Yak quoted in Escapist article- Microsoft cert is crap

[ThetaReactor]

Article regarding digital distribution and its role in giving the little guys a chance:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... helf-Death

[Darkflame]

Nice artical

Why? Because the contemporary middleman is slowly but surely slipping into irrelevance.

absofuckinlutely.

Long term I dont see publishers so much as "investors".

The question in my mind is more how long will the general popular cling to their need for materilistic goods. The psycological need for a physical product.
I always thought purhapes this could be sovled by some sort of nicely presented collectable certificate scheme. With a unique code garentying you the rights to redownload said media-item whenever you like.

[hyphz]

Nice artical

Why? Because the contemporary middleman is slowly but surely slipping into irrelevance.

absofuckinlutely.

It won't happen so much, as long as people depend on advertising to tell them what to buy. Eyeballs are expensive and only get more so.

[Acronym]

Nice artical

Why? Because the contemporary middleman is slowly but surely slipping into irrelevance.

absofuckinlutely.

It won't happen so much, as long as people depend on advertising to tell them what to buy. Eyeballs are expensive and only get more so.

But it's not like there aren't examples of an alternative to the current software industry. Like the modern Hollywood studio model, say, rather than the current tied-house thing? Everyone'll be a freelancer, pulled in a project at a time. The studios - say, the Weinstein Company - are there as financiers first and foremost. It'd scare the hell out of me to work like that, but it makes a lot of sense for all the creative industries...

[Flabio]

It doesn't really work that way for coders. Even the Hollywood places tend to keep permanent coders (pixar, for example).

[Darkflame]

Pixar isnt a publisher

There will still be perminate games studios, but there wont be big-controlling enitys determaining what goes onto the "shelfs".

Nice artical

Why? Because the contemporary middleman is slowly but surely slipping into irrelevance.

absofuckinlutely.

It won't happen so much, as long as people depend on advertising to tell them what to buy. Eyeballs are expensive and only get more so.

But why do you need publishers to do that?

When the need to physicaly reproduce evaporates, the games creators are more free to choose their own path.
Maybe pay an advertising firm, maybe do it themselfs, maybe just go on word of mouth. (lots of big things online work exactly that way...who ever saw an advert for google?)
I would hope the various DD systems that top up will have inbuilt ratings systems (like newgrounds), allowing the cream to float nicely on the waters above the piles of shit.

Theres certainly no worrys about shelf-space anymore, or perswadeing stores to stock your game.

Advertising will still play its part, but it wont be tied to publishers.
Investment, Premotion, and Distribution will be all seperate enitys, imo.

Maybe some publishers will still handel all 3, but it will be the developers choice.

[Flabio]

There will still be perminate games studios, but there wont be big-controlling enitys determaining what goes onto the "shelfs".

I'd really like to think that might happen. But it's not going to any time soon. It just costs too much money to write games at the moment for an indie to pick up the whole tab on their own.

But why do you need publishers to do that?

Because, for the moment at least, advertising is stupidly expensive. And if you don't advertise, you don't sell.

The current model perpetuates because it's currently the only way to actually make a game and make any money off it (this is money in the 'sustain a team of 40 developers' range, not 'keep a couple of guys working out of their attic' range).

And there's always going to be a need for these huge teams. Small developers can do fantastic games, there's no denying that. But no small team is going to be able to do something like Gears, or Final Fantasy 12 on their own. And while you could argue the market doesn't need this huge games, it'd be like removing the summer blockbuster from Hollywood's output. Deliberately removing some aspects of the art form is bad, whether you actually like those aspects yourself of not.

[Darkflame]

you seem to have answered something I didnt quite say.
I was pointing out you dont need a publisher to advertise, not that you didnt need advertisment or big teams.

There will still be perminate games studios, but there wont be big-controlling enitys determaining what goes onto the "shelfs".

I'd really like to think that might happen. But it's not going to any time soon. It just costs too much money to write games at the moment for an indie to pick up the whole tab on their own.

I'm sure in time, the most successfull games studios will be able to self-fiance. (at least, ones that dont blow their money)
But for the vaste majority investment is certainly still needed, at least, to get started.

