The Coin Return Foundational Fundraiser is here! Please donate!
[PATV] Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 5, Ep. 6: Digital Rentals and the Online
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
This week, we discuss two alternate monetization methods that could work for certain games.
Come discuss this topic in the forums!
Dog on
0
Posts
Obviously, the money can be spent in advance of one's death, and saved for later.
Hopefully this enriches the gaming world.
Cheers.
Hec.
The one problem with that idea in the MMO world is that it would fundamentally alter PVP. Imagine you're a level 15, and you're going about your business when a level 30 decides to gank you, and you die. Then you have to either, spend 25c or lose your gear. Not only that, a lot of the internet trolls would be far to fond of the idea of making people lose money by killing them. I'd see it becoming a game, where people would compete daily to see how much they made other people spend in lives. The game would either have to remove PVP/PK system, or simply modify your decision.
Another thing is, how much would it suck to lose the gear you've worked so hard to get? How much would it suck to have to pay the developer to keep the gear you just earned. This is one of the problems with EVE online, though admittedly its also part of why it is so great. If you go with this system, you have to make sure your entire game is as gureling and unforgiving, and open as EVE is, or it simply wont work. People will hate the developer for it, and thus the game and you will end up with a flop. So I don't imagine it will ever become a main stream concept. But if another game like EVE shows up, then maybe this would be a cool thing for them to do. I'd give it a shot.
I have to agree with Zama. A digital arcade system implemented in an MMO in that would lead to a horrible gaming experience. I, for one, would never buy into that system in the first place.
Personally, I already view MMOs as gyms. They provide a facility (i.e. a server) and equipment (i.e. gaming software) for me to use on a regular basis. That's why I don't mind paying a regular monthly fee.
As for the digital arcade model - unless I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really trusted the game makers, publisher, distributor, and everyone else connected with the game, there's no way I'd become a regular customer, for exactly the same reason as mentioned in today's video. If it was easy for people to cheat with physical arcade machines, think how much easier it'd be with software. Hell, you'd be paying programmers to hack your computer.
I might pay 25 cents to play a demo, but that's about it.
Runescape had a death system where when you died, you dropped EVERYTHING except your 3 most valuable items (sometimes 0, 1 or 4 depending on conditions). It encouraged people to carry around the bare minimum which was lame because people were afraid more than having fun. I did die when doing a treasure hunt (you needed loads of strange items to help you), I lost so much. I never logged in ever again.
I have a really hard time imagining a game I'd want to pay money for for just one life. there's the reason I haven't used an actual arcade machine for decades I guess. I'd be more in favour of (true!) episodic content. preferably with a scaling price system. maybe even make episode 1 free.
I'd also be in favour of a rental system for certain types of games. I know from experience there's quite a few games I buy but only play a short while anyway.
also, what about the option of paying a monthly subscription to get to play an entire library of games? combined with onlive, I'd be interested. if you spend (on average) 30 bucks a month on steam games anyway a 15 dollar monthly subscription doesn't sound that bad. publishers whos games get played a lot would then get a larger percentage of the revenue.
Don't bust SWTOR's balls EA gave it up as a lost cause months after release, put all the advertising budget into ME3, then shafted more than 50% of the world by limiting the release and then having the regional releases as non events.
Digital Rentals sounds like a good system, particularly since my biggest issue with GameFly is how long it takes them to ship games. If they could ship and receive games as fast as Netflix, it would totally be worth it, but when you have to wait a full week to get a game that might not even be near the top of your queue just because it happened to be available, it's really not worth the price. But with Digital Rentals, the ability to play a game instantly is much more appealing. The only issue is that publishers would probably be very wary of hackers abusing the system to get cheap versions of the games and also that widespread cloud-based gaming is still a pipe dream until we get national fiber optic networks.
@The_Mormegil has a point about not just supporting game types but monetization methods, and I'll be doing that.
Give me resale-ability or give me death.
Paying for access doesn't even work in the MMO world except for WoW. Why would anyone pay .25 a life for any platformer when they could get the same thing for 1 or 2 dollars on a phone or tablet?
