Neverending game...
by Zen_Budha · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/31/2005 (7:25 pm) · 21 replies
Ok may sound a little strange but it's more of an idea for game distribution than an actual game.
The idea being instead of developing for a year or more to release a game and hope people will find it interesting enough to drop $30-50 bucks on to release 1 level at a time for a small fee.
For example instead of some demo you release level 1 of the game for free so people can try it out. Then you release the second level for $1 for download online. Each level should be another sequential piece of the story, and needs a very strong and intriguing storyline almost like a movie.
So say once a month or as fast as you can develop quality levels, cutscenes, etc. You continue releasing them for the low low price of $1.
What it does is allow people to play the game for as long as it holds their interest without a $40 investment and hoping they will enjoy it. Rather they want the next level not only for the quality of gameplay but also for the story itself. I think a multiplayer aspect is important as well so that after playing a 15 minute (just an example) level they can then go online and play online with the levels that they have.
Plus with each new level and as time goes on the game will be able to stay graphically and feature current. Thus you dont develope for a year to find out your way behind the times. Rather as you generate more revenue you can further expand your resources, and tool sets so that they only get better and better. Each level then can also be improved per user feedback over the previous.
Thus you have a game that generates revenue at a very early stage (if it's a good game) and from that point on only gets better. Plus additional levels will add more scenario's, and content for online play. Imagine if Battlefield 1942 (actually had a single player game with an enthralling story) and released a new single/multiplayer level once per month which added not only more storyline but also new vehicles, weapons, characters, etc. For online play.
Thus any major issue or something thats not an issue more of something everyone would like to see added to the game could be added the following month.
So it will only grow and get better with time allowing word of mouth to become a powerfull marketing tool.
The cinematics should be powerfull though and draw the player in. So each single player mission would almost be like a TV show episode.
Not to mention small downloads would mean less server load, and even people on dial-up would have no problems downloading each new episode. Versus trying to get someone to download a 200meg download on dial-up even if it's just one time it's a hassle. Thats like 10+ hours on dial-up and really doesn't even amount to a large game. Thats actually about demo size for most games now.
Anyway I've said enough I think I'm going to give it a shot, and see how it goes. I think if the story is good, and the game is fun it should be successfull. As is really true with any game but beyond the above listed benefits people who may be weary of "indie games" would be risking very little in giving it a try.
Plus it might even become fashionable lol. Everyone could be like "Hey man have you played the latest episode of *******? Man it's just twisted." or whatever. Ok maybe a little over the top but I think you get the idea.
Anyway good, bad whatcha think? I always enjoy comments.
The idea being instead of developing for a year or more to release a game and hope people will find it interesting enough to drop $30-50 bucks on to release 1 level at a time for a small fee.
For example instead of some demo you release level 1 of the game for free so people can try it out. Then you release the second level for $1 for download online. Each level should be another sequential piece of the story, and needs a very strong and intriguing storyline almost like a movie.
So say once a month or as fast as you can develop quality levels, cutscenes, etc. You continue releasing them for the low low price of $1.
What it does is allow people to play the game for as long as it holds their interest without a $40 investment and hoping they will enjoy it. Rather they want the next level not only for the quality of gameplay but also for the story itself. I think a multiplayer aspect is important as well so that after playing a 15 minute (just an example) level they can then go online and play online with the levels that they have.
Plus with each new level and as time goes on the game will be able to stay graphically and feature current. Thus you dont develope for a year to find out your way behind the times. Rather as you generate more revenue you can further expand your resources, and tool sets so that they only get better and better. Each level then can also be improved per user feedback over the previous.
Thus you have a game that generates revenue at a very early stage (if it's a good game) and from that point on only gets better. Plus additional levels will add more scenario's, and content for online play. Imagine if Battlefield 1942 (actually had a single player game with an enthralling story) and released a new single/multiplayer level once per month which added not only more storyline but also new vehicles, weapons, characters, etc. For online play.
Thus any major issue or something thats not an issue more of something everyone would like to see added to the game could be added the following month.
So it will only grow and get better with time allowing word of mouth to become a powerfull marketing tool.
