Plan for Phil Carlisle
by Phil Carlisle · 12/13/2005 (10:25 am) · 25 comments
For those of you that dont know, one of my current projects is a World War Two themed Dogfighting game called Air Ace.
Air Ace is a reasonably large scale project which is based around two key technologies, the TSE shader engine (using Atlas terrain) and the Tango physics engine. These two factors are what lies at the heart of what is essentially quite a simple multiplayer dogfighting game.
Now I *know* fundamentally that Air Ace is going to be a great addictive game, based on the feedback and support from the great people of the Air Attack community (which is a game which predates Air Ace and from which we draw great inspiration for design elements).
So the big question on my mind, given that the execution of the game goes to plan, which is has to date. Is how to actually pay for and support the project.
The problem is that essentially, Air Ace is a very focussed niche kind of game. Which has its good and its bad points. On the good side, is that I very clearly know what game it is intended to end up as. The design is easy, the execution is relatively straightforward and the marketing within the niche should be reasonably easy to do.
The problem comes when I consider that 1) The niche we are serving might not be enough to support the game long-term 2) The niche might be shrinking or being fragmented 3) There is by definition a cap on the number of people within the niche to market to.
This begs the question, are there any other methods of releasing the game than the traditional box-product or paid-for-download that would make more sense?
Given that the long-term cost of hosting servers is a continual one, actually charging a one-time fee is a bad call. LORE has had some good support from its relatively few users, in terms of lorecon and such. But it has suffered in that the costs of keeping the game alive and playing has drained a lot of funds from the developers.
So to my mind, the recurring costs of keeping the product alive must be met by the players of the game somehow. So what possible models could we look at for funding?
1) Box product style one time payments
2) Recurring "subscription" based payments
3) One time fee plus additional funds for additional features and add-ons
4) An alternative method of funding altogether (in game advertising?)
5) An altogether different alternative
Now the box product model is out of the window realistically, for the reasons I already mentioned.
The subscription model is what the current market leaders such as Fighter Ace do, which is a sustainable model as long as the number of active subscriptions is greater than the costs of running servers and additional developments.
The one time fee plus additional add-ons has still the plus of getting some initial funds for the first play of the game, but then it becomes more speculative wether players pay for additional content. Plus players have certain mental expectations when they pay for products which might make charging for smaller feature additions a tough sell.
In game advertising offers an interesting alternative. However with the reduced funds being paid for online advertising in general and for most gaming sites, maybe this model isnt a good way of heading.
Then there is an altogether more radical approach. This is something I've been mulling over and trying to get a clear mental picture of. What if the game were given away for free? What if the revenue were generated via some other means? Would it be possible to figure out another method of generating revenue from the game? How about giving the client away for free, then charging people a minute amount to run an "official game server". That way, the people who host the game can pay a small amount in a recurring payment, but perhaps incorporate some kind of internal advertising model per-server which allows the hosts to advertise whatever products they like.
In essense, I'm saying shift the costs of hosting onto another organisation (one with more money and position for those kinds of things), but one that produces a minimal income stream to us as the developers. They return thier costs of hosting and paying for the server software by either charging players, or by using advertising within the game.
Another possible outfield sort of idea, is to simply make the game donation based. Place the onus on the players to keep the costs covered otherwise the thing dies. Doesnt seem like a nice prospect, allowing the game to die if a bunch of players cant get themselves organised to pay for it.
In the end, the speculative nature of the game means that it might even be worth trying out different methods of funding in order to secure its longer-term survival and future development.
I'd be happy to hear of any alternative funding models, especially if anyone has figures to support a given method. As it is, the actual delivery and update model of the game is still anyone's guess as we focus on getting the title shipped first and worry about the details later.
Its a good dilemma to have.
Air Ace is a reasonably large scale project which is based around two key technologies, the TSE shader engine (using Atlas terrain) and the Tango physics engine. These two factors are what lies at the heart of what is essentially quite a simple multiplayer dogfighting game.
Now I *know* fundamentally that Air Ace is going to be a great addictive game, based on the feedback and support from the great people of the Air Attack community (which is a game which predates Air Ace and from which we draw great inspiration for design elements).
So the big question on my mind, given that the execution of the game goes to plan, which is has to date. Is how to actually pay for and support the project.
The problem is that essentially, Air Ace is a very focussed niche kind of game. Which has its good and its bad points. On the good side, is that I very clearly know what game it is intended to end up as. The design is easy, the execution is relatively straightforward and the marketing within the niche should be reasonably easy to do.
