
Is the industry really prepared for digital distribution?
Dave Perry’s keynote at last month’s Develop in Brighton showed a slide of the first patent for a digital camera. In the 1970s, it was a curiosity – with a 0.01 megapixel resolution, it took 23 seconds to capture an image.
We know what happened next – provided ‘next’ spans three decades. Even in the mid-1990s, digital cameras were gimmicky, with film-less operation hardly compensating for poor quality. But the point was reached where convenience overrode digital’s limitations. The fate of film, and those companies banking on it, was sealed. The warning shot was that patent.
Ironically, the first digital camera was built by Eastman Kodak, the imaging giant that flogged film well into this century. Few incumbents dare make their business obsolete.
ARE WE THERE YET?
As with cameras, so with games. There’s no doubt now that digital distribution and wedding games with the internet has moved beyond its 0.01 megapixel equivalents. Do we realise it?
I’d say Games 2.0 is about where digital photography was in 1998. The technology, or paradigm, has shown its strengths: the smart money and talent are following it, some consumers are on board, but incumbent games publishers and developers still believe it’s a sideshow – of relevance to casual audiences maybe, but a bolt-on to the conventional business.
Even this is better than two years ago, when people asked why we cited Facebook and YouTube in the Develop in Brighton conference programme. In contrast, this year’s attendees said the online-focused Evolve day felt very much ‘of the moment’.
A columnist, however, should risk being interestingly wrong rather than consensually right.
I’ve assumed for a decade that digital delivery will eventually replace boxed copies of games, with both single-shot purchases and All You Can Eat subscription models. I’ve also long believed games will become services, and that potentially only 50 or so game brands may exist – more like sports than movies – with new IPs spun-off or knitted into them. I now ask: is this too cautious?
Dave Perry’s Gaikai technology shows you can run console quality games in browsers via the cloud, albeit provided a server is in your locality. Is gaming’s YouTube upon us?
Then there’s iPhone, where expensive, higher-quality games have failed to establish a markedly superior pricepoint. Other things – buzz, novelty, luck, and community – seem as important, and they don’t play to traditional development’s strengths. It’s tempting to dismiss iPhone as a niche, but it is the first entirely digital content marketplace we’ve seen.
Meanwhile, in South East Asia a distinct games industry has used the internet from day one. Its business model – based around PCs, free access and subscriptions or micro-transactions – is different to ours, and it’s headed this way. Dozens of free MMOs and other games are already making profits in Europe.
Will free, lower-quality online games supplant standalone, high cost and quality products to capture the mainstream? If you were simply to extrapolate current growth trends globally, I suspect the answer is yes.
PING PONG
You could have left Evolve thinking brands, reviews and advertising will also vanish, going on the lessons from Facebook games where users are the kingmakers.
In contrast, David Edery’s closing keynote cited a study that seeded 12 distinct online communities with 40 indie tunes, and discovered quality did not ‘out’. How popular a song became depended on who heard it first, and how they responded. The wisdom of these crowds looks random, leaving room for traditional marketing to tilt the table.
Funding, that other traditional role for publishers, could also go either way. Lower quality games are less expensive to make. Yet fewer hits means making even a portfolio of them could be riskier than today’s business.
Then there’s the topsy-turvy revenue model of MMO/service-style games, where both income and costs must be pushed out, assuming success. Failure is costlier, faster, with little or no day one revenue.
Everything is changing, and it’s not exactly clear how studios should respond. But anybody who isn’t tracking real-time data from multiple instances of even single-player games and exploring A/B testing, who isn’t actively looking into social networking, and who can’t list 20 ways to micro-transaction-ise their next project, may soon be facing their own Kodak moment.
I would love this person to explain how the concept of digital distribution relates to "storing" images on a different storage medium, as is done in digital cameras. This is probably the most flawed comparison I have ever seen whilst trying to promote digital "ball and chaining".
You don't digitally distribute the image to the CF card, you only distribute the image as electronic data for ease of reproduction and transportability. The image still resides on a PHYSICAL, FREELY TRANSFERRABLE, STORAGE MEDIUM! Will games do this, can I download a game and copy it to a physical medium? No, if I download a game, I cannot make a physical copy, which is totally different to digital images.
I can send my digital image to 20 different computers/consoles, all of which will be able to display those images. Will I be able to do this with my games? No, if I download a game, I can only play it on the console I downloaded it on, or install it a restricted number of times on the PC. In short, DD takes away my right to freedom of use.
DD is a money grabber and I wish people would stop trying to wrap it up in something it isn't. Until someone shows me a genuine positive factor FOR THE GAMER in DD, then I continue to hope for its failure.
Games won't get cheaper with DD, it's a fact. There isn't a hope in hell that the director of a company is going to say "well, let's drop the price and make less money", because it just won't happen. Take GT5P as absolute, stonewall proof, of that indisputable fact.
If businessmen want to exploit people and make a fast buck, they should stick to the music/film industry. It's far better suited to those immoral types of people.
Get over it mate; it's samantical ravings that you are posting. DD is hear to say so get going or get IT.....
The way I see it, the point being made here seems to be that it's important to be ready for a shift, and that the comparison of digital cameras and digital distribution is not so much a direct one between the two mediums, more a comparison of their positions then and now. In 98, digital cameras were still very much a niche product, expensive and somewhat lacking in benefits to the average consumer. In the same way, that could be said about digital distribution on consoles now, as opposed to the mobile and iPhone markets, which have shown how easy it is to set up quality, affordable business models based around DD.
It wasn't long into this millennium that digital cameras became more powerful, affordable and much more appealing to the consumer. No matter how you may feel about DD right now, it seems inevitable that the same thing will happen with it. Therefore, what Mr. Bennallack is rightly pointing out is that it's important for the development community to be ready for when the shift happens, and they definitely shouldn't dismiss the chances of it happening at all.
Perhaps a better model to look at to show the inevitability of this shift is that of digital music distribution, seeing how far that has come over such a short period of time. For all your complaints about not being able to make copies of your game for use on multiple consoles/hand-helds/etc, it's important to remember that a few years ago, digital music was overly expensive and locked to individual devices with DRM. Nowadays, many websites pride themselves on selling DRM-free music at prices that are highly affordable to the consumer, many of whom were adamantly sticking to CDs a few years ago and praying for the death of iTunes, yet now filling their baskets with tracks.
A few years from now, as more and more high street shops go to the wall and internet connections become faster and more wide-spread, digital distribution will easily become the most convenient means of purchasing for a consumer. The game you want is always in stock, and yours within a short time. As noted, faster internet connections will eventually mean you get your game in less time than it takes to go down the shops, buy the product and go home again. Why any consumer would want a system like that, which is quite clearly going to grow and evolve over time, to die is utterly beyond me.