[casual_games] Re: multiplayer?
Lari Numminen
lnumminen at ganymede.com.pl
Thu Oct 26 05:19:47 EDT 2006
Quote:
> One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are
for
> casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said
it's
> because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
> multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around
> that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
Our site is heavily involved in the multiplayer community strategy, so I
can say it's not entirely impossible to make money this way. A couple of
observations:
Are we stuck in a niche? Probably not, our users are from much wider
demographics than the oft-quoted "30+ females..." that dominate the SP
market.
Is it the next big thing? I have a hard time believing that MP games
will ever replace the SP games. They should be seen as complimentary,
not competitive products...
Community features? Micro-payments? Yes. Yes. There are many aspects of
MP games that haven't fully been exploited by the big players. We're
more than happy to be the one to experiment. :)
Lari Numminen
Ganymede Technologies
www.gamedesire.com
-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of
casual_games-request at igda.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:06 PM
To: casual_games at igda.org
Subject: Casual_Games Digest, Vol 17, Issue 15
Send Casual_Games mailing list submissions to
casual_games at igda.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
casual_games-request at igda.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
casual_games-owner at igda.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Casual_Games digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: multiplayer? (Cormac Russell)
2. Re: multiplayer? (Allen R Partridge)
3. Re: multiplayer? (Gabriel Zichermann)
4. RE: multiplayer? (jonathan at gametrust.com)
5. RE: multiplayer? (Dave Rohrl)
6. RE: multiplayer? (Kim Pallister)
7. RE: multiplayer? (Matthew Ford)
8. SUSPECT: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer? (J?nas Antonsson)
9. Global Kids/Gamelab launches Ayiti: The Cost of Life
(Barry Joseph)
10. Better Casual Game Business Models (Alex St. John)
11. Re: Better Casual Game Business Models (Joe Pantuso)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cormac Russell <retch at io.com>
Subject: Re: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <20061024110113.Y13101 at fnord.io.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Falconne wrote:
> One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are
for
> casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said
it's
> because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
> multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around
> that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
I've got a hunch Pogo would disagree with this, as would Three Rings.
Though one could argue I guess that much of their gameplay is
single-player head to head, rather than interactive multiplayer in many
regards, it still seems that the are fundamentally built around
monetized
multiplayer experiences.
Cormac
..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -. ---
.-. -..
Retch The Grate aka Cormac Russell Amiga, The Computer for The
Creative Mind
Gaming is Life retch at io.com //
/\
Vote Discordian this .sig a proud artifact from the 90s \X/
/()\
URL: http://cs.oberlin.edu/~rcormac/frontdoor.html B5 <*>
B5
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:25:17 -0400
From: "Allen R Partridge" <allen.partridge at iup.edu>
Subject: Re: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <web-1784201 at embe1.iup.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
I would guess that the reasons may be even more deeply rooted in the
psychology of the casual gamer. These are folks who talk back to the
monitor and would likely blame an inappropriate chat comment or
unexpected game maneuver on the game / portal rather than attribute
responsibility to another player.
Ink Link is a great example - but only 183 player online right now
playing it at shockwave.com I logged in and got "f*&^ you", biotch, do
me, and suck my big fat *&^% among others. In about 2 minutes of play.
You can't really see 30-40 something ladies putting up with much of
that.
If they play online communication is inevitable and unfortunately it
degrades pretty quickly if they have any freedom.
Not sure that's why, but I'm guessing its a factor. I'm sure some
folks are playing online multiplayer though. I recall a trivial
persuit game a while back that was multiplayer without communication
that was amusing. Timing is probably also an issue. I know I sensed
inconsistant timing in that game at the time.
--Allen
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
Cormac Russell <retch at io.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Falconne wrote:
>
>> One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are
>>for
>> casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said
>>it's
>> because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
>> multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
>>around
>> that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
>>developers?
