unforum

[Gbutton]

But how will a reviewer be able to rate a game? Would they be given a beta build? or just the start of the game to go off of?

I guess this is getting off topic and I will start a new thread for this.

[Nighthawk]

You can't review or rate a game before it's completed. You can review or rate the puppetmasters behind the game, but that's not always common knowledge.

On a side note... why isn't it? Why such the stigma with knowing who the puppetmasters in any given game are? I'm not hiding anything for my next one... although it's admittedly to late to do that at this point, is that a concern?

[Jas0n]

Nighthawk,

I'm in the same boat and it appears for the most part there's no real reason to hide who you are anymore (unless you don't have a good reputation). Look at what's been done recently by 42, six to start, GMD (EE), and Jane McGonigal... they've provided fun, entertaining, and successful games to the public all while most who were playing the game knew who was behind it. For some things it kills the viral essence (like if you were trying to promote a monster sighting of bigfoot), but for the most part it doesn't effect the game itself beyond maybe the desire to play it.

[LordIllidan]

[Mikeyj]

If you were going to get money out of your players, it would probably be a good thing if they knew who you were too

[Nighthawk]

Well, I don't intend to make my trailhead that obvious, but still...

[Rogi Ocnorb]

[Rolerbe]

So, a key question is how important to the player base at large, is the TINAG or overt attempt to hide in plain sight element to these games?

When you go to a movie, or read a book, or engage in virtually any 'mainstream' entertainment, there is a clear and overt boundary established between the entertainment and reality. A line beyond which starts the 'willing suspension of disbelief' required to enjoy the entertainment.

The earliest games generated a lot of their 'buzz' from TINAG, but was this where a lot of their intrinsic entertainment value came from? Is TINAG crucial, or just historical now?

I'd like to see some sort of poll...

[sunshineone]

[buff]

Ehhmm...Hello, everyone. Just want to point out that this is buffpojken posting under a new handle, since I've seem to have lost my old account. But anyway,

This discussion is is both interesting and relevant. I recall that it has been bounced around a couple of times before, and then it always reached the same conclusions:

- People don't want to pay if they don't know what they're gonna get.
- Costs do arise. They must be offset with something.

I don't know if anyone here is involved in some extent with the whole Web 2.0-thingee that's been going on (I assume there is!), but a variant of the same discussions has been heard in those circles. How do you get paid for something people are used to have for free? Good examples are of course services like Twitter, Jaiku or Bebo. The costs are huge (though it does not increase linear, I'll get back to that!) and there is no simple way of charging your users for using it. The usual model for these services have been to get VC funding and then hope for the best, or aiming to be bought by Google. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that isn't a viable business model to base any kind of business on. The same thing goes for ARGs.

How do you get people to pay for something they're used to get for free? Especially since many of the experiences are ad-funded (not ad as in ad-sense, ad as in campaign!), the incentive to pay isn't really there. Parallels between ad-funds and VC funding are obvious. I think the parallel between 2.0-services and ARGS starts to get interesting when comparing the alternative models for revenue. A very good example from the 2.0 world is 37signals.com. Their concept is to make webapps for small businesses, helping them manage their information. Now, they face the same problem when trying to get their customers that a commercial ARG would do.

1. There is no tangible product of any kind.
2. There are cheaper (or free) alternatives available.
3. One has to battle the Culture of Free currently popular on the Net.

I believe people will always pay for value, no matter what the product is. The same opinion is listed in [1]. This means that there IS a way to compete with free ARGs, if one only makes sure that the value is competative (even if the game isn't!).
So, how do you get people to buy into something, given the three problems above? Well, one way is probably to do what 37signals is doing. You can listen to one their founders explaining it at [2]. I seriously think this could be a working way of doing it. Why compete with the ad-based campaigns when you can provide value for a smaller group of people, who in turn provides you with the revenue you need to produce your game?

However, this only works if you wan't to run your game as a professional business, something that I think a lot of people has a problem with - either on time-based grounds, or on ideological grounds. So, I present two alternative models for
making money from producing great games.

First out, the Long Tail-model. Those of you who have read The Long Tail can probably see where this is heading.

There has been a lot of discussion bouncing around on the subject of the 1000 True Fans-model [3]. A man called Kevin Kelly proposed this a revenue-model for content-producers releasing their content outside of the traditional publishing paths. Boiled down, it consists of the idea that "if you create a very personal relationship with the people who likes your work, they will pay to get their hands on your work!". Now, this doesn't come without problems. You have to build some kind of reputation, there has to be some way for the audience to get to know your work, and grow to like it. But guess what, people tend to pay for stuff they like? The major problem with this model working in the ARG-community is of course the TINAG-principle, and that this requires people to know who's behind it before the game starts. Well, perhaps this is a trade-off necessary right now? Perhaps we'll have to accept an OOG-website, explaining the game, providing teaser-material, a sign-up, what-ever necessary to make the audience anticipate your game and really get into it before you send out your kick-ass trailheads? I don't know, but perhaps this is what it takes?