The cinematics should be powerfull though and draw the player in. So each single player mission would almost be like a TV show episode.
Not to mention small downloads would mean less server load, and even people on dial-up would have no problems downloading each new episode. Versus trying to get someone to download a 200meg download on dial-up even if it's just one time it's a hassle. Thats like 10+ hours on dial-up and really doesn't even amount to a large game. Thats actually about demo size for most games now.
Anyway I've said enough I think I'm going to give it a shot, and see how it goes. I think if the story is good, and the game is fun it should be successfull. As is really true with any game but beyond the above listed benefits people who may be weary of "indie games" would be risking very little in giving it a try.
Plus it might even become fashionable lol. Everyone could be like "Hey man have you played the latest episode of *******? Man it's just twisted." or whatever. Ok maybe a little over the top but I think you get the idea.
Anyway good, bad whatcha think? I always enjoy comments.
About the author
#2
03/31/2005 (7:34 pm)
It's been done before, look at ID games in the early 90's with thier Commander Keen series of games.
#3
There are actually a couple of (non-TAP) projects out there that plan on a transactional model like this (where players pay a small fee for new content)--not only EQ's mini-expansions, but Guild Wars, which is going to attempt to provide full MMOG infrastructure (servers/bandwidth) with NO subscription fee. Their model is designed around your idea--provide a core set of content, and then have players purchase the additional content as they go.
Personally, I think there is a subtle flaw in the model, but I'm by no means an expert. That flaw being that once you commit to providing server architecture and bandwidth, those costs become recurring and persistent. Without a recurring revenue stream, you gain additional risk in that your new content must continue to attract purchases, or you go red in your cashflow, and quickly are unable to fund additional content--which means that you spiral down into net loss for the life of the project. As far as I am aware, there is no actual commercial product that uses this concept yet that can prove it as a successful or failure-ridden one, but the idea has it's supporters for sure!
03/31/2005 (7:39 pm)
Done well, it's actually a very good idea. It goes back to the concept of old school "serials" in the movie theatres, and again, executed well, I think it's a sales model people may be attracted to.There are actually a couple of (non-TAP) projects out there that plan on a transactional model like this (where players pay a small fee for new content)--not only EQ's mini-expansions, but Guild Wars, which is going to attempt to provide full MMOG infrastructure (servers/bandwidth) with NO subscription fee. Their model is designed around your idea--provide a core set of content, and then have players purchase the additional content as they go.
Personally, I think there is a subtle flaw in the model, but I'm by no means an expert. That flaw being that once you commit to providing server architecture and bandwidth, those costs become recurring and persistent. Without a recurring revenue stream, you gain additional risk in that your new content must continue to attract purchases, or you go red in your cashflow, and quickly are unable to fund additional content--which means that you spiral down into net loss for the life of the project. As far as I am aware, there is no actual commercial product that uses this concept yet that can prove it as a successful or failure-ridden one, but the idea has it's supporters for sure!
#4
Rather with for example a standard kind of multiplayer where say 40 people duke it out with 40 others you have no server requirments as people/clans/etc can simply start their own servers using their own machine or a clan could rent their own server.
Thus the only recurring cost is upkeeping your server to support the download bandwidth requirements. Plus you have lots of reccuring revenue each month. Let's say you get 10,000 downloads of the first free episode, and 100 of those pay $1 for the second episode. As more people begin playing online, and if popularity grows you'll get another $1 next month from those same 100 people + say 25 more people decide they want to play too you'll get $2 from them for the first 3 episodes.
So it's not a get rich quick scheme where top notch marketing and eye candy is going to get people to drop $50 day 1 for the game. The game has to stand on it's own in order to survive. If it stinks it dies, if not it only grows.
Plus it's not about milking gamers either. I mean lets say it was up to episode 50 (a bunch). That's $49 for 50 very long levels, 50 multiplayer maps, a ton of content, and by that time a very well refinded game.
I guess I'd call it a start small end big kind of idea. Or rather start small and only grow longer and longer. Since the game will stay up to speed (as best an indie can).