>
>
> I've got a hunch Pogo would disagree with this, as would Three
>Rings. Though one could argue I guess that much of their gameplay is
>single-player head to head, rather than interactive multiplayer in
>many regards, it still seems that the are fundamentally built around
>monetized multiplayer experiences.
>
> Cormac
> ..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -. --- .-. -.. ..-. -.
>--- .-. -..
> Retch The Grate aka Cormac Russell Amiga, The Computer for The
>Creative Mind
> Gaming is Life retch at io.com //
> /\
> Vote Discordian this .sig a proud artifact from the 90s \X/
> /()\
> URL: http://cs.oberlin.edu/~rcormac/frontdoor.html B5
><*> B5
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gabriel Zichermann <gabe at gabrielz.com>
Subject: Re: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <20061024162534.64325.qmail at web611.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
John:
Historically, I think that the biggest issues for multiplayer
development revolved around the platform and distribution. Unlike a
single-player game, multiplayer titles typically require some form of
integration with a backend system in order to deliver the features that
casual game consumers care about the most (leaderboards, tourneys,
identity). Until recently, most casual community (I prefer this to
"multiplayer") games therefore required the in-depth involvement of
either a portal (Yahoo! AllStars) or a Publisher (PlayFirst
Connect4Cities).
As an FYI, this was the rationale behind Boonty's (my employer) decision
to acquire a Chinese Game Studio and launch a multiplayer gaming
platform with an SDK. These dev tools can be used by to make casual and
middlecore games that easily integrate all the multiplayer features
consumers/portals demand. This is a relatively new product for us, so
Boonty is certainly interested in getting as much feedback as possible
from the developer community.
Some of the residual business model issues are still exigent. Primarily,
the question of multi-site interoperability and community sharing (Can
players from Yahoo play those from MSN) has yet to be resolved.
It is my hope, however, that all the recent investments in the community
gaming space will result in an expanded market opportunity and consumer
interest all around. This should pave the way for developers to make
money in the business of community.
Gabe
John Falconne <john.falconne at gmail.com> wrote: One thing that surprises
me is how few multiplayer options there are for casual gamers. Why is
that? My friend, another game developer, said it's because there's no
way for a casual game developer to make money on multiplayer games. Is
that true? Are there no viable business models around that make
multiplayer game development appealing to casual game developers?
_______________________________________________
Casual_Games mailing list
Casual_Games at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061024/18
98e47d/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:28:53 -0400
From: <jonathan at gametrust.com>
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: "'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <00b901c6f791$e06d35d0$7765a8c0 at D261JT71>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Multiplayer games that properly embrace community can be monetized in a
number of different ways; specifically through advertising and
micro-transactions.
However, your observation of the few MP options out there is well taken.
I
think most would agree that community and micro-transactions will be
integral pieces to our industry's future, but developers have been
somewhat
'handcuffed' by the lack of standard technology and available developer
tools for MP hosting, billing, and security. Joel Brodie provides some
interesting thoughts about the subject (and some bold predictions!) on
GameZebo;
http://www.gamezebo.com/2006/07/joels_thoughts_on_casuality.html
I'd be remiss to not mention that Game Trust is currently building open
MP
APIs to our Game Frame platform, which powers community and MP games on
several casual game portals. Feel free to contact me off this post if
you
are interested in helping to shape the features of this upcoming
technology.
Cheers!
Jonathan Greechan | Director of Games
Game Trust, Inc. | www.gametrust.com
jonathan at gametrust.com | 212.367.7336 x126
MSN: jonathan at gametrust.com | ICQ: 285535456
Add Free Games and Chat to your site, blog or forum with LaunchNow
<http://www.gametrust.com/LaunchNow.php> !
_____
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of John Falconne
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:31 AM
To: casual_games at igda.org
Subject: [casual_games] multiplayer?
