There has been an awful lot of talk about the
emergence of social games and free-to-play entertainment. Quite a bit of the
talk outside of the general news article is hype-fed proclamations that a new
age is coming and the structure of the video game industry will be turned
upside down; the prophets of this new age claim that free-to-play models will
eventually power the financing of every game that is released from this age
onward.
Free-to-play is a new idea in video games, and a delightfully original one at
that. The income alone that powers the advertisements, while it may or may not
be enough to justify the cost of production for the developer, at least allows
the developer a little bit of reward for their work, while also agreeing with
the desire that everyone should have a crack at their app. That
"free" price tag under the title of a game when a gamer is browsing
through their app store is a no-commitment welcome to a shot at an original
piece of work. Even though many would argue that ninety-nine cents is an
extremely reasonable price, the argument still stands that "free" is
always more attractive than "cheap" and while everyone has their
differences about what a single dollar means to them, "free" means
the same thing to everybody.
The accessibility of the app store, combined with the advertisement and
micro-transaction powered income model, at least gives everyone an open, no
risk opportunity to try something new. For such an easy-going, open market to
exist is the developers dream. We are finally at a place where computers fit in
our pockets, and we can customize them to perform the exact tasks that we need
them to do no matter where we are. This is especially exciting for the budding
game developer. There have been plenty of notable free-to-play games that were
just made by two or three guys. Not that they are revolutionary works of art,
and I typically delete the games after an hour, but I look at the credits of
the app, seeing that only a few people worked on it, and I know I made their
day just by downloading their game and giving it a shot. Thats a dream come
true for the basement programmer.
Then there are more expansive games, made by teams of more than fifty people.
Big budget games that take a developer dozens of people more than a year of
dedicated programming and designing. And lo, these are free to play as well!
Just like the budding, basement game developer, these big companies are
powering their games using advertisements and micro transactions as a means of
income. Initially, this idea has worked out very well for the developers, who
have banked very well for being frontiersmen in this new idea. I love it when
people find new ways to make money, and I applaud them when they do. I also get
very excited about growing markets. But I've got a big, bulky question mark
floating over my head about casual-gaming and the new free-to-play model that
is literally taking over mobile gaming and internet gaming.
First lets talk about advertisements. I'm sure we have all actually taken a
second out of our day and realized how many advertisements we are buffeted with
on a daily basis. Lets go through a typical day.
I wake up and get some cereal. While I'm pouring by breakfast in a bowl I get
hit with a "Enter the vacation sweepstakes!" with a big airplane
picture hovering over my golden oats. Then I get dressed and head to work. On
the way, I listen to radio, which is financed by an advertisement every 3 or 4
songs, who tells me with a deep voice that they want to "see me in a
Kia". Meanwhile, I'm driving by billboards that are telling me how low I
can get my insurance. At work, I spend all day throwing advertisements at
people, asking them if they would like to try our new "Cherry Berry
Chiller" and follow-up with how golden and cool they will feel inside
while they are drinking it. Then I come home (hearing and seeing the same ads I
drove by eight hours earlier) and turn on the tv with my wife, which is
financed by 33% of airtime being dedicated to commercials every hour. Then I
have some me time and I get on facebook to find out what my friends are up to.
Right next to my best friends status update about his new painting, I see an
advertisement for another computer, or another leather coat, or another single
woman who wants to date me (I never knew I was that desirable until facebook
told me). Then when I turn on Playstation 2 to play a snowboarding game, I see
nothing. No banners, no trailers, no offers. Nothing.
Up until a short while ago, videogames have been free from obtrusive
advertisements, and let me just say those were good days. in 2005, EA got
incredible amounts of criticism from both gamers and press for using real world
advertisements for Axe deoderant in their Need for Speed games. The argument
was made that video games, like books or movies, were an escape from reality,
and seeing advertisements removed the fantasy from it. EA defended itself by
saying it was a way to justify the cost of developing the game, which everyone
knew was a lie from the bowels of hell, because the Need for Speed series was
enjoying its most successful days.