So I definitely wouldn't consider this good plan for an MMORPG. I can't see an huge open world of adventurers where whoever buys the most content has the edge being successfull. I could be very wrong just my 2 cents.
03/31/2005 (7:53 pm)
Well I don't see it working for an MMO style of game because of the huge support, and server requirements to keep a game like that afloat.Rather with for example a standard kind of multiplayer where say 40 people duke it out with 40 others you have no server requirments as people/clans/etc can simply start their own servers using their own machine or a clan could rent their own server.
Thus the only recurring cost is upkeeping your server to support the download bandwidth requirements. Plus you have lots of reccuring revenue each month. Let's say you get 10,000 downloads of the first free episode, and 100 of those pay $1 for the second episode. As more people begin playing online, and if popularity grows you'll get another $1 next month from those same 100 people + say 25 more people decide they want to play too you'll get $2 from them for the first 3 episodes.
So it's not a get rich quick scheme where top notch marketing and eye candy is going to get people to drop $50 day 1 for the game. The game has to stand on it's own in order to survive. If it stinks it dies, if not it only grows.
Plus it's not about milking gamers either. I mean lets say it was up to episode 50 (a bunch). That's $49 for 50 very long levels, 50 multiplayer maps, a ton of content, and by that time a very well refinded game.
I guess I'd call it a start small end big kind of idea. Or rather start small and only grow longer and longer. Since the game will stay up to speed (as best an indie can).
So I definitely wouldn't consider this good plan for an MMORPG. I can't see an huge open world of adventurers where whoever buys the most content has the edge being successfull. I could be very wrong just my 2 cents.
#5
03/31/2005 (7:55 pm)
I personally agree with you--I don't think Guild War's revenue model is going to be successful in the long term--but I have nothing to base that on, and there seem to be quite a few people (both investors and players) that are comfortable with it. 
#6
03/31/2005 (8:44 pm)
Origin was going to do this with Knights of Legend back in the day, but never got past the first episode. I loved that game. Perhaps with the online market, this system could work. It definitely didn't in the traditional market.
#7
IMHO, the only way the Guild War model might perform (financially) well, if they make their extra content completely non-linear, i.e. each add-on "pack", for lack of better word, is self contained and independent from the previous/future ones. This way, if I join 6 months later than my other friends, I can just buy the pack they are currently playing, and play right in, with no need to catch up (game wise). One of my favorite authors is Arthur C. Doyle exactly for this reason. You can pick up a story about Sherlock Holmes right out of the middle of the book (or from the very end of it), and enjoy it to the fulllest, with no prior knowledge of his accomplishments.
I know, logical separation of pieces of content might not really work for a game, but I think only this model can bring in the new players on a constant basis.
04/01/2005 (10:40 am)
Several existing MMOG tried a similar model: periodic additional content release (in form of new quests, adventures, places, story twists, etc) to keep the players from dropping their membership. The results were mixed, from what I could understand. First, it is quite difficult to maintain a strict schedule for new content release (monthly, by-weekly, whatever). Second, this model does not support new revenues, it just extends the life of existing ones. Finally, only 10-15% of the player population (i.e. hard core gamers) play fast enough (playing 20+ hours/week) to complete current scenarios/missions, and then to wait until next release. Most of the players were 1-2 content packs back in their play.IMHO, the only way the Guild War model might perform (financially) well, if they make their extra content completely non-linear, i.e. each add-on "pack", for lack of better word, is self contained and independent from the previous/future ones. This way, if I join 6 months later than my other friends, I can just buy the pack they are currently playing, and play right in, with no need to catch up (game wise). One of my favorite authors is Arthur C. Doyle exactly for this reason. You can pick up a story about Sherlock Holmes right out of the middle of the book (or from the very end of it), and enjoy it to the fulllest, with no prior knowledge of his accomplishments.
I know, logical separation of pieces of content might not really work for a game, but I think only this model can bring in the new players on a constant basis.
#8
Plus it might be a better idea to release say the first 5 maps for $5, or at least have the first five packs ready for purchase when the first level is released free, just to give the players some variety. No one is going to play a game with one mission for a month while you make the next mission.