One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are for
casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said it's
because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around
that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061024/1d
84b98d/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:16:49 -0700
From: "Dave Rohrl" <daver at popcap.com>
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: "IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID:
<A5575DED1CD9A7458B10A76F3ECC341CDF1DF1 at gigan.internal.popcap.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Although I agree that toolsets are an important issue with the lack of
multiplayer titles and service, I tend to think that the greater issue
has to do with distribution. One of the desirable characteristics of
single-player downloads (from the portal point of view) is that there is
little integration needed between developer and portal and the customer
relationship can easily rest 100% with the portal. As soon as
multiplayer backends serving multiple sites get involved, customer
ownership issues can get very murky and the portal becomes very reliant
on the developer for continuing service and maintenance. It's a much
bigger risk and a more difficult sell from a developer end.
- DaveR
________________________________
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of
jonathan at gametrust.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
Multiplayer games that properly embrace community can be monetized in a
number of different ways; specifically through advertising and
micro-transactions.
However, your observation of the few MP options out there is well taken.
I think most would agree that community and micro-transactions will be
integral pieces to our industry's future, but developers have been
somewhat 'handcuffed' by the lack of standard technology and available
developer tools for MP hosting, billing, and security. Joel Brodie
provides some interesting thoughts about the subject (and some bold
predictions!) on GameZebo;
http://www.gamezebo.com/2006/07/joels_thoughts_on_casuality.html
I'd be remiss to not mention that Game Trust is currently building open
MP APIs to our Game Frame platform, which powers community and MP games
on several casual game portals. Feel free to contact me off this post if
you are interested in helping to shape the features of this upcoming
technology.
Cheers!
Jonathan Greechan | Director of Games
Game Trust, Inc. | www.gametrust.com
jonathan at gametrust.com | 212.367.7336 x126
MSN: jonathan at gametrust.com | ICQ: 285535456
Add Free Games and Chat to your site, blog or forum with LaunchNow
<http://www.gametrust.com/LaunchNow.php> !
________________________________
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of John Falconne
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:31 AM
To: casual_games at igda.org
Subject: [casual_games] multiplayer?
One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are for
casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said it's
because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061024/62
d70e78/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:11:59 -0700
From: Kim Pallister <kimpall at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: "casual_games at igda.org" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID:
<B696D8811D33684FBF0333898C8FE9B31C489A02E9 at NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.m
icrosoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are
for casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said
it's because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
I'll take a stab at that one:
Just like with "big budget" games, there are a couple different types of
multiplayer you can look at here: multi-player web games, multi-player
'mode' in a DL game (i.e. multiplayer as feature), MMO type model
(subscription or item sales), etc.
Games like Kart rider and Puzzle Pirates have shown that the latter of
those models can work in the casual space. I'll stick to the former.
There's a number of reasons you see fewer of these than single player:
- It raises the cost of the game
- It complicates distribution (portals are reluctant to host games that
either send their users to other sites/communities, or subject users to
profane chat, etc)
- There's a lot of disagreement in the industry about whether or not
multiplayer is The Next Big Thing, or whether it's a niche within the
existing market.
We're starting to see more games using it as a differentiator. We've had
a number of web games on our site with multiplayer for some time, and
they've done pretty well (traffic-wise).
To get back to your original question: I think multiplayer can be made
to work in any of the existing casual games business models. It's just
whether the additional risk is worth it or not that is the question.
Kim Pallister
Business Development
Microsoft Casual Games
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:28:01 +1000
From: "Matthew Ford" <matthew at fordfam.com>
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: "'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <00bd01c6f7aa$e81948f0$9201a8c0 at KIRA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ahh, I'd love to hear discussion about this one. Last time I heard this
discussed, it was said that portals often prohibit apps from connecting
users to the developer's server for fear the developer will steal their
future business-- for example wean them off the portal and start to sell
to
them directly. But I don't recall an extended discussion of this and I'd
really appreciate any more info on the subject.
As well as recounting the situation as it stands now, I'd appreciate any
speculation on how this may change in the future, and how a developer
can
build a game in a way that allows multiplayer connections among players
but
avoids whatever the portals may fear.