And the concept of digital rentals are absurd. Does the server need the bits back so it can rent them out to the next guy? Is your digital rental store going to run out of 1s and 0s and then need to request more from the warehouse?
The whole issue of non-cosmetic microtransactions is it turns gameplay decisions into economic decisions. And even the cosmetic microtransactions are nothing more than insidious market segmentation.
So far the only game that did microtransactions right is Dungeons and Dragons Online. There is a massive free-to-play portion, and you can purchase the game piecemeal or there is a traditional subscription to "rent" the whole game all at once.
I'm hoping the future eliminates corporate publishers and speculators. Stockholders and executives are nothing but parasites leeching off of the work of content creators. The way games are developed will look something like this:
Joe Programmer decides he wants to make games. He learns an engine or 2 and makes some demo content. Eventually he moves up to hosted game sites or his own website. If his ideas and content is good enough and he becomes popular enough he shoots for a kickstarter. Then with that funding he makes his dream game. If that works he uses the revenue to fund his next game, if it fails he returns to obscurity.
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
Ham-handed attempts to monetize content along almost Jurassic payment models that don't reflect the reality of data distribution is not only a raw deal for the customer, it also fails to communicate the necessary price signals required for commerce to be fair and effective as Hayek (or Bartley) described in The Fatal Conceit.
As for the two methods given here, I like the "rentals" idea because of its "pay as you go" applications, or even barring that, its similarities to buying admission to an amusement park. You pay for timed access to entertainment. I would like this method, as long as it was combined with the option to buy the game outright at any point, because there is always a hard limit to how much I'm willing to spend on a game.
As for the arcade model, it just seems like it would be too hard to implement without falling into the same traps that the original arcades did. The amount of effort that would have to go into balancing game difficulty with monetization potential would be too great, in my opinion.
I myself am not comfortable with any game where the question of how much I have to pay to see the full game gets involved. Some of my most treasured memories of gaming past were when I found an amazing game-play option, move-set, piece of equipment, and what not to make it feel like the world was becoming more fleshed out, and I was starting to see the grander picture. If one of the greatest feelings in gaming is to be coupled with one of the worst, "Drats! I need another quarter!" then I cannot help but see the entire enterprise of my purpose for sitting down with the product jeopardized.
"Oh man! I just got the Atma weapon!" - "Pay 50 cents to use this . . . aw man . . ."
"What? He's going to sneak into the castle and try to assassinate the Emperor? Amazi . . . oh, I need to pay five bucks to see this. Right . . ."
What was so great with the gaming experiences in the past was that I owned the game. The game was mine. Everything in it was mine. And most importantly - never once did the thought of how much I paid for it come into the question. Do you look at your favourite album and say, "Boy I love this . . . but was it really worth fifteen bucks?" No. Games are art. And you appreciate art not for how much you paid for it, but for how much it means to you. If throughout the entire appreciation process, you constantly feel the tug of someone's fishing hook in your wallet - you're just going to get tired of the invisible carrot dangling just before your eyes, and getting smacked with the stick when you're told to recognize it.
Imagine if albums worked the same way in the old day. Oh man, after a great intro, a tremendous body, and a solo that makes you want to rip your shirt off and scream, the chorus that compliments the outro to the chorus starts chiming in, "Man, you're a star! If you want to keep rocking with us - pay your part! It's only a buck! But then you'll see! You'll be a part of the pa~ar~ty!" I'd honestly feel like the rug was just swept out from underneath me. Not only that, but what was a tremendous experience, was forced to spear itself so that it could get a bit more money, that maybe, just maybe it should have asked for upfront, so that the art itself wouldn't have to get stuck like a pig.
I almost always agree with the EC guys - but hearing them state that games should build their mechanics around monetization schemes leaves a gigantic question mark over my head. It's not even whether or not companies will make their games more easily accessible in their addictiveness (much like most of the current Skinner-box models pry upon), but that the games themselves will not be based around fun, but getting you to pay more money. It's as if Picasso would be drawing his art so that patrons would buy the paper. It undermines the creators, it undermines the audience, and it ultimately achieves this by undermining the experience.