Would you let players choose which maps they wanted, or enforce going through the packs in order (1,2,3,4 etc.). The first option sounds better (and if your packs are good, most people will buy them all anyway), but could create compatibility issues, because people can't just download maps from each other as most online games do for maps people dont have. I really like the idea, but it seems like you have to have a really good guarantee that people will buy the packs based on the first few levels, because otherwise you get no money at all, not even from the people who might try your average $20 game that is the whole set.
04/02/2005 (1:27 am)
In order to keep people buying all the new maps you are producing, you will have to stop people from being able to produce maps of their own and making new content, which most games allow you to do these days. This seems like a bit of a turn off immediately.Plus it might be a better idea to release say the first 5 maps for $5, or at least have the first five packs ready for purchase when the first level is released free, just to give the players some variety. No one is going to play a game with one mission for a month while you make the next mission.
Would you let players choose which maps they wanted, or enforce going through the packs in order (1,2,3,4 etc.). The first option sounds better (and if your packs are good, most people will buy them all anyway), but could create compatibility issues, because people can't just download maps from each other as most online games do for maps people dont have. I really like the idea, but it seems like you have to have a really good guarantee that people will buy the packs based on the first few levels, because otherwise you get no money at all, not even from the people who might try your average $20 game that is the whole set.
#9
I agree with the above that you may want to offer the levels in packs. Mainly so you get a little bit more money up front. You know it won't take long before all of the downloaded levels are being passed around on the internet illegaly, so having packs with a little higher cost could allow you to recap some money up front to help cover lost sales.
The levels will need a way to integrate into the players licensed game to help make pirating more difficult (but some will always find a way around it). Although you can't stop it completely, you'll want to make it difficult for someone to just grab the first level for free (or cheap) and never buy another due to the illegal freely distributed versions.
I really like the concept though. It reminds of when I used to run a games BBS and have different membership levels for access to the various game versions. That was some fun times.
I'd really love to see more Indie distribution kicking in.
04/10/2005 (9:08 am)
I like the idea. I really don't like the normal retail distribution with outrageous boxed game prices we see these days. Especially when most of the retail price never gets to the developers.I agree with the above that you may want to offer the levels in packs. Mainly so you get a little bit more money up front. You know it won't take long before all of the downloaded levels are being passed around on the internet illegaly, so having packs with a little higher cost could allow you to recap some money up front to help cover lost sales.
The levels will need a way to integrate into the players licensed game to help make pirating more difficult (but some will always find a way around it). Although you can't stop it completely, you'll want to make it difficult for someone to just grab the first level for free (or cheap) and never buy another due to the illegal freely distributed versions.
I really like the concept though. It reminds of when I used to run a games BBS and have different membership levels for access to the various game versions. That was some fun times.
I'd really love to see more Indie distribution kicking in.
#10
I don't think it really worked.
04/10/2005 (9:31 am)
This is exactly what has been done with Arabian Night some years back. Don't remember who did this game (Ubisoft?). You were able to buy the game level by level on the internet. I don't think it really worked.
#11
I think this will not only help to keep a game fresh and interesting, but allow it to grow beyond measure as well!
04/10/2005 (9:49 am)
I'm planning something along these lines mainly for a MMORPG, but with some differences. Generally, the game will have a 'start-up' package of sorts, consisting of the main chunk of the game. Some of these will have extras as part of the package for a slight rise in cost. Otherwise, additional elements, based on what you wish to add to your game package, can be downloaded and added anytime after the initial game. Additions may include extra skin packs, weapon/item packs, customization/editor tools, and maybe even a DM tool to allow players to run their own campaigns with friends. There's plenty of room for other optional additions as well.I think this will not only help to keep a game fresh and interesting, but allow it to grow beyond measure as well!
#12
04/10/2005 (3:10 pm)
There's one overlooked problem of financial nature in this model. Such micropayments will not yield you any real income unless players send you a dollar bill in envelope - payment processing fees will eat all your revenue away. I doubt you'd get fifty cents out of a dollar, in fact, i think that with one buck approach you'd lose money on each sale, since as far as i know, payment processors have a fixed minimal fee on each transaction and it could linger somewhere around buck.