Or in fact is the market ready now for multiplayer-oriented casual
gaming,
and it simply has not broken out yet?
Matthew Ford
matthew at fordfam dot com
-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of John Falconne
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 1:31 AM
To: casual_games at igda.org
Subject: [casual_games] multiplayer?
One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are for
casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said it's
because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around
that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:42:07 -0000
From: J?nas Antonsson <jonas at gogogic.com>
Subject: SUSPECT: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
To: "'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <003601c6f7ac$df6631d0$9e329570$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
My money is on your last point. I think it hasn't fully broken out yet.
Of
course this whole discussion lacks a proper foundation - a solid
definition
of what we're talking about when we say "multiplayer casual games". We
have
a pretty wide target.
If we include lotteries or casino games as casual games then we have a
lot
of very successful multiplayer games, for example.
But - back to the point - I think we're pretty much talking about the
same
thing. With that in mind I think that a multiplayer model for casual
games
will be a logical extension to both the main distribution canal -
internet -
and the nature of a lot of casual games - web based. A solid
architectural
approach can introduce new dimensions, game-play aspects and social
structures that relate to, interact with or are a direct part of casual
games. In fact this is a center of study for me so it hits close to
home.
As far as portals go, I have not been under the impression that
multiplayer
models aren't something they'd consider - if done properly and in a
beneficial way to both developer and portal. In fact I've had talks with
portals about a game concept that we've been working on (gogogic) which
is
multiplayer based and, so far, the dialogs have been positive.
Jónas B. Antonsson
COO (Chief Operating Officer)
--------------------------------
Gogogic ehf.
Fákafen 9, 108 Reykjavik, Iceland
Mail jonas at gogogic.com
Mob +354 664 8600
Tel +354 534 7700
Fax +354 534 7701
Web www.gogogic.com
blog www.jonasantonsson.com
--------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of Matthew Ford
Sent: 24. október 2006 20:28
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
Ahh, I'd love to hear discussion about this one. Last time I heard this
discussed, it was said that portals often prohibit apps from connecting
users to the developer's server for fear the developer will steal their
future business-- for example wean them off the portal and start to sell
to
them directly. But I don't recall an extended discussion of this and I'd
really appreciate any more info on the subject.
As well as recounting the situation as it stands now, I'd appreciate any
speculation on how this may change in the future, and how a developer
can
build a game in a way that allows multiplayer connections among players
but
avoids whatever the portals may fear.
Or in fact is the market ready now for multiplayer-oriented casual
gaming,
and it simply has not broken out yet?
Matthew Ford
matthew at fordfam dot com
-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of John Falconne
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 1:31 AM
To: casual_games at igda.org
Subject: [casual_games] multiplayer?
One thing that surprises me is how few multiplayer options there are for
casual gamers. Why is that? My friend, another game developer, said it's
because there's no way for a casual game developer to make money on
multiplayer games. Is that true? Are there no viable business models
around
that make multiplayer game development appealing to casual game
developers?
_______________________________________________
Casual_Games mailing list
Casual_Games at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:03:48 -0400
From: Barry Joseph <bjlist at globalkids.org>
Subject: [casual_games] Global Kids/Gamelab launches Ayiti: The Cost
of Life
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <p06230907c1651f182712@[192.168.1.168]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
I am very excited to finally be able to post to this list that Global
Kids has officially launched Ayiti: The Cost of Life, the casual game
our students developed with Gamelab, the NYC-based game developers.
The game is both fun and educational. Fun for the player because it
is a challenging, engaging strategy game and educational because it
teaches about poverty as an obstacle to education in contemporary
Haiti.
Please check it out at http://theCostofLife.org
The associated lesson plans will be available at that address in the
next few days, for educators to bring the game into their classrooms
and after school programs.
