Re: [GD-General] Pyrogon Postmortem
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [GD-General] Pyrogon Postmortem
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2004-04-30 06:34:27
|
2004 April 29th
Thursday
Okay, I'm not psychic, but I wrote this sentence after having
written all sentences below, so I KNOW this post is long --
and potentially boring.
COMMENTS ON MY BREW EXPERIENCE:
===============================
>>> So, use the free PC market because it has: [...]
My project (which still might turn out okay) is designed to
profit based on the novelty of being able to access a
particular kind of application on a cell phone. The unusual
platform and the unusual scope of the application compared
to most others in the market were two reasons I believed the
product would ultimately be a big success, and this confidence
motivated me to put my time and energy in to the project.
J2ME could be a good platform choice, but it seemed
easier to get it to work with BREW. One tricky obstacle with
J2ME is the limit on JAR file sizes imposed by the carrier and
imposed by the different devices. Meanwhile, the apparent
simplicity of deploying my app with BREW, and collecting
money, all without the piracy levels found with J2ME, made
BREW seem like a good first platform choice.
The fact that my application is really only for a certain
demographic of people in the USA, and the fact that Verizon
covers a large fraction of the intended market, means the
choice to use BREW isn't based on technology and logistics alone.
I have yet to present my application to the one potential
corporate partner whose brand makes sense for my application.
Maybe this project won't be a total failure. But when I
learned that Verizon wouldn't just automatically approve my
application (given that my application doesn't violate any
content guidelines and has some promise of selling okay) and
in fact required a big corporate brand to give the product more
credibility or consumer appeal, I was really depressed.
How in the world am I going to get my product "branded"?
How long will that take? How much more profit loss must I
suffer? What other products will enter the market by the
time I finish getting branded? What's to stop a potential
corporate partner from cloning my application (which,
arguably, has fairly obvious features)? What guarantee do
I have that Verizon will put my product on their "deck"
even with a brand? If it takes time to build up the buzz
about my product, will Verizon pull the product from their
"deck" to make room for something stupid but with very
reliable, short-term profit, like "The Olsen Twins Pepsi
Pokemon Survivor 'You're Fired!' Idol Movie Spin-Off Game"?
So many risks! Therefore, unless the reward is something
crazy, like a million dollars, why even bother? It's
definitely not a viable business model for an independent
game developer.
THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING PC GAMES THROUGH A WEB PORTAL:
=========================================================
Anyhow, I have had a long love for the PC, and I wrote a game
engine and game design documents. It's just that piracy made
me wonder if I would even sell more than a single copy of a
game. I wrote to a few independent game developers selling
their games online, wondering if they were making money, and
the few who I asked said that sales were really low (but
downloads of demos were high).
I contacted a game sales portal associated with
Prima Tech publishing (the publishers of the Andre LaMothe
edited series of game programming books, like "Focus on SDL",
"Focus on AI", "Beginning OpenGL Programming", etc).
(Sorry if I am confused about the relation or non-relation
of the game sales portal with the book publisher.)
Anyhow, the portal handled credit card payments, and spared
developers from the hassle of being a business, which I
thought was fantastic. But the web site wasn't very
classy (goofy, cartoonish motif, if I remember correctly),
and I wasn't sure if I would be proud to direct people
to the site for the purchasing phase of getting my product.
Also, I was concerned about the site's ability to deliver
bandwidth when serving my game download.
I have seen similar efforts that turned me off.
Here's what I would like to see:
================================
A company that would handle credit card transactions
and mail checks to developers on a monthly or quarterly
basis.
The company would have a low-key domain name.
The only purpose of the company's web site is to:
(1) Present brief product information;
(2) Accept and verify credit card information;
(3) Handle the deployment of the application
to the consumer by download and
installation verification;
(This requires having a reliable dedicated server
in a high-speed data center and plenty of monthly
bandwidth quote, on the order of 500 GB at least.)
(4) Accept and forward correspondance regarding
product issues to the developer;
So, for example, I could describe the product in
detail on my OWN web site, and then, when a visitor
is interested in buying the application, I have a
link to this hypothetical company's web site. This
hypothetical site would show a page with a brief
description of the application,
sufficient for the consumer to verify that this is
in fact the correct item, and then the consumer
advances to the payment information area.
Just as important as what the proposed company would do
are the things the company would NOT do. Here are some
principles:
(1) The proposed company will NEVER do any external marketing,
or product promotion on the portal web site itself.
No marketing will be purchased by the proposed
company on the behalf of developers (or on behalf
of the company itself, despite its own potential
benefit due to a percentage of sales).