#13
04/11/2005 (3:52 am)
No way is a transaction fee that high unless that is a paypal deal. Even still it would be extremely high even for paypal as credit cards charge about 6% per transaction. Others have no transaction percentage but you have to pay to be able to accept them.
#14
Hell, even ATM's are charging up to $4 US access fees (depending on who's ATM) to access your own money...
04/11/2005 (4:49 am)
He's right actually, (unless things have changed drastically in the recent past)--in fact, many smaller vendors (and I mean stores and such) refuse credit card payments on purchases under a certain small amount ($5 US in many cases) because of fixed cost merchant transaction fees related to use of credit cards.Hell, even ATM's are charging up to $4 US access fees (depending on who's ATM) to access your own money...
#15
04/11/2005 (3:28 pm)
You could make an MMORPG and then add missions along with the ability to fight other players. Maybe have misions where you go after certain players.
#16
04/11/2005 (8:05 pm)
One solution would be to charge $2 per level (or whatever kept you in profit) if bought individually, but provide a "price break" if several levels were purchased in one order.
#17
I'd say you were going to have problems.
Also all credit cards charge a small fixed amount so that no matter how small the sale is they will earn 15 cents + around 3% and this is only if you are processing the credit cards yourself. If you have another authorized secure e-commerce company like verisign process your credit cards etc,. . then you'll pay another few percent.
04/11/2005 (8:52 pm)
You'll get killed by chargebacks. Just one chargeback that is found in the favor of the purchaser (and this is who the credit cards try to protect, its not you) and you'll have to pay $20 for the investigation etc,. . . Not worth it if you're only getting $1/sale.I'd say you were going to have problems.
Also all credit cards charge a small fixed amount so that no matter how small the sale is they will earn 15 cents + around 3% and this is only if you are processing the credit cards yourself. If you have another authorized secure e-commerce company like verisign process your credit cards etc,. . then you'll pay another few percent.
#18
04/11/2005 (8:55 pm)
But I do like the idea though. If you know the problems then you can avoid them. Perhaps a monthly payment plan might work. $1/week if you sign up for a year and you also get the bonus gift package if you sign up now!
#19
Of course that might not work at all though as I didn't think of it before but each downloaded level would need some form of copy protection. Otherwise one guy could download a level, and then e-mail it to all of his buddies.
04/13/2005 (1:53 am)
Or I could just have a simple order form they could fill out, and put in an invelope with $3 or however many levels they want or $5 for the first 5 etc. Then when I get the order, and money I could simply e-mail them a password to access the downloads.Of course that might not work at all though as I didn't think of it before but each downloaded level would need some form of copy protection. Otherwise one guy could download a level, and then e-mail it to all of his buddies.
#20
Developers have tried this before, and thinking about doing it as we speak, and their model only really differs from yours in terms of scale...and money.
For now, this would be a great indie model. Make your five startup levels, put it on your own website (or this one?) slowly market it out and sell it for cheap and see how big of a base you can build (and maybe acquire help on the way or make it a huge collaborative project) and when its big enough, push it.
Hollywood have a similar model with "pilot" tv series, they spend millions on a couple shows, see how people respond, and decide to push or trash the idea.
You just need to worry about fundings, how much will you risk to see if this plan works :)
04/13/2005 (11:13 pm)
I think it's a great idea, and if you can settle all your obstacles, you have a winning formula.Developers have tried this before, and thinking about doing it as we speak, and their model only really differs from yours in terms of scale...and money.
For now, this would be a great indie model. Make your five startup levels, put it on your own website (or this one?) slowly market it out and sell it for cheap and see how big of a base you can build (and maybe acquire help on the way or make it a huge collaborative project) and when its big enough, push it.
Hollywood have a similar model with "pilot" tv series, they spend millions on a couple shows, see how people respond, and decide to push or trash the idea.
You just need to worry about fundings, how much will you risk to see if this plan works :)
Ben