The changing nature of entertainment
by Phil Carlisle · 08/14/2007 (2:22 pm) · 5 comments
I dont know about you, but I've all but stopped watching TV.
Up until recently, the TV was the main form of entertainment in many households. But recently I've noticed that I spend far more of my leisure time not just browsing the internet, but actually being entertained by it. Of course part of the problem is the quality of TV programming having sunk to new depths. Seriously, in the UK the TV has just gone so far down in quality, with huge numbers of "reality" shows that are cheap to produce but in a way you can tell. Combine that with the constant ads for insurance or loans etc and it really turns me off.
Sites like [url]http://www.youtube.com[url] are perhaps the tip of a newly emerging iceberg really.
Recently I've started using sites like TV Links UK to find what is essentially the same programmes I might have chosen to watch on regular TV but in internet form. Using this site completely convinced me that "user selected" internet based streaming TV is going to be the future of TV. Once we get ubiquitous fibre based internet we can actually stream TV at a decent rate. Somehow the process has to get easier, but the main thing that convinces me, is the nature of how you watch the programmes. In essence what convinced me was watching the whole of the series "Heroes" in two long sessions.
The reason I find this so compelling, is that it isnt a passive experience anymore. Basically its gone from push (TV) to pull (me asking for it). The experience is so much better, because you dont have the weeks gap between episodes anymore. You also dont have any ads, which leads onto a few key questions for this new paradigm:
1) Who is going to fund the new internet based programmes?
2) How are they going to recoup that cost from consumers?
3) Who is going to own the "channel" to the consumer?
This is something that I think WILL get worked out to a big extent. Perhaps embedded ads that are non intrusive and more targetted.
Of course there are technology issues, to do with streaming and bandwidth, but I'm entirely convinced that those are within achievable goals right now in at least rudimentary form. Look at something like www.stage6.com which has great streaming and full screen replay with none of the poor quality and capacity problems of youtube.
Why am I talking about this and what does it have to do with games?
Well, consider this. If my leisure time is going to be spent "pulling" from the internet. What is it exactly that I'm looking to pull? Ok, I enjoy passive experiences, so I want to see something interesting that I can sit back and be interested in. What interests me? Well, for me, unique invention, hearing about game developers and development, technologies, hell even watching others play games. So I see a lot of value in a streaming "channel" devoted to production of game development related content. But thinking further than the passive media, there is a whole gamut of experience I could be interested in. Right now we think of MMO's as the world of warcraft model, but frankly that is blinkering people to a whole range of interesting uses of the gaming medium. Orion posted a plan recently about a product that I think exemplifies a new range of boutique products that will slowly gain more and more ground over the passive experience of TV. Think about it, games about all sorts of things, perhaps an MMO that is actually historically based? Or one that has us all immersed in the world of CSI??
My main thrust here, is that in ten years time, I think interactive media is going to be a really big opportunity if we can only see far enough to make the experience less painful. I see that passive media will still have a place in the overall entertainment experience, but that fundamental shifts will happen and I think developers would be wise to think outside of what we currently see and think to what could work for people further down the line. When the vast majority of people seek thier entertainment online what form will that take. How about a channel where you all vote on user created "models" which have been styled by other players and are doing a virtual fashion show? Or virtual theatre performances where real people (virtual or using mocap suits or some such) produce realtime streaming performances direct to millions of people in realtime?
Honestly, there sure is a new wave of entertainment just poking its head up on the horizon, we can see the baby steps with community sites, but the future is going to look soooo different than it does now. It will be far more fragmented but also far more targetted and hopefully it will also be much more personal and valuable to us than the current dross thats being pushed at us in order to sell product.
Up until recently, the TV was the main form of entertainment in many households. But recently I've noticed that I spend far more of my leisure time not just browsing the internet, but actually being entertained by it. Of course part of the problem is the quality of TV programming having sunk to new depths. Seriously, in the UK the TV has just gone so far down in quality, with huge numbers of "reality" shows that are cheap to produce but in a way you can tell. Combine that with the constant ads for insurance or loans etc and it really turns me off.
Sites like [url]http://www.youtube.com[url] are perhaps the tip of a newly emerging iceberg really.
Recently I've started using sites like TV Links UK to find what is essentially the same programmes I might have chosen to watch on regular TV but in internet form. Using this site completely convinced me that "user selected" internet based streaming TV is going to be the future of TV. Once we get ubiquitous fibre based internet we can actually stream TV at a decent rate. Somehow the process has to get easier, but the main thing that convinces me, is the nature of how you watch the programmes. In essence what convinced me was watching the whole of the series "Heroes" in two long sessions.