The problem comes when I consider that 1) The niche we are serving might not be enough to support the game long-term 2) The niche might be shrinking or being fragmented 3) There is by definition a cap on the number of people within the niche to market to.
This begs the question, are there any other methods of releasing the game than the traditional box-product or paid-for-download that would make more sense?
Given that the long-term cost of hosting servers is a continual one, actually charging a one-time fee is a bad call. LORE has had some good support from its relatively few users, in terms of lorecon and such. But it has suffered in that the costs of keeping the game alive and playing has drained a lot of funds from the developers.
So to my mind, the recurring costs of keeping the product alive must be met by the players of the game somehow. So what possible models could we look at for funding?
1) Box product style one time payments
2) Recurring "subscription" based payments
3) One time fee plus additional funds for additional features and add-ons
4) An alternative method of funding altogether (in game advertising?)
5) An altogether different alternative
Now the box product model is out of the window realistically, for the reasons I already mentioned.
The subscription model is what the current market leaders such as Fighter Ace do, which is a sustainable model as long as the number of active subscriptions is greater than the costs of running servers and additional developments.
The one time fee plus additional add-ons has still the plus of getting some initial funds for the first play of the game, but then it becomes more speculative wether players pay for additional content. Plus players have certain mental expectations when they pay for products which might make charging for smaller feature additions a tough sell.
In game advertising offers an interesting alternative. However with the reduced funds being paid for online advertising in general and for most gaming sites, maybe this model isnt a good way of heading.
Then there is an altogether more radical approach. This is something I've been mulling over and trying to get a clear mental picture of. What if the game were given away for free? What if the revenue were generated via some other means? Would it be possible to figure out another method of generating revenue from the game? How about giving the client away for free, then charging people a minute amount to run an "official game server". That way, the people who host the game can pay a small amount in a recurring payment, but perhaps incorporate some kind of internal advertising model per-server which allows the hosts to advertise whatever products they like.
In essense, I'm saying shift the costs of hosting onto another organisation (one with more money and position for those kinds of things), but one that produces a minimal income stream to us as the developers. They return thier costs of hosting and paying for the server software by either charging players, or by using advertising within the game.
Another possible outfield sort of idea, is to simply make the game donation based. Place the onus on the players to keep the costs covered otherwise the thing dies. Doesnt seem like a nice prospect, allowing the game to die if a bunch of players cant get themselves organised to pay for it.
In the end, the speculative nature of the game means that it might even be worth trying out different methods of funding in order to secure its longer-term survival and future development.
I'd be happy to hear of any alternative funding models, especially if anyone has figures to support a given method. As it is, the actual delivery and update model of the game is still anyone's guess as we focus on getting the title shipped first and worry about the details later.
Its a good dilemma to have.
About the author
#22
12/14/2005 (7:54 am)
I like what Barry "Yossarian" Whitley suggested about giving the players the ability to form squadrons. Microsoft did the research about why the Asian gaming market is so profitable and the answer they came up with is community. Give the player a why to build a community to become a part of a charge them to do it. I think this would be a great alternative to fund the game. I wouldn't dismiss in game advertising either as long as the advertising fits within the game, it is just another form of income (it works for TV and radio). 
#23
This of course assumes you have a method for delivering updated decals; also assuming its worth time/effort in checking decals were not offensive, fit the game theme etc It might be that in this example the time/effort just isn't worth it unless the "micropayment" isn't so micro ;P
Server wise, letting your user base run their own servers would remove the cost/maintainance from yourself and again not put off those who would see extra payments as a major turn off. However, there would be nothing stopping you having additional official servers that require payments in order to run. These servers would of course need something special to them to attract players and also something to make it worth a company/group paying to run a server.
Allowing limited in-game advertising might interest enough companies into setting up and running servers. You'd need to decide whether you wanted control over the ads though.
As for getting the players to use official servers, you'd need to offer something extra on these servers. Perhaps extra game modes? Or increased max players? Or making them ranked ala BF2. Where your kills are logged and tallied on a master "Air Ace" leader board.
Competitions/cups/tournements and prizes could be all possible if you can be certain you have secured non-hackable servers, which would be possible if you only allowed "paid/offical" servers to participate. Think BF2, ranked servers are rented, but you could always run your own unranked server. Best of both worlds.
Finished as the ACE for this month/quater/whatever then you get a prize, which could be almost zero cost to yourself if its as simple as including a new custom skin for that player with the next patch etc.
I think there are many different ways to build your player base and retain it. But unless you are offering something like an online progressive war where weekly tournys occur between axis/allies and a map is updated to say which side is winning, then a flat fee model seems more appealing. If you were to offer something along those lines though (again ranked servers could add to that - but then you need to develop that side of the game :P) then monthly payments might work.