If you would like to blog about it, please be so kind as to link to
the following url, for both traffic and comments:
http://www.holymeatballs.org/2006/10/nc_ayiti_the_cost_of_life_set.html
We all look forward to learning what you think.
Barry
Below is an excerpt from the press release. To read the full release,
please go to:
http://www.holymeatballs.org/2006/10/press_global_kids_launches_com.html
#more
Global Kids and Gamelab, New York City's largest game development
company, today announced the release of the online game, Ayiti: The
Cost of Life (CostofLife.org), which uses the location of Haiti to
educate players about the obstacles to education faced by children in
developing countries. When distributed and used within either a
classroom or after school setting, the game will be a strong tool for
building students' global awareness and civic literacy.
The concept of the game was developed by youth in Global Kids'
Playing 4 Keeps (P4K) program and professionals from the
award-winning game design studio Gamelab.
Supported by Microsoft's U.S. Partners in Learning Mid-Tier Grants
Initiative, which seeks to find and support "pockets of innovation"
for increasing digital literacy and career readiness, the game will
be free and published with lesson plans for educators through a
UNICEF website Child Alert: Haiti (unicef.org/childalert/haiti/) and
the educational network TakingITGlobal (takingitglobal.org).
"It can be difficult to teach critical global issues to youth who can
sometimes feel that their everyday lives are far removed from things
going on in remote places around the world," said Mary Cullinane,
Director of Microsoft U.S. Partners in Learning. "Global Kids'
Playing 4 Keeps has found a way to use technology to bring these
global issues to life in a truly engaging way. We are proud to
support this innovative use of technology to make these issues more
real for these young citizens."
Playing 4 Keeps engages a cohort of twenty-four students from South
Shore High School, a largely minority school of approximately 2,300
students located in Canarsie, Brooklyn, in working with professional
game developers in the design, development and dissemination of
professionally-produced online games about important social issues.
During the school year, program participants conducted research about
global issues and gained digital literacy, leadership, and career
skills. Students participated in workshops on such global issues as
Defining Human Rights, Racism, Health, Education, and Children's
Rights, and then selected an issue on which to focus the game.
With professionals from Gamelab, they learned about a range of issues
related to game design as a form of critical media literacy as well
as the game industry and the game development process. The students
also took numerous field trips and spoke about their work at
prestigious conferences, including the Game Design Conference in San
Jose, the Games 4 Change Conference in New York City, and the
Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington.
This year, participants chose to focus their game on the general
topic of poverty as an obstacle to education, based on their learning
about the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and about
obstacles to receiving an adequate education that youth face around
the world. They then decided to use Haiti as a case study and setting
for the game. The youth have documented the process of creating the
game in a blog at http://holymeatballs.org/playing_4_keeps and are
publicizing it through http://myspace.com/thecostoflife.
In Ayiti: The Cost of Life, each player assumes the roles of family
members living in rural Haiti. Over the course of the game, the
player must choose among and balance various goals, such as achieving
education, making money, staying healthy, and maintaining happiness
while encountering unexpected events like disease and hurricanes. The
player must make many decisions that contribute to or detract from
achieving his or her chosen goals.
The game is designed as a serious learning tool that educators and
youth workers can use in their classrooms. With its lesson plans,
Ayiti: The Cost of Life, can educate players about poverty and its
effects on education in general around the world, as well as about
the effects of poverty on education in Haiti.
"Ayiti: The Cost of Life is a great way to teach American youth about
global issues such as poverty, access to education and human rights,"
said Chinwe Okorie, United Nations Representative for the World
Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. "Players' efforts to keep
the family healthy, happy and both parents alive make you engulfed."
The educational effectiveness of the game is being evaluated by the
Educational Development Corporation's Center for Children and
Technology.
