[Rekidk]

[catherwood]

All of the ARGs and near-ARGs I have played have been free. And yet... why should I be entitled to free entertainment? I pay to own console games, even when I can play Flash-based games for free on my computer. I pay to own a music CD, even when I can listen to a band's top hits for free on their myspace page. I pay to go to concerts and plays and stand-up comedy performances, even though I cannot hold them in my hand or put them on my shelf.

How can this style of entertainment ever become "legitimate" if no one is willing to put a price on their experience, how can it ever have value?

Maybe the first films were screened for free, I don't know. Imagine that first bloke who dared to charge admission, hearing the scoffs of patrons who say, "but I can see a film for free down the street." At some point, there has to be some added benefit or value given in exchange for charging money.

Is it because ARGs are played in the real world (not so much) or on the internet? Would it ruin the effect if we had to buy an access pass to a website? Or would people simply share their passcodes, like propping open the back door to the movie theater?

I'm a bit touchy on this subject now. This month has begun with endings. My long-time puzzle community at www.thestone.com has finally closed its doors and moved on, having to face the facts about supporting a website that generates zero income. My on-again-off-again pleasures in the MMO world of Myst Online: Uru Live have been reduced to single-player mode, because Gametap could no longer justify running the shard servers for a dwindling player base. And Eldritch Errors, a game which was more than a game to me, has been gathering dust in attic storage while real people earn real money at real jobs. Why shouldn't I be required to support these special interests? Is it even possible for a small audience to fund the (relatively) large infrastructure needed to run these games?

There are no answers. For now, I mourn.

[Jas0n]

[Mikeyj]

[Rekidk]

[BubbleBoy]

Personally, for me (which is what "personally" means), I like to make the games, plain and simple. I like the fact that creating a game allows you to go places creatively that you never thought you could go. It's amazing the ideas that one person, let alone a team of people, can come up with. And the players? The reactions at the end when the game is completed (successfully, I should add)? Priceless! You can not put a price on how it feels as a creator to know that people enjoyed what you put out there.

I think that's why, if I ever was going to "charge" for a game, I would do it at the end and make it completely voluntary. However, since I don't make games anymore, never will, you don't have to worry about that.

But I do wonder, what is the motivation to charge if it isn't for the money (which is what charging makes it look like)? To create "better" content? I'm sorry, but if the game sucks, it sucks! More expensive content isn't going to help you.

Charging appears to say "I'm not very creative so I'm hoping that giving you some fancy shiny looking things will distract you long enough not to notice that I really don't know what I'm doing and shouldn't have done this in the first place."

Corporate games? They should never charge simply because no one wants to pay for what is, in essence, an advertisement. Games with "sponsors" that are not trying to sell a product? Yeah, they don't get to charge either because they are trying to sell a product - themselves.

So we have grassroots games left, and I'm at a crossroads with this because even independent musicians will ask you to purchase a t-shirt to help pay for gas so they can take their art too the masses, which I have absolutely no problem with. I'm all for spreading the joy of art.

The other problem is that we DON'T know who is behind a game until either half way through or during the post-game PM chat. If we were to break the curtain before the PM says "Hey, how about a hand paying for this game?" and it's someone we feel comfortable with, I don't see where there's a problem.

As for games that have imploded and possibly having had paid for those in advance being a problem? Tell me you've never payed $7 or more for a movie that ended up stinking to high heaven (like all those chic flick movies you went too with your gf only because you wanted to look like you had an "emotional" side). And what do you mean Windows Vista has bugs? Microsoft? Bugs? NEVER!

All I am saying is that paying for something that ends up not working out for us is something that we are more than used too. Why should this be any different?

[Nighthawk]

[Gbutton]

It's not so much that I would like to make a business out of this, I'm just curious if it was possible.

At the start of the Vanishing Point ARG, 42 Entertainment projected a movie on the constantly running fountains of the Bellagio, which I'm pretty sure set them back a few bucks. Now, I know this isn't necessary for a good game, but this kind of grandiosity could really pull in a huge audience.

I guess it's similar to the movie industry, not every movie needs blockbuster effects or big name actors, but having those things, and the financial backing to do those things, can really help to bring that movie to the publics attention.

[Rekidk]

[Big_Larry]

It's nice when an ARG has someone backing it, but I honestly don't see anyway to make a profit on an ARG.

I think back to Urban Hunt, and I recall that they sold an in-game item, a book of poetry published through Lulu.com, which contained a number of clues. It might have offset a handful of costs, but I'm sure it didn't turn them any sort of profit.

Unless you're able to incorporate some sort of collectible card game (which, admittedly, is the crack cocaine of gaming) into your ARG, I think profit is simply not part of the plan.

[Jas0n]

Argnetcast episode 52 has a great discussion regarding the costs of grassroots/indie games. They bring up a great point about the cost of labor being a huge percentage of the costs of a game. My opinion regarding profitability revolves a good bit around the labor costs. If you spend $200 building a game (not including labor), but spend 40+ hours per week (I spend between 4-12 hours per day 7 days a week) then have an income of $300 - it may feel like you've got $100, but really how many hours did you spend working on it and how much is your time worth?

[Rolerbe]

[thegreatpablo]

I'm in the process of developing my first ARG. I've already realized a few costs that are coming my way. Some of it will end up being swag that some players can keep, some of it is intangible (websites, voicemail services, etc).

I think one of the biggest problems with a pay to play model is that if anyone ends up taking a break part of the way through a game, the game keeps going with or without them. SO they come back in a week or two to find that two weeks worth of content that they have paid for has come and gone.

This may not be a problem that's realized until after someone pays for one and then misses some of it, so you might get some initial revenue, but you'll lose a lot of repeat revenue due to that.

Merchandise is a cool concept. I've actually gone back and "played along" with previous ARGs that have already completed and read along the forums as I progressed in it (assuming everything was there). At the end, even though I learned of the ARG after the fact, if I thought the story was good, the concept was cool, and gameplay elements innovative, I'd probably pick up some merchandise afterward. While this isn't true replayability, it certainly helps.

[Nighthawk]

LGL cost me close to $300 to do, $280 of which was on the Rubik's Cube puzzle alone (I sent the cubes Express Overnight, at $17 a pop in stamps plus the $10 cube).

My next one, so far, has cost me around $200 so far, but some of those costs are blended in with my Brain Clouds concept ("deluxe" GoDaddy hosting, static IP, three domains, etc...).

In both cases, I think I'm going overboard. Actually, I know I'm going overboard, but I enjoy it. The way I see it, I'd spend as much having a few dinners out and watching a few movies, but at least the enjoyment of this will last longer.

I have to be honest: it's relatively easier for me because I make six figures as it is, but still. I could have done the same thing for pennies on the dollar; the minimum cost of doing something like LGL would have been $15 (one domain, two months of hosting; in the end I didn't need the "free Joshua" domain much). Think about it... for lunch money you too can be doing this!

I'm hoping that Brain Clouds can fund future endeavors and allow me to do this full time, or at least serve as a springboard to get some real customers (yeah Paramount and Sony, I'm talking to YOU!). I've already had three "real" PMs contact me for more information, some of them you have probably heard of.

Considering all that, I would still have a hard time charging people. I know people will pay if you give them what they want, but it still feels wrong in the end.

if you want to talk money in this genre, your best bet is to build enough fame on your own so that you get hired by a real company, either as an individual (I've got two standing offers... if I wouldn't mind moving to England) or as an organization (my next project is by "Darklight Interactive", not by me).

[Rekidk]