Personally though, a flat fee to buy the game and run my own server is what I'd be looking for. The fact that various groups paid extra to run ranked servers or get special content added such as new plane skins wouldn't put me off, so long as you don't sell faster planes to those that can afford it etc.
Lots of ideas in this .plan, it will interesting to see which way you go and whether any of them work for you.
12/14/2005 (12:59 pm)
Personally I'd be pretty much put off getting any game that wasn't a flat initial payment (MMORPG's excluded). However, I wouldn't object to micropayments so long as they didn't make the game unfair to those who opted not to buy anything extra. For example, paying x amount to have your custom logo included in the next patch would be good, yet paying to get a faster plane or faster firing guns would put me straight off.This of course assumes you have a method for delivering updated decals; also assuming its worth time/effort in checking decals were not offensive, fit the game theme etc It might be that in this example the time/effort just isn't worth it unless the "micropayment" isn't so micro ;P
Server wise, letting your user base run their own servers would remove the cost/maintainance from yourself and again not put off those who would see extra payments as a major turn off. However, there would be nothing stopping you having additional official servers that require payments in order to run. These servers would of course need something special to them to attract players and also something to make it worth a company/group paying to run a server.
Allowing limited in-game advertising might interest enough companies into setting up and running servers. You'd need to decide whether you wanted control over the ads though.
As for getting the players to use official servers, you'd need to offer something extra on these servers. Perhaps extra game modes? Or increased max players? Or making them ranked ala BF2. Where your kills are logged and tallied on a master "Air Ace" leader board.
Competitions/cups/tournements and prizes could be all possible if you can be certain you have secured non-hackable servers, which would be possible if you only allowed "paid/offical" servers to participate. Think BF2, ranked servers are rented, but you could always run your own unranked server. Best of both worlds.
Finished as the ACE for this month/quater/whatever then you get a prize, which could be almost zero cost to yourself if its as simple as including a new custom skin for that player with the next patch etc.
I think there are many different ways to build your player base and retain it. But unless you are offering something like an online progressive war where weekly tournys occur between axis/allies and a map is updated to say which side is winning, then a flat fee model seems more appealing. If you were to offer something along those lines though (again ranked servers could add to that - but then you need to develop that side of the game :P) then monthly payments might work.
Personally though, a flat fee to buy the game and run my own server is what I'd be looking for. The fact that various groups paid extra to run ranked servers or get special content added such as new plane skins wouldn't put me off, so long as you don't sell faster planes to those that can afford it etc.
Lots of ideas in this .plan, it will interesting to see which way you go and whether any of them work for you.
#24
The community aspect of the game is clearly very much at the forefront of my mind. As is the competative element (Air *ACE* because you can gain rank of ace and achieve some notoriety in that way).
There are clearly a bunch of options, but without hard facts and figures its hard to judge which way is good candidate. One thing I am really thinking is that the standard 20 dollar ESD launch simply wont work because of the "not enough others to play against" factor.
I'll go and re-read these great comments and try and post a plan with some thoughts about the various options.
Ta!
Phil.
12/14/2005 (2:28 pm)
Thanks for the great feedback guys! really great comments.The community aspect of the game is clearly very much at the forefront of my mind. As is the competative element (Air *ACE* because you can gain rank of ace and achieve some notoriety in that way).
There are clearly a bunch of options, but without hard facts and figures its hard to judge which way is good candidate. One thing I am really thinking is that the standard 20 dollar ESD launch simply wont work because of the "not enough others to play against" factor.
I'll go and re-read these great comments and try and post a plan with some thoughts about the various options.
Ta!
Phil.
#25
12/22/2005 (12:34 am)
A demo with no time-limit and only one plane and one or two maps available that is capable of playing on the retail servers might get more people playing right away. A public beta would also get more people started before launch. No matter what though, I know I'm going to buy a copy of Air Ace =) 
Torque Owner Greg Ellwood
Air Ace strikes me as perfectly suited to Live Arcade and it would also bring a ton of benefits to the game such as established community, advertising, achievements, leaderboards, voice chat, standard control method, everyone has the same spec machine etc.
There is also the Live Marketplace where you can sell themes, gamerpics, new content etc.
I've no idea how difficult it is or how much it costs to get a game onto Live Arcade but GG already have Marble Blast Ultra on there and I believe that is also using TSE?
Since getting my 360 I've spent as much time playing Live Arcade titles as I have playing the new games. I know I'd definitely pick this up if it was on there too :)
-Greg.