My point was not the lack of need for money, but that it didnt have to come from a publisher. We might get speculative game investors, other games firms, or even some sort of "Game Futures" share-system.
Or, of course banks, loans ect.
Just like any buisness theres ways to getmoney started, and risks and cons to all of them. But I dont see that as a bad thing. Survival of the fittest and all that. People that make the games that make the most money will always do best.
I just dont think we will be having such harsh rules about the process anymore. Money could be made at the lower end of the scale much more easily.

[gilesgoat]

I am not completely convinced about what the article says.

Certainly,theoretically that should be the future, practically I think it's
going to take quite some time and even after that I think then you'll
find yourself into some other problems some of which I think we are
already into now.

Think at the internet .. so big so practical .. in theory you can find
almost anything in there .. BUT .. you have to FIND it .. or be well aware
and put in the direction of what you are looking for "because it's so big
that anyone/anything can be lost in there".

The experience seems to demonstrate that all this is still young and
as they say it has some advantages AND some disvantages as well.

Yes you someway simplified and made more easely affordable ( for
the developer first ) some distribution form BUT I think you still need
"lot more of else" to actively and profitabily promote what you are trying to sell.

"A, theoretically, good distribution media is not sufficient", the fact a
thing is "available somewhere in some way" ( supposely to be easely
accessible ) it's not sufficient, people ( as much as possible ) has to KNOW
that the thing is there, has to know that it can be got from there has to
know how to get it from there and see/perceive real benefits in getting it from there and has to know very well who you are and what you do.

Now as a GEEK you may think "all that is obivious" but look at "MR X random of the street" and
what he/she is/was doing up to yesterday.

Moral of the story .. you need to blow lot of trumpets and things to make
people understand who you are, what you do and why they should ever
bother to go somewhere X to get what you are doing.

That's still problem number one, promotion.

Plus, the services themselves has to be very well promoted if "mr X of
the road" has NO FUCKING CLUE about what XBLA is and what it can do
for him/her .. then well .. there's *LOT* of work that NEEDS to be done yet ..

[swith]

mr X of the road" has NO FUCKING CLUE about what XBLA is and what it can do for him/her

Unfortunately, I think this is definitely the case. All my non-geek friends who have a 360 play Gears of War, PGR and Halo 3. Precious little else. They play these games often, and have no qualms with going on LIVE to play them, but when it comes to XBLA, they don't bother because the general opinion is that it's just full of 'shitty older game remakes'.

I am unaware of any attempt by Microsoft to increase the profile of this market to anyone other than those who live on the internets.

[Yak]

Well MS at least now do an "Arcade Pack" x360 so I guess they are trying to raise the profile a bit.

[Kamineko]

That means they're going to fill up the 360 with fruit machines.

[swith]

Oh yeah, that's true. Hopefully it'll have stuff in the box expounding the merits of the service too.

[gilesgoat]

mr X of the road" has NO FUCKING CLUE about what XBLA is and what it can do for him/her

Unfortunately, I think this is definitely the case. All my non-geek friends who have a 360 play Gears of War, PGR and Halo 3. Precious little else. They play these games often, and have no qualms with going on LIVE to play them, but when it comes to XBLA, they don't bother because the general opinion is that it's just full of 'shitty older game remakes'.

I am unaware of any attempt by Microsoft to increase the profile of this market to anyone other than those who live on the internets.

Precisely .. this is *EXACTLY* the point, and it's echoed in many other
places and countries as well.

If MS is not going to make some "serious moves" about all this and also
try a bit to change the profile of XBLA I can't see it doing so well as it
could potentially be doing, I think they need to put some "proper men in proper places".

An "XBLA package" can be an idea BUT IMHO is still NOT enough ..
"Why should I care of a pack if I don't have an idea about what's going on there ?"

TV adverts .. more adverts on magazines .. man you have to be like those
"remortgages and loans ad" .. you really have to NAIL stuff into people's mind

[RiK]

Well MS at least now do an "Arcade Pack" x360 so I guess they are trying to raise the profile a bit.

Trouble is, the Xbox Arcade is the one without a HD which seems totally arse-backwards given that the whole point ot XBLA is downloadable games.

I wonder how many people are going to get caught out by the fact they think they can get loads of cheap downloads and only later realise they are going to get royally stuffed to buy a HDD later?