The Need for Speed series was enjoying success from a dedicated fanbase that
was willing to throw fifty dollars out of their wallet to escape into the
fantasy. They had a good reason for being upset: fifty dollars is a lot of
money, but its money well spent on a great game, and the players understood and
agreed with that. They felt like their purchase had been cheapened, however,
when, like so many other entertainment formats, they had advertisements shoved
down their throats.
That was an age when gaming was still an exclusive pass-time to gamers.
A lot of average, everyday people didn't understand it (and still don't).
Oft-heard criticisms sounded like, "fifty dollars for a stupid game? Stop
wasting your time and money." then there were more personal ones like
"find something more constructive with your time; videogames are for
kids." and now, seven years later, those same people that I can pick out
from my past are now playing Words with Friends and Angry Birds.
Who changed? The developer, the games or the audience? All three actually, in
that exact order.
If I asked any of those new "casual gamers" who made Angry Birds,
they wouldn't be able to tell me. Even though they see the developers name
every time they start the game up, they don't know who made it. Likewise, if i
asked them what they appreciate most about angry birds, they might be able to
muster something like "I like the big red bird" The same goes for
Words with Friends and every other casual game on the market. Its not because
these companies are not memorable or that the games themselves are
unintelligent, its because casual gamers don't care. This is the harsh reality
that the game industry needs to get its head around: "casual gamers"
are not gamers.
I do not mean the title of gamer to belong to the elite hobbyist that plays at
least an hour every day. I use the title loosely. A gamer can be someone who
enjoys an hour of gaming once a month, and only if friends are present and
participating. I would call that person a casual gamer. But that is not the
same person that the industry refers to when revenue and growth statistics are
thrown into the airwaves. The "casual gamer" the industry is talking
about has absolutely no interest in video games, has no interest in sharing
them with anyone, and has no interest in investing any more than a dollar into
a game for the rest of their lives. They don't enjoy videogames. They don't
appreciate the world that it sucks them into, they don't like the characters
that try to interact with them on the screen, and they certainly don't want to
post a high score to beat all their friends.
The origin of the "coverted" casual gamer looks like this: She was on
a bench waiting for the bus. There was no one left in her contacts list to
call, there was nothing she wanted to do on the internet, there was nothing
interesting on facebook, and she just wasn't in the mood to take the book out
of her bag and start reading, so after gazing through the app store and seeing
the game that the world simply will not shut up about, she thinks
"whynot?" and downloads the game and plays it for five minutes. The
industry would now label this girl as a "casual gamer" when she has
absolutely no interest in playing video games. She downloaded Angry Birds
because she was bored and it was her last resort.
The example I gave above is not a special case. It comprises the entire market
that mobile gaming is building itself around. Free-to-play games have plenty of
tricks to suck this market in and get a few dollars out of them. These
strategies work, and I am legitimately happy for the company that enjoys this
success. But right now casual gaming is being treated as the industry-saving economic
boost that will restore sales growth in a stuck and static market; and that
perception is dangerously misleading. It's about time that someone came out and
just said it: casual gaming is the Furby of electronic entertainment. Remember
Furby? Sure you do. Everybody's mom wanted one. All the little kiddies loved
them. They were so cute and cuddly and filled the black hole in everyones life.
That is, until people got bored with the idea and moved on. The same thing
happened with tickle-me-elmo, and again with the Pirates of the Caribbean
series, Tamagotchi, Harry Potter, Silly Bandz, Lite-Brite, Etch-A-Sketch, and
the Spice Girls.
Normally I wouldn't care about this, because its just an example of people
finding a fad and cashing in on it. I'm a huge supporter of that. But it has
come to a point where the big boys are questioning their entire income model.
Nintendo is in a complete panic. They created the touch screen for gaming, but
they have since been surpassed. They created motion controls for gaming, but
have since been beaten. Now they're on the verge of releasing a product that
combines both technologies, investing their livlihood into its success, and the
public couldn't care less. Sony is losing money left and right; having its
hands in too many markets, the company has lost a competitive edge. Now it is
looking to its entertainment division to pick up the slack, while the inside of
the division is shaking in its boots, wondering whether or not to release a new
console. Microsoft is gambling more than it ever has on its Windows 8 operating
system, after releasing Vista and 7, which the public just didn't come after in
droves to adopt. Meanwhile, the video games division is trying to balance
having every form of entertainment in one box, something their biggest
competitor seems to have mastered overnight.