Nobody is saying you shouldnt pay for digital content. Everyone is saying it should be paid for in a way that makes sense. Expiring access gates make no sense in the digital world. There is no scarcity which requires a player to leave so the guy behind him can get a turn.
IMO Kickstarter and the Minecraft models are the best way to fund game development.
Aside from that, seeing a mostly digital future in anything worries me. I would think people would want to support changes that keep products and rights to own them literally in the hands of the consumers. Not solely on their computers or on some remote server. Hopefully, this is the case in some manner.
Irrespective of what Peter Moore and others similar would like to think, people will still buy physical media because you actually own something physical. You don't own just code on a hard drive. Beyond that, if Skyrim now costs 39.99 at retail, yet still goes for 59.99 on Steam and other digital services, who is digital distribution really helping? Certainly not the consumer.
I don't see prices going down because of the lack of a physical disk and box being produced, which was the whole point if I recall. Lowering prices and encouraging more people to buy. If even that isn't being honored, I think people need to rethink the all digital future.
I reject the whole premise that monetization is a crucial part of game design. I don't see any (good) symphonies or novels the contents of which were substantively written around their retail price-points.
Monetization schema are important to think about, because they can affect your game TO THE NEGATIVE -- that is to say, they can sour your design, or go back and retroactively ruin your game -- but I'm afraid I just don't see any way in which they could ever enhance a game. The least they can do is be as opaque and unobtrusive as possible. Why should I be thinking about my wallet while you're trying to draw me into an experience?
Would the austere mountainous immersion of Skyrim be greatly enhanced by a few ATM's, dotting the landscape? Would Shadow of the Colossus benefit strongly from a cash-shop planted in the midst of Dormin's temple, which you're prompted to visit after slaying each Colossus? Could the quiet pathos of Dark Souls be drastically improved by a monetization pixie, floating perpetually behind you, tugging your coat-sleeves and shrilly begging after your VISA?
Would that be "cool" ?
Frankly, I think thoughts regarding monetization should be segregated as far away from the brass tacks of game design as possible. That way lies madness.
EDIT:
Here's the Riccietello quote I was referencing. Does this seem like a "cool" scenario to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZR6-u8OIJTE
The EC crew makes a good point about how the game must be designed with the monetization method clearly in mind. Just don't take their examples so literally.
Zynga, for example, makes games that are playable for free, but the player can 'speed up' their progression by investing real money. Every so often a player might replenish their in-game currency if they choose. My point is that their games are designed to allow players to spend more money without completely throwing them out of the gaming experience.
I could see an online game, say an single-player FPS, that has a free-to-play demo that shows the first one or two stages. The site allows the player to purchase 'tokens' or whatever, and it costs one token to start playing the game for real. If the character dies, the player has the option to 'continue' playing from the same save point (or earlier) by using up another token. If the player really likes the game, the option to purchase a 'full' license to the game (no more tokens required) would be available.
If there was an online arcade site that had several titles similar to this, players could just visit the site and try out some games.
Microtransactions for MMORPGs seems like a bad idea, except for purchasing 'cosmetic' (non-gameplay related) features. Allowing 'pay-to-win' scenarios to occur in an MMO runs the risk of demoralizing a large portion of the player base.
In that regard, I'm curious to see how the Dust-514 transaction system evolves.
I feel like you talked yourself out of the Arcade game. A lot of it's success was novelty, as it was the only way to play games at first, and later higher quality games than you could play at home. Also, spending loose change is easy, it's in your pocket and you basically don't count it. And while some people have got that way with credit card and virtual store purchases, really it's a totally different world. In general, I think the customer has moved on. As a straight port of the old style, I don't see it taking off, but if you look at the way a lot of iOS arcade games operate, you'll see variations on the model. Things like extra lives on high score games or power ups are similar to the pay per play of an arcade.