--
___________________________________
Barry Joseph
Director
Online Leadership Program
Global Kids
http://www.globalkids.org
http://olp.globalkids.org
http://www.NewzCrew.org
Sign-up for the Global Kids' Newsletter: Send an email to:
GlobalKidsUpdate-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Alex St. John" <stjohnalex at yahoo.com>
Subject: [casual_games] Better Casual Game Business Models
To: Casual_games at igda.org
Message-ID: <20061025141134.4724.qmail at web52002.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Interesting thread. I thought I’d chime in, since we’ve been working on
the monetization problem a long time. We built our own DRM solution for
casual games way back in 2001 and have been iterating it ever since.
Because we originally developed it just to support games from our own
Studio we chose a Content limited DRM model instead of the time limited
model the rest of the market went with. This proved very educational
when we took downloadable games we had been selling with content limited
DRM and released them to major portals that were using time limited DRM.
What we found was that a hit game that was content limited would sell
very strongly within our channel over a period of many years, often with
a slow steady escalation in audience. The same game posted on a major
gaming portal with time limited DRM would experience a huge spike in
sales that rapidly collapsed.
The difference in behavior is the result of time limited DRM killing a
games viral audience momentum before it can gain traction. A hot game
falls rapidly off the top 10 list as the time based DRM on the game
drives off it’s free players. We all like to talk about our audience
being 70% women 35 and up, but this really isn’t the case. The audience
is very broad, and a large majority of it is kids without credit cards.
We found that when we sell a game to a woman 35+, 50% of the time she’s
buying it for the kids not herself. I think it’s very interesting to
look at the sources of popcap.com’s traffic on www.alexa.com. What you
see is a lot of moms looking online for content to keep the kids
entertained. A small fraction of the kids and teenagers who don’t have
a means of buying games online are successful in persuading a parent to
do it for them, the rest are S.O.L. and must content themselves with
hunting for free play. The problem is that this audience is also
the word-of-mouth group that generates buzz for a game. When they are
thrown out of a game they like because they can’t or won’t purchase, the
buzz stops.
There is an important and interesting caveat to this observation.
Content based DRM works best for content based games; that is games that
unlock new “art” or “levels” in exchange for purchase. Games based on
simple repetitive play such as puzzle games perform well with time based
DRM because there is little or no “content” other than the basic game to
unlock. Games that depend on repetition addiction to drive a conversion
must cut off the player to make a conversion before the players,
“addiction” to the game play is satisfied.
For content based games with content limited DRM we find that the
games have extremely long shelf lives and develop growing audiences over
time, even after the game has dropped off the front page and out of
marketing efforts. Out of 300 games in our channel and 30 from all of
the top developers that ship on OEM machines, FATE from our studios is
consistently the #1 best seller when presented equally besides the best
casual games from other leading developers. Polar Bowler which is also
content limited has ranged between #1- and #4 for over 4 years.
Content limited DRM also has another important benefit. Once a game
has developed a standing audience it becomes an appealing franchise for
advertisers to target. When a game throws out its audience, it throws
out the opportunity to monetize all of the free play. Portals are first
and foremost in the business of selling $.50-$5.00 CPM ad units in huge
volumes; actually selling downloadable games is a tiny and irrelevant
side business to all of them. It doesn’t matter to a portal if their
DRM solution is antiquated, wastes content, is inefficient at converting
a sale or is easily subverted. It’s the free play that makes their core
advertising business, the sales are tertiary. Portals also have little
ability to target premium advertising dollars at specific titles and
audiences. It’s easier for them to sell a low yield $1/cpm ad unit than
it is to sell a $25/cpm video ad targeting a specific game or family of
games. If they could give premium downloadable games
away without trying to sell they would! The problem is that developers
want $$ for their games, so the portals share revenue from the business
they don't care about and try hard to keep the ad $$.
We’ve done a lot of work at WildTangent on how to fix what’s obviously
a broken business model for the game developers and concluded that a
model based on selling game sessions vs selling whole games may yield a
vast improvement in revenue generation potential and advertising yield.