The reason I find this so compelling, is that it isnt a passive experience anymore. Basically its gone from push (TV) to pull (me asking for it). The experience is so much better, because you dont have the weeks gap between episodes anymore. You also dont have any ads, which leads onto a few key questions for this new paradigm:
1) Who is going to fund the new internet based programmes?
2) How are they going to recoup that cost from consumers?
3) Who is going to own the "channel" to the consumer?
This is something that I think WILL get worked out to a big extent. Perhaps embedded ads that are non intrusive and more targetted.
Of course there are technology issues, to do with streaming and bandwidth, but I'm entirely convinced that those are within achievable goals right now in at least rudimentary form. Look at something like www.stage6.com which has great streaming and full screen replay with none of the poor quality and capacity problems of youtube.
Why am I talking about this and what does it have to do with games?
Well, consider this. If my leisure time is going to be spent "pulling" from the internet. What is it exactly that I'm looking to pull? Ok, I enjoy passive experiences, so I want to see something interesting that I can sit back and be interested in. What interests me? Well, for me, unique invention, hearing about game developers and development, technologies, hell even watching others play games. So I see a lot of value in a streaming "channel" devoted to production of game development related content. But thinking further than the passive media, there is a whole gamut of experience I could be interested in. Right now we think of MMO's as the world of warcraft model, but frankly that is blinkering people to a whole range of interesting uses of the gaming medium. Orion posted a plan recently about a product that I think exemplifies a new range of boutique products that will slowly gain more and more ground over the passive experience of TV. Think about it, games about all sorts of things, perhaps an MMO that is actually historically based? Or one that has us all immersed in the world of CSI??
My main thrust here, is that in ten years time, I think interactive media is going to be a really big opportunity if we can only see far enough to make the experience less painful. I see that passive media will still have a place in the overall entertainment experience, but that fundamental shifts will happen and I think developers would be wise to think outside of what we currently see and think to what could work for people further down the line. When the vast majority of people seek thier entertainment online what form will that take. How about a channel where you all vote on user created "models" which have been styled by other players and are doing a virtual fashion show? Or virtual theatre performances where real people (virtual or using mocap suits or some such) produce realtime streaming performances direct to millions of people in realtime?
Honestly, there sure is a new wave of entertainment just poking its head up on the horizon, we can see the baby steps with community sites, but the future is going to look soooo different than it does now. It will be far more fragmented but also far more targetted and hopefully it will also be much more personal and valuable to us than the current dross thats being pushed at us in order to sell product.
About the author
#2
Lot of people (baby bells) try to keep WWII era analog copper. Another reason why I always disliked DSL because it's simply a patch with old tech and limits cutting off some people just to keep padding Telco exec's pockets instead of upgrading infrastructure.
So they are way ahead of the game. They have been streaming set top for years compared to places restricted by that darn weak antique ringer copper.
edit add: Oh after reading more of Phil's post uh. Yea MMO's are future. Just need more break thru's to help destroy this horrible nerf a lot mold that certain people I like to rant about built. "how to build a mmo"...
More like how not to build a MMO (a certain keynote speech in the past..).
08/14/2007 (10:51 pm)
It's a bit different there. In the 90's Time Warner spent mega bucks to install national fiber to the house backbone across America. They installed it here bout 7-8 years ago.Lot of people (baby bells) try to keep WWII era analog copper. Another reason why I always disliked DSL because it's simply a patch with old tech and limits cutting off some people just to keep padding Telco exec's pockets instead of upgrading infrastructure.
So they are way ahead of the game. They have been streaming set top for years compared to places restricted by that darn weak antique ringer copper.
edit add: Oh after reading more of Phil's post uh. Yea MMO's are future. Just need more break thru's to help destroy this horrible nerf a lot mold that certain people I like to rant about built. "how to build a mmo"...
More like how not to build a MMO (a certain keynote speech in the past..).
#3
I wonder if projects that do not cater for majority interests will become more commercially viable when media distribution channels can offer a wider variety of entertainment? Will projects and subjects once deemed too esoteric or risky find new niche markets? I wonder what will happen to production quality if the need for new content grows? Will independents find new opportunities to deliver content to the emerging markets?
Will consumers with a choice be equally dependant on the big-budget-designed-for-mass-media content? Will 4 million dollars of studio time still be required to create the next hit album? Independent music production and distribution is already commercially viable and readily available to consumers via online markets. The sophistication of audio production software has made possible a quality of product previously only available to large budget multi-nationals. Will other media creation tools become so sophisticated that users create their own high quality media with minimal publishing and production overheads?