As for rentals, I could see something working, but given player interest in games, honestly I think all you're doing is cutting the price from 60 to 5 dollars. Which is attractive to the consumers, but not interesting to developers. While there's a chance more people may be interested at a lower price point, I think game developers are pretty good at hitting the right spot on the Supply and Demand graph right now. Most games just can't attract enough attention to be profitable at such a low price point, as they're targeting a niche with limited population.
Netflix for games sounds attractive to consumers, but there's a reason that major studios keep pulling their movies from that service. They're not entirely happy with the return they're seeing. And honestly, I bet most movie producers wish that they had Steam for movies. Which i guess is iTunes, but the movie going community hasn't latched on to digital purchases yet as much as the gaming community has (proportionally).
I remember an older game that had a shareware version which included a "Death Chopper", it was an invincible helicopter which did nothing but peck at the player's health, one or two HP at a time, constantly reminding the player to buy the game if they were feeling bold enough to shoot at it. I imagine a perma-Death Chopper would work just fine in an arcade scheme, using the logic that players would only complain about it if they were bad at the game and couldn't constantly find healing to offset it.
You can reject the notion that monetization was behind the creation of the classic symphonies, novels and works of art that we appreciate in museums now, but do you think that any of them would have ever been created if there was no money in it for the artist or funds provided to the artist by a patron to supply the materials? No. They would not. Michelangelo would never have painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if the Catholic Church hadn't commissioned him to do so. He was paid to do it. Monetization.
There are literally millions of ways to monetize a game that can both work with the the design of the game to improve overall enjoyment of the game, as well as work to prevent exploitation of the game by those who would degrade the enjoyment of others. The key is execution, rather than model. You can make something like the arcade model work if you implement it, market it, and roll it out correctly.
The problem for most games is that the developers aren't the publishers, and the publishers might not even be the distributors. Every level of change is a separation in concept from the original model to reality, and if the publishers and distributors aren't in sync with the goals and methods of the developers, the game isn't going to have that polished feel that we all look for.
But even when developer, publisher and distributor are all under one roof, the monetization can fail if there isn't a coherent theme, or the theme isn't one that resonates with the target audience. Take SOE and their Station (the online hub for all SOE PC Games). Station Cash was initially considered very tacky, a gimmick to part customers from more money than their subscription fees. And for the most part, it is just that: a brazen money-grab. Everything new that SOE puts into their games goes on the Station first in an attempt to get people to pay as much money for small bits and pieces as they would for a new expansion. After a while it becomes part of the game for free, but early adopters pay a hefty price to be the first.
It must be working, because they keep doing it. Either that or they're just the ballsiest bunch of greedy scallywags out there and enough people are too stupid to realize what a rip-off it is.
So... what about a positive example of this?
Yeah, I'll let you know when there is one. The industry is still too wrapped up in itself to care about doing things right. I know it can be done. I just can't think of anyone that has.
ArenaNet is getting close. The Black Lion Trading Company is at least asking fair prices for useful things like character slots, and by 'fair' I mean 'not cost-prohibitive'. Still, there are game augmenting things in the shop that I don't think should be sold, but at least you can get them out of treasure chests around the world and from completing achievements, so there again you don't have to spend money (though keys don't drop as often as chests, so... clever girl).
Wow, sorry for the wall o text.
Rather dug it.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was *commissioned*, not monetized -- and the fact that it was commissioned did not lead Michelangelo to alter its contents, or paint it differently in order to maximize profits.
I stand by what I said: at best, monetization in a game can be rendered opaque and unobtrusive. It can be made NOT to hinder the quality of a game; its effect can be brought from negative to nil. But I honestly don't believe monetization can ever be done in such a way that actually ENHANCES the quality of a game (making it more fun, more artful, more communicative of its theme, etc). I think it's fundamentally impossible. If you can name a single example, I'd love to hear it.
The only thing that springs to mind are casino games, and other games of chance. And even those are only made "better" in that they're more compulsively playable -- and even THAT is done in a way which is blatantly and unashamedly exploitative.