I’ll talk about it more if folks are curious but in the interest of
brevity I suggest that folks take a look at Penguins and BlasterBall3 on
Wildgames.com. Both of these games from WildTangent Studios had major
advertising sponsors that had funded the games before they completed
production. They are wrapped in session based DRM and have major
advertisers sponsoring the gameplay for consumers for free. Since a
session of these games is priced at around $1 to the consumer, the
advertiser buys the free play from us wholesale at a discount and gives
the play away
especially to all those kids who don’t have credit cards.
I’m sure it won’t take anybody long to calculate the CPM value of this
kind of advertising, but a session of premium game play is worth a hell
of a lot more than a $1/cpm run or site banner ad. *Note that there is
zero advertising to consumers who buy the game, or pay for the sessions
themselves. Gameplay is never interrupted with advertising as Microsoft
and Real propose. Consumers simply choose a payment mechanism for the
single session of play they are about to consume and play uninterrupted.
Personally I think the "big idea" in casual gaming is the idea that
consumers, given the opportunity, will glady CHOOSE offers from
advertisers over paying for sessions of game play. I think consumers
will reject getting advertising in the games they purchase with their
own money and they will reject having their games forcibly interrupted
for advertising messages.
-Alex St. John
---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done
faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061025/3c
189899/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:55:11 -0400
From: "Joe Pantuso" <jpantuso at traygames.com>
Subject: Re: [casual_games] Better Casual Game Business Models
To: "IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID:
<dad449010610250755i44cf9e06o77e50e884035b41f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
There are several interesting items in here and nothing I'd argue with.
One
that begs discussion though is "We found that when we sell a game to a
woman
35+, 50% of the time she's buying it for the kids not herself.". The
stats
on women as a larger than 50% of the casual user base, and the age skew
to
older than 30, is taken as gospel in much of the casual games
discussion.
Certainly it gets stated in articles about the space often enough. Is
this
a badly gathered stat that has been replicated without being fact
checked?
If so this would mean 'kids without credit cards' actually the largest
percentage group of casual players, followed by 'under-25 slackers
stealing
time at work' (derived from a Pogo.com sponsored study).
On 10/25/06, Alex St. John <stjohnalex at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting thread. I thought I'd chime in, since we've been working
on
> the monetization problem a long time. We built our own DRM solution
for
> casual games way back in 2001 and have been iterating it ever since.
Because
> we originally developed it just to support games from our own Studio
we
> chose a Content limited DRM model instead of the time limited model
the rest
> of the market went with. This proved very educational when we took
> downloadable games we had been selling with content limited DRM and
released
> them to major portals that were using time limited DRM. What we
found
> was that a hit game that was content limited would sell very strongly
within
> our channel over a period of many years, often with a slow steady
escalation
> in audience. The same game posted on a major gaming portal with time
> limited DRM would experience a huge spike in sales that rapidly
collapsed.
>
> The difference in behavior is the result of time limited DRM killing a
> games viral audience momentum before it can gain traction. A hot game
> falls rapidly off the top 10 list as the time based DRM on the game
> drives off it's free players. We all like to talk about our audience
> being 70% women 35 and up, but this really isn't the case. The
audience
> is very broad, and a large majority of it is kids without credit
cards. We
> found that when we sell a game to a woman 35+, 50% of the time she's
buying
> it for the kids not herself. I think it's very interesting to look at
the
> sources of popcap.com's traffic on www.alexa.com. What you see is a
lot
> of moms looking online for content to keep the kids entertained. A
small
> fraction of the kids and teenagers who don't have a means of buying
games
> online are successful in persuading a parent to do it for them, the
rest are
> S.O.L. and must content themselves with hunting for free play. The
> problem is that this audience is also the word-of-mouth group that
generates
> buzz for a game. When they are thrown out of a game they like because
they
> can't or won't purchase, the buzz stops.
>
> There is an important and interesting caveat to this observation.