Will a larger product selection and a public distribution channel help grow independent games? Will independent content become increasingly commercially viable for authors when users are empowered to make a choice?
08/14/2007 (11:50 pm)
I love this topic Phil, thanks for posting some very interesting questions. I too am very excited about potential paradigm shifts in media distribution. Having a media outlet not subject to the current 24hrs per channel limitation and non-linear programming would seem to create a lot of space for new content, a lot of content thirsty media distributors and new markets.I wonder if projects that do not cater for majority interests will become more commercially viable when media distribution channels can offer a wider variety of entertainment? Will projects and subjects once deemed too esoteric or risky find new niche markets? I wonder what will happen to production quality if the need for new content grows? Will independents find new opportunities to deliver content to the emerging markets?
Will consumers with a choice be equally dependant on the big-budget-designed-for-mass-media content? Will 4 million dollars of studio time still be required to create the next hit album? Independent music production and distribution is already commercially viable and readily available to consumers via online markets. The sophistication of audio production software has made possible a quality of product previously only available to large budget multi-nationals. Will other media creation tools become so sophisticated that users create their own high quality media with minimal publishing and production overheads?
Will a larger product selection and a public distribution channel help grow independent games? Will independent content become increasingly commercially viable for authors when users are empowered to make a choice?
#4
He is on the very edge of the new television, and his ratings are insanely higher than they would be if he were just on tv.
The future looks promising!!!
08/15/2007 (9:04 am)
On a similar note, you guys ever watched Tom Green's webovision? www.tomgreen.com?He is on the very edge of the new television, and his ratings are insanely higher than they would be if he were just on tv.
The future looks promising!!!
#5
I called it quits on television some years ago too. It is just garbage. Mainly it was finally my frustration with Star Trek. They just kept producing junk and putting really stupid political crap in it. I mean, what happened to "The Wrath of Kahn" type stuff?
I personally hope broadcast and cable slide into obsolescence. I would love to buy only the Discovery channel, but I can't justify buying cable. So, I just don't buy anything at all. I actually just have rabbit ears. Anyway, the new media is still working itself out. It will give choice and I hope nobody is able to control any "channels". Despite its flaws the internet is a great maelstrom of opportunity for all those involved. Any game I produce will be marketed there, not on tv and not in the stores (at least not at first).
If people were to tune in to the internet they could watch great movies and shows. For instance:
www.geocities.com/wilka26/moviespoof.html
08/17/2007 (2:33 am)
Gary,I called it quits on television some years ago too. It is just garbage. Mainly it was finally my frustration with Star Trek. They just kept producing junk and putting really stupid political crap in it. I mean, what happened to "The Wrath of Kahn" type stuff?
I personally hope broadcast and cable slide into obsolescence. I would love to buy only the Discovery channel, but I can't justify buying cable. So, I just don't buy anything at all. I actually just have rabbit ears. Anyway, the new media is still working itself out. It will give choice and I hope nobody is able to control any "channels". Despite its flaws the internet is a great maelstrom of opportunity for all those involved. Any game I produce will be marketed there, not on tv and not in the stores (at least not at first).
If people were to tune in to the internet they could watch great movies and shows. For instance:
www.geocities.com/wilka26/moviespoof.html
Torque Owner Gary "ChunkyKs" Briggs
I really enjoyed both Lost and Alias, both were well-done, but I realised that what I really wanted to see was the end; and the end wasn't coming. I watched the first few episodes of Lost, and realised that if any of the big questions were ever answered, there'd be even bigger questions opened to replace them. Sure enough, I watched the end episode of the first season and all you were left with was a big question of what's under the manhole cover; the entire culmination of the series, to answer what's going on on the island, was left open.
This has become a central theme to me, of things that turn me off. I loved Halo and Halo2, but Halo2 didn't end. And as such, I won't be buying Halo3. I utterly despise anything that's left open to make people purchase the next thing, to see what happens. [even if you can ascribe the Halo2 debacle to incompetence rather than greed].
What ever happened to each product standing proud on its own, irrespective of future or previous incarnations, with a beginning, a middle, /and an end/, and selling on its own merits? The first season of 24 was ideal; it had a clearly defined beginning and end, and a set length. The second season ended on a cliffhanger... so I didn't bother watching it ever again.
Nowadays my TV is a games console and DVD player conduit.
Beware that I used lots of words inappropriate for children, but I wrote almost exactly the same thing two and a half years ago [it's the second entry on that page] :-)
Gary (-;