Is that what we want to aspire towards?
Railing against the online arcade model for MMOs makes it look like you didn't grasp the point of the video which was that there isn't a one size fits all approach to letting a game. "Short session, skill based games" is what they describe as being a good fit for the online arcade. does that sound like an MMO to you?
And please don't bring up symphonies. When symphonies were written people had to pay each time they wanted to hear the song. And most of the classics were written for private consumption by rich people under the patronage system. Does that really sound like a good model to you?
Okay, probably not the best possible route, but satisfying, right? Still, a better approach might be to split your game up into pieces, charge a smaller price per piece, and offer a discount achievement at the end of each for the next part. In fact, why haven't we been doing this already? A social game like Fitocracy offering up coupons for healthy eateries sounds like a match made in heaven. Anyway, some ideas.
Dev/plant costs still need to be covered. I'm hoping that goes without saying. And while Kickstarter is a conveniently warm and fuzzy solution (I myself am a big fan), it can't be the only model -- and it certainly has its own potential legal/ethical/etc pitfalls, which have been discussed exhaustively elsewhere. It's getting to be a really crowded field in video and computer games; companies have to be able to generate revenue in new ways and the two methods discussed in the video are better methods, in my mind, for valuing games than the $60 buffet style ever was. Because here, you pay for only how much you play; you aren't tied to a game you end up not enjoying. Sure, you don't want to have to pay $800 over the course of several years playing Starcraft, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that publishers restrict themselves entirely to the metered approach; more likely, it will be as EC predicted in the video, with consumers paying, at most, full retail for a full product, and less if they don't end up playing for too long.
Consumers and companies win here, guys. You don't want to pay $60 for a game that sucks -- especially if you were suckered into pre-ordering for some free DLC (which is a loathsome practice). And if you only have $120 to spend a year on games, I know I'd personally prefer to sample a variety of games than commit to 2 overlong, overblown AAA titles. Meanwhile, game publishers would rather get a little bit of everybody's money than all of a few people's. Finally, I imagine people who would've turned down a game at $60 might be convinced to plop down $20 for a rental... and then decide, to hell with it, just get the full thing. So it might stimulate purchasing overall (such as Steam sales and Humble Bundles have been shown to do). Like I said, win-win... IF it's done intelligently. And this episode of EC has some great ideas for that.
I guess it is the stigma of games: that they are commodities, products to be consumed; entertainment delivered to a cultural mass that is not meant to be perceived as capable of delivering philosophical discussion or interrogation. I know this stigma is bogus as many mainstream games try, can, and do deliver a compelling interrogation of an emotion, a theme, a dilemma, a philosophy. Most of the episodes of this show are testaments to this quality within games; yet, with all media there seems to be a spectrum covering Media made for market (the monetisation of media) and Media made for discussion (Media as a form of social exchange and discussion); and different publishers cater to different degrees across this spectrum. There are books written as pulp fiction and fun, then there are 'literary' books written for a more discursive purposes (e.g. to give voice to a minority, to challenge social norms, to emotionally move). There are movies made as blockbusters, but there are 'films' made for a more discursive and socially analytical purpose. There are games made as AAA games (games that facilitate the production of more games in a cycling market) and then there are games that aspire to attain a discursive purpose. Why can't these 'discursive' games be stored in libraries?
So I guess the issue is that the games lack a diversity of publishers with different focuses other than continuation of market. These profit driven publishers that are business, reliant upon themselves to remain viable production line in a competitive economy. Other media forms have 'discursive' publishers that are funded by either government or specific social groups. When a blockbuster movie is produced, its produced by a blockbuster publisher (e.g. Universal). When a film is produced its published either by film publishers (that are funded through university, government, or social organisations) or self-published. But when games are produced, there are no 'discursive' game publishers on par with the profit driven ones. While this is changing with the progressive indie publishing movement, most indie games are still eventually published by profit driven publishers, with the developers of those games then employed into the 'industry' rather than being funded to continue their discursive pursuits.