However, personally, I believe more in the second model. Devised by John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier - I give you "The Street Performer Protocol"[4].
Basically, you tell your audience that "When I've received $1000, the game will start, and it will rock!". Of course, a PM need to make sure that her audience have confidence in her ability to deliver a kick-ass game, and the audience must trust the PM to actually deliver the game. This last problem could probably be handled by some kind of service, but hey - I'm just kicking out some ideas here. This makes sure that the game will have the budget it needs, and that game is available to an audience anticipating its arrival.

If these ideas work, and if it's even possible to implement them - I have no idea. But since they have worked for a lot of other art forms, businesses and the like - I think they should at least be considered?

Well, and this was just my 2 oeren - which equalls about $0.001.

[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
[2] http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/david-heinemeier-hansson-at-startup-school-08
[3] http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
[4] http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/

[vpisteve]

Great post there, buffi. I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to the notion of pay-to-play ARGs. Because of the realtime nature of the "classic" ARG model, people just simply aren't going to pay for something when they have no idea what it is, what it's about or even how long it's going to take.

Every new art form has historically had its "generous patrons" in order to exist and enable the artist to eke out a living while creating it. Right now, the major patron for ARGs seems to be the marketing departments of various properties, and honestly, I just don't see that changing any time soon. Promotional dollars are there, and are the arterial lifeblood of the genre right now, at least generally speaking (privately- or donor-funded games such as World Without Oil notwithstanding). Even Perplex City, as far as I understand , was not a self-funded game as much as the game itself was actually a promotion for the Perplex City brand of puzzle games etc.

ARGs, because of the real-time collaborative nature of them, are a unique beast in the world of entertainment, and it this form, an effective self-sustaining revenue model just plain doesn't exist. And I just can't see a way one can, at least for a long while. Something would have to change, whether it be the way ARGs work, or how the world consumes entertainment (both of which are indeed in process).

There are models that do work, such as that of the console/computer game, which is going strong. What's to stop someone from creating a single-player, non-time reliant game that retains all the fun and cross-media coolness of a classic ARG? Well, or most of it, anyway.

We shall see...

[Silent|away]

Let's do it.

The Ransom Model

Chat in the IRC channel was...less than supportive of the idea, however, there was a suggestion that those who donate should receive 'swag'. The Ransom Model has been done for many tabletop rpgs ever since it was invented, why not use it for ARGs?

[Nighthawk]

How would it work? "Pay me 'X' or else... no game for you!"

That feels... wrong.

[Rolerbe]

Thoughtful addition to the discussion, Buffi. Thanks for the links. Some interesting reading.

I think there is some potential in the street performer mechanism, but also some issues not raised in the writeup (ref 4). One is stalling to see of others will donate first and obviate the need for you to donate. If you are first to donate, your money is out and it may be a long time (maybe never) to see product. So, I think that something additional would be needed -- some promotional buzz -- just like the street performer hawking the show before it starts.

Still something to consider.

[buff]

(Still Buffi, SpaceBass helped me consolidate my accounts!)

Yes, there are some problems inherent in the model. However, I recall reading somewhere about a service handling exactly that[1][1b][2]. You pledged to provide a certain amount, but unless that amount was reached by a certain date - you payed nothing, and the pledge was void. Something like that might handle that problem.

I do, however, believe that the essence of the problem - in all the above stated models - would be that they all require an intimate knowledge in the audience regarding the puppetmaster, his/her works and the expected quality. The same problem can be found in movies, indy-music and well, any of the arts really.

I think that what we need to resolve this problem is some real marketing. Marketing doesn't have to sell out all the cool features in the game, just look at Perplex City? I, personally, believe that this extreme adherence to TINAG doesn't really further either the games, the genre or the community.

Yes, TINAG is extremely cool. Yes, I love a well-done game which adheres to it.

But it IS a design principe, it is NOT a certain kind of game. In my opinion, the games themselves would also benefit from things like a signup-page, where the PM can "sell" the game to the audience beforehand, have a clear line of coms with the players and so forth.

As long as the game permits me to live in its reality, while I am IN the game, then it satisfies the TINAG-philosophy. At least, that's my take on it!


[1] http://micropledge.com/
[1b] http://www.chipin.com/overview (<-- Doesn't seem to hold the funds though!)
[2] After 30 minutes of Googling, I stand victorious. http://www.fundable.org/

P.S I seriously believe that Fundable could be the next-gen of ARG funding. D.S

( As usual, english isn't my primary language - so any spelling mistakes and grammar faults are to be excused! )

Edited: Added links to above-mentioned service! Also added P.S