Content
> based DRM works best for content based games; that is games that
unlock new
> "art" or "levels" in exchange for purchase. Games based on simple
> repetitive play such as puzzle games perform well with time based DRM
> because there is little or no "content" other than the basic game to
unlock.
> Games that depend on repetition addiction to drive a conversion must
cut
> off the player to make a conversion before the players, "addiction" to
the
> game play is satisfied.
>
> For content based games with content limited DRM we find that the
games
> have extremely long shelf lives and develop growing audiences over
time,
> even after the game has dropped off the front page and out of
marketing
> efforts. Out of 300 games in our channel and 30 from all of the top
> developers that ship on OEM machines, FATE from our studios is
consistently
> the #1 best seller when presented equally besides the best casual
games from
> other leading developers. Polar Bowler which is also content limited
has
> ranged between #1- and #4 for over 4 years.
>
> Content limited DRM also has another important benefit. Once a game
has
> developed a standing audience it becomes an appealing franchise for
> advertisers to target. When a game throws out its audience, it throws
out
> the opportunity to monetize all of the free play. Portals are first
and
> foremost in the business of selling $.50-$5.00 CPM ad units in huge
volumes;
> actually selling downloadable games is a tiny and irrelevant side
business
> to all of them. It doesn't matter to a portal if their DRM solution
is
> antiquated, wastes content, is inefficient at converting a sale or is
easily
> subverted. It's the free play that makes their core advertising
business,
> the sales are tertiary. Portals also have little ability to target
> premium advertising dollars at specific titles and audiences. It's
easier
> for them to sell a low yield $1/cpm ad unit than it is to sell a
$25/cpm
> video ad targeting a specific game or family of games. If they could
give
> premium downloadable games away without trying to sell they would!
The
> problem is that developers want $$ for their games, so the portals
share
> revenue from the business they don't care about and try hard to keep
the ad
> $$.
>
> We've done a lot of work at WildTangent on how to fix what's obviously
a
> broken business model for the game developers and concluded that a
model
> based on selling game sessions vs selling whole games may yield a vast
> improvement in revenue generation potential and advertising yield.
I'll
> talk about it more if folks are curious but in the interest of brevity
I
> suggest that folks take a look at Penguins and BlasterBall3 on
> Wildgames.com <http://wildgames.com/>. Both of these games from
> WildTangent Studios had major advertising sponsors that had funded the
games
> before they completed production. They are wrapped in session based
DRM
> and have major advertisers sponsoring the gameplay for consumers for
free.
> Since a session of these games is priced at around $1 to the consumer,
the
> advertiser buys the free play from us wholesale at a discount and
gives the
> play away
especially to all those kids who don't have credit cards.
I'm
> sure it won't take anybody long to calculate the CPM value of this
kind of
> advertising, but a session of premium game play is worth a hell of a
lot
> more than a $1/cpm run or site banner ad. *Note that there is zero
> advertising to consumers who buy the game, or pay for the sessions
> themselves. Gameplay is never interrupted with advertising as
Microsoft
> and Real propose. Consumers simply choose a payment mechanism for the
> single session of play they are about to consume and play
uninterrupted.
>
> Personally I think the "big idea" in casual gaming is the idea
> that consumers, given the opportunity, will glady CHOOSE offers from
> advertisers over paying for sessions of game play. I think consumers
will
> reject getting advertising in the games they purchase with their own
money
> and they will reject having their games forcibly interrupted for
advertising
> messages.
>
> -Alex St. John
>
> ------------------------------
> All-new Yahoo! Mail
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43256/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/m
ailbeta>-
> Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>
>
>
--
In a free, democratic society, political affiliation is an informed,
continually evaluated decision; not a bond of blind loyalty, like that
of
dog to man.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061025/f3
42cf21/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Casual_Games mailing list
Casual_Games at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
End of Casual_Games Digest, Vol 17, Issue 15
********************************************
__________ NOD32 1.1730 (20060829) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
More information about the Casual_Games
mailing list