Additionally, most profit publishers modify or publish games that have mechanics that reinforce consumerist behaviour. While Farmville may not be considered a 'game' by some, most AAA games are now developed with mechanics that promote consumerist behaviour. An example may be the prevalence of 'customisation' mechanics in games, where players have a character that they then kit out with various perks, items, weapons, clothes, that they purchase using virtual (if not sometimes real) currency (i.e. xp, $, stars, gems). Taking a step back a 'gamer' could be considered in a similar entity, a person that buys games, DLC to fulfil personal goals and desires. This is problematic for 'discursive' games as they are often forced to develop consumerist features and mechanics due to publisher intervention: such as DLC, Multiplayer, social media interconnectivity, etc. Not only does this taint their discursive message but it also detracts from their ability (through reallocation of resources) to make such a message.
This can even be extended to the point that profit publishers even avoid 'discursive' games because they don't want to be held responsible for the philosophical of ideological views such games would or could argue. Modern games can freely use violence and social stereotypes as loose context for play because they limit their use of these topics to mostly aesthetic purposes only, and don't have these issues be a focus of the game's mechanics.
Publishers rely upon having as broad a market audience as possible, and while some 'discursive' games may not appeal or could potentially offend some social groups (if due care or intelligent criticism is not thoroughly applied to development of the discursive game); thus there is no space to risk losing a portion of the market.
So I would love to see in the future a 'discursive' publisher for games, either funded by university or by game enthusiasts. The main issue to games is accessibility. A person who knows how to read just need a book but games require software, hardware, and a 'literacy' for playing game. It would be good to see a rise in discursive publishers that view games as capable platforms for social discussion. These publishers could be partners with state or government funded publishers and thus also contribute to the provision of games to libraries.
I guess it is the stigma of games: that they are commodities, products to be consumed; entertainment delivered to a cultural mass that is not meant to be perceived as capable of delivering philosophical discussion or interrogation. I know this stigma is bogus as many mainstream games try, can, and do deliver a compelling interrogation of an emotion, a theme, a dilemma, a philosophy. Most of the episodes of this show are testaments to this quality within games; yet, with all media there seems to be a spectrum covering Media made for market (the monetisation of media) and Media made for discussion (Media as a form of social exchange and discussion); and different publishers cater to different degrees across this spectrum. There are books written as pulp fiction and fun, then there are 'literary' books written for a more discursive purposes (e.g. to give voice to a minority, to challenge social norms, to emotionally move). There are movies made as blockbusters, but there are 'films' made for a more discursive and socially analytical purpose. There are games made as AAA games (games that facilitate the production of more games in a cycling market) and then there are games that aspire to attain a discursive purpose. Why can't these 'discursive' games be stored in libraries?
So I guess the issue is that the games lack a diversity of publishers with different focuses other than continuation of market. These profit driven publishers that are business, reliant upon themselves to remain viable production line in a competitive economy. Other media forms have 'discursive' publishers that are funded by either government or specific social groups. When a blockbuster movie is produced, its produced by a blockbuster publisher (e.g. Universal). When a film is produced its published either by film publishers (that are funded through university, government, or social organisations) or self-published. But when games are produced, there are no 'discursive' game publishers on par with the profit driven ones. While this is changing with the progressive indie publishing movement, most indie games are still eventually published by profit driven publishers, with the developers of those games then employed into the 'industry' rather than being funded to continue their discursive pursuits.
Additionally, most profit publishers modify or publish games that have mechanics that reinforce consumerist behaviour. While Farmville may not be considered a 'game' by some, most AAA games are now developed with mechanics that promote consumerist behaviour. An example may be the prevalence of 'customisation' mechanics in games, where players have a character that they then kit out with various perks, items, weapons, clothes, that they purchase using virtual (if not sometimes real) currency (i.e. xp, $, stars, gems). Taking a step back a 'gamer' could be considered in a similar entity, a person that buys games, DLC to fulfil personal goals and desires. This is problematic for 'discursive' games as they are often forced to develop consumerist features and mechanics due to publisher intervention: such as DLC, Multiplayer, social media interconnectivity, etc. Not only does this taint their discursive message but it also detracts from their ability (through reallocation of resources) to make such a message.