There is a lot of fear in the industry right now. A lot of that fear stems from
the roots of the public interest. Video games really just aren't being talked
about right now. This is coming from a guy who checks half a dozen video game
web sites every day looking for a new article to read. On top of that, consoles
and developers have finally hit a brick wall on affordable technologies.
building games bigger than they already are is dangerous to a budget like a
foreign explosive to a bomb disposal team Hit the right switch and you're
golden, hit anything else and your world is over (see: Kingdoms of Amalur).
Want to know why this is the first time in gaming history that consoles have
extended their life cycle to 150% of their expected use? Now you know. Game
development cannot extend beyond its current budgets and still remain
profitable. Big games like Call of Duty take too much time, too many people and
too many resources to be any bigger than they already are. For the first time,
going bigger isn't just risky, it's plain stupid. If the Playstation 2 had been
the latest technology for 7 years instead of five, game critics would have torn
series like Call of Duty apart for being horribly repetitive and looking too
much like its predecessor. Now, these games are getting away with it because
they have to. The whole industry has to. The attitude of quiet confidence in
simply not moving that companies had has turned into a frozen panic in the wake
of growth of "competitors"
Amidst all this confusion, a platform, built by a company that has never openly
supported video games of any kind has become the dominant contender, supporting
casual free-to-play games by the thousands. Besides that, sales of consoles are
beginning to slump; the market has been penetrated, the products have matured,
and one single company emerges from the ordinary and begins dominating
literally every form of digital entertainment we enjoy.
To say it plainly, Apple is a behemoth that has made so many calculated
advances in so many industries with so much unparalleled success, companies are
beginning to view it like the Angel of Death, dreading when the unstoppable
power will come for them. But the games industry is an nut Apple will not crack.
How do I know? Because Apple itself has made one active, calculated, risky move
in supporting games. It is called Game Center, and it completely sucks. The
fact that, being this far in the game, Apple hasn't made any moves toward
requesting developer support for video games speaks worlds about what they know
about the industry. What says more is they just don't get how essential
physical buttons are to gaming. If they did, you had better believe they would
have made a controller by now. But fanatic Apple analysts haven't even spotted
so much as a patent. Talk about lazy.
I do not point any of these things out to call gamers to arms, or to announce
the apocalypse of interactive entertainment. I'm saying all of this to send a
message to the negatively fused critic who thinks this industry has approached
a cliff. This free-to-play fad will pass (notice Facebook's horrendous IPO and
the leech known as Zynga following closely behind the falling stock price).
Free-to-play gaming has worked for the few who jumped on the idea, but it is
not going to work for everyone. The practicality has made it an attractive
alternative for the cheap gamer, but the constant pressure to pay more will
drive them away shortly. Gamers as a whole simply will not be kosher with a constant
reminder that they could spend more and get more; that pressure is equal to
that of a salesmen coming back to your door every morning to remind you about
the same product you refused to buy yesterday. Games are only getting away with
it right now because its new. Once the idea wears out, free-to-play
advertisements and micro-transactions are going to die just like the old furby.
I love video games, and throughout my whole childhood I wanted my parents to
give a tenth of an inch of care about my favorite pass-time. I would have mowed
the whole lawn, taken the trash out all summer and gotten A's in all my classes
if I could sit down with my dad for an hour to play a game with me. But when I
grew up I finally came to grips with the fact that its just not going to
happen. My dad is never going to be interested in games like I am, and no
matter how bad I want him to like them, he's just not going to.
The gaming market is shaping itself into the boy I once was. It is conforming
and bending its own rules, its own understood convictions and principles just
to get people who can't stand games to give just five minutes of their time to
enjoy the things that we enjoy. It started out as a novel idea, but now its
turned into a passion that is destroying the way the industry depends on its
own survival. No matter what changes in the world of entertainment, there will
always be those who play games and those who just don't care to. Until these
recent years, that separation has driven the industry to new heights of greatness;
now we have descended into a little boy that just wants attention from people
who don't even know who he is or what he is here for.
-Tyler Shippam