This can even be extended to the point that profit publishers even avoid 'discursive' games because they don't want to be held responsible for the philosophical of ideological views such games would or could argue. Modern games can freely use violence and social stereotypes as loose context for play because they limit their use of these topics to mostly aesthetic purposes only, and don't have these issues be a focus of the game's mechanics.
Publishers rely upon having as broad a market audience as possible, and while some 'discursive' games may not appeal or could potentially offend some social groups (if due care or intelligent criticism is not thoroughly applied to development of the discursive game); thus there is no space to risk losing a portion of the market.
So I would love to see in the future a 'discursive' publisher for games, either funded by university or by game enthusiasts. The main issue to games is accessibility. A person who knows how to read just need a book but games require software, hardware, and a 'literacy' for playing game. It would be good to see a rise in discursive publishers that view games as capable platforms for social discussion. These publishers could be partners with state or government funded publishers and thus also contribute to the provision of games to libraries.
I guess it is the stigma of games: that they are commodities, products to be consumed; entertainment delivered to a cultural mass that is not meant to be perceived as capable of delivering philosophical discussion or interrogation. I know this stigma is bogus as many mainstream games try, can, and do deliver a compelling interrogation of an emotion, a theme, a dilemma, a philosophy. Most of the episodes of this show are testaments to this quality within games; yet, with all media there seems to be a spectrum covering Media made for market (the monetisation of media) and Media made for discussion (Media as a form of social exchange and discussion); and different publishers cater to different degrees across this spectrum. There are books written as pulp fiction and fun, then there are 'literary' books written for a more discursive purposes (e.g. to give voice to a minority, to challenge social norms, to emotionally move). There are movies made as blockbusters, but there are 'films' made for a more discursive and socially analytical purpose. There are games made as AAA games (games that facilitate the production of more games in a cycling market) and then there are games that aspire to attain a discursive purpose. Why can't these 'discursive' games be stored in libraries?
So I guess the issue is that the games lack a diversity of publishers with different focuses other than continuation of market. These profit driven publishers that are business, reliant upon themselves to remain viable production line in a competitive economy. Other media forms have 'discursive' publishers that are funded by either government or specific social groups. When a blockbuster movie is produced, its produced by a blockbuster publisher (e.g. Universal). When a film is produced its published either by film publishers (that are funded through university, government, or social organisations) or self-published. But when games are produced, there are no 'discursive' game publishers on par with the profit driven ones. While this is changing with the progressive indie publishing movement, most indie games are still eventually published by profit driven publishers, with the developers of those games then employed into the 'industry' rather than being funded to continue their discursive pursuits.
Additionally, most profit publishers modify or publish games that have mechanics that reinforce consumerist behaviour. While Farmville may not be considered a 'game' by some, most AAA games are now developed with mechanics that promote consumerist behaviour. An example may be the prevalence of 'customisation' mechanics in games, where players have a character that they then kit out with various perks, items, weapons, clothes, that they purchase using virtual (if not sometimes real) currency (i.e. xp, $, stars, gems). Taking a step back a 'gamer' could be considered in a similar entity, a person that buys games, DLC to fulfil personal goals and desires. This is problematic for 'discursive' games as they are often forced to develop consumerist features and mechanics due to publisher intervention: such as DLC, Multiplayer, social media interconnectivity, etc. Not only does this taint their discursive message but it also detracts from their ability (through reallocation of resources) to make such a message.
This can even be extended to the point that profit publishers even avoid 'discursive' games because they don't want to be held responsible for the philosophical of ideological views such games would or could argue. Modern games can freely use violence and social stereotypes as loose context for play because they limit their use of these topics to mostly aesthetic purposes only, and don't have these issues be a focus of the game's mechanics.
Publishers rely upon having as broad a market audience as possible, and while some 'discursive' games may not appeal or could potentially offend some social groups (if due care or intelligent criticism is not thoroughly applied to development of the discursive game); thus there is no space to risk losing a portion of the market.
So I would love to see in the future a 'discursive' publisher for games, either funded by university or by game enthusiasts. The main issue to games is accessibility. A person who knows how to read just need a book but games require software, hardware, and a 'literacy' for playing game. It would be good to see a rise in discursive publishers that view games as capable platforms for social discussion. These publishers could be partners with state or government funded publishers and thus also contribute to the provision of games to libraries.
I guess it is the stigma of games: that they are commodities, products to be consumed; entertainment delivered to a cultural mass that is not meant to be perceived as capable of delivering philosophical discussion or interrogation. I know this stigma is bogus as many mainstream games try, can, and do deliver a compelling interrogation of an emotion, a theme, a dilemma, a philosophy. Most of the episodes of this show are testaments to this quality within games; yet, with all media there seems to be a spectrum covering Media made for market (the monetisation of media) and Media made for discussion (Media as a form of social exchange and discussion); and different publishers cater to different degrees across this spectrum. There are books written as pulp fiction and fun, then there are 'literary' books written for a more discursive purposes (e.g. to give voice to a minority, to challenge social norms, to emotionally move). There are movies made as blockbusters, but there are 'films' made for a more discursive and socially analytical purpose. There are games made as AAA games (games that facilitate the production of more games in a cycling market) and then there are games that aspire to attain a discursive purpose. Why can't these 'discursive' games be stored in libraries?
So I guess the issue is that the games lack a diversity of publishers with different focuses other than continuation of market. These profit driven publishers that are business, reliant upon themselves to remain viable production line in a competitive economy. Other media forms have 'discursive' publishers that are funded by either government or specific social groups. When a blockbuster movie is produced, its produced by a blockbuster publisher (e.g. Universal). When a film is produced its published either by film publishers (that are funded through university, government, or social organisations) or self-published. But when games are produced, there are no 'discursive' game publishers on par with the profit driven ones. While this is changing with the progressive indie publishing movement, most indie games are still eventually published by profit driven publishers, with the developers of those games then employed into the 'industry' rather than being funded to continue their discursive pursuits.
Additionally, most profit publishers modify or publish games that have mechanics that reinforce consumerist behaviour. While Farmville may not be considered a 'game' by some, most AAA games are now developed with mechanics that promote consumerist behaviour. An example may be the prevalence of 'customisation' mechanics in games, where players have a character that they then kit out with various perks, items, weapons, clothes, that they purchase using virtual (if not sometimes real) currency (i.e. xp, $, stars, gems). Taking a step back a 'gamer' could be considered in a similar entity, a person that buys games, DLC to fulfil personal goals and desires. This is problematic for 'discursive' games as they are often forced to develop consumerist features and mechanics due to publisher intervention: such as DLC, Multiplayer, social media interconnectivity, etc. Not only does this taint their discursive message but it also detracts from their ability (through reallocation of resources) to make such a message.
This can even be extended to the point that profit publishers even avoid 'discursive' games because they don't want to be held responsible for the philosophical of ideological views such games would or could argue. Modern games can freely use violence and social stereotypes as loose context for play because they limit their use of these topics to mostly aesthetic purposes only, and don't have these issues be a focus of the game's mechanics.
Publishers rely upon having as broad a market audience as possible, and while some 'discursive' games may not appeal or could potentially offend some social groups (if due care or intelligent criticism is not thoroughly applied to development of the discursive game); thus there is no space to risk losing a portion of the market.
So I would love to see in the future a 'discursive' publisher for games, either funded by university or by game enthusiasts. The main issue to games is accessibility. A person who knows how to read just need a book but games require software, hardware, and a 'literacy' for playing game. It would be good to see a rise in discursive publishers that view games as capable platforms for social discussion. These publishers could be partners with state or government funded publishers and thus also contribute to the provision of games to libraries.