The purpose of the site is not to
elevate products relative to its peers on
the same site. This was the mistake of the
Verizon "deck" concept. No, let the burden
of marketing and reputation fall entirely
on developers, or alternate MARKETING web
sites! Let there be no "deck" concept that
artificially prioritizes (and thus essentially
influences) relative sales of products.
The web portal would not have a "latest games"
section, or any sort of "Hot Titles" concept.
All titles are simply titles in a catalog.
Yes, "overwhelm" the customer with a million
titles. The point of the portal is not to
teach consumers about what is available, but
simply to connect an educated consumer's
money to a corresponding developer.
(2) The proposed company will NEVER give/lend any money to
developers to finance their projects.
Financing projects necessarily means making
choices about which projects are viable.
Also, given that investing money is a risk,
an investor typically wants a big return on
the investment -- to more than cover the
other project investments that may have failed.
The fact that the proposed company would not
finance projects is hardly an obstacle for
game developers interested in seeking financing.
It's just not a function of the proposed company.
The benefit is that the portal company does not
have any risk, and is not beholden to other
creditors, and thus can promise a long existence
and good terms for all clients (the developers).
Gathering Of Developers (GOD) offered relatively
good royalty percentages back around the year
1999 or 2000, but since GOD actually invested
money in games, and some games flopped, ALL
clients of GOD suffered when the company essentially
vanished.
So, to assure the long-term survival of the proposed
company, and to maintain a low, flat percentage fee
for the service of selling products, the proposed
company would never invest in anything.
(3) The proposed company will NEVER pay for any form of
SELF-promotion (i.e., of the portal company itself).
Many portal-like services promote themselves.
Although not entirely wacky, it does seem like
it can be avoided.
If developers are responsible for maketing their
games (and the portal can list possible marketing
possibilities), then the portal has nothing to do
but actually handle the credit card transactions
and serve data.
Services like "Napster", "iTunes", "Amazon", etc,
promote themselves because there is a large potential
for casual browsing on the sites themselves, leading
to spontaneous purchases.
In fact, the proposed company does not preclude a
web site allowing casual browsing of games from
being created! The proposed company simply handles
the payment and delivery phases.
(4) The proposed company will NEVER impose any restrictions
on *content* that is legal. (NOTE: I am referring to
freedom of concepts, not freedom to offer applications
that are buggy or violate privacy or security.)
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Verizon all impose various
guidelines about application content and functionality.
For example, not that I'm complaining, but it is impossible
to buy and download a pornographic application for a
BREW phone with Verizon as the carrier. For many that
seems like a totally reasonable restriction, but other
restrictions are more subjective.
Content restriction need not take the form of explicit
guidelines. For example, in the case of Verizon's
"deck", it might just be that Verizon doesn't think a
product is a "smash hit". That's all it takes to make
a game or application totally inaccessible to consumers!
So, if you wanted an application with rather limited
appeal, like a Klingon text translator, or a tiny
symbolic math engine (like Mathematica on a cell phone),
FORGET IT! (...unless you have a J2ME phone!)
The proposed company is not itself concerned about
its reputation as a brand or "publisher" any more than
the phone company is worried about how "bad" phone
calls might make you think badly of telephone service.
An Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not build a
reputation on content of the Internet as a whole.
(Although it is true that AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, and
Google, profit on organizing access to the Internet,
and thus suffer the consequences of making the promise
of a sanitized or fair-and-balanced view of the
Internet.)
Just as routers on the Internet don't judge data
content (in any high-level human sense), the proposed
company will almost be a non-entity -- just a bridge
linking a consumer to a product.
(5) The proposed company will NEVER send any e-mails to
customers (except optional receipts of purchases).
The customer transaction begins and ends with
a single visit to the portal.
Customer information can *optionally* be
put on file to make future purchasing easier.
No data mining will be conducted on user data
to find correlations of purchases. I like the
efforts of Amazon to propose other products I
may be interested in -- but browsing and
suggesting is not the role of the proposed
company and associated portal. Other sites
can make these associations, inferences, and
suggestions.
(6) The proposed company will NEVER partner with other
companies.
A partnership either involves compromises or
is not balanced and mutually-beneficial.
Corporate acquisitions almost always compromise the
vision and ideals of the acquired companies --
otherwise, why not preserve the independence of
the companies?
An agreement between companies limits the freedom
of each participant company.
To maintain the integrity and principles of the
proposed company, it will not be formed with
partners and will never accept partners.
(7) The proposed company will not use any form of
Digital Rights Management (DRM).
(8) Refunds on all purchases limited to 30 days.
Most software stores do not offer refunds on
ANY purchases. Only exchanges for the identical
product is allowed in most cases (assuming the
CD/DVD is defective).
Offering a refund period frees the portal from
complaint in the event software doesn't work on
someone's computer, or has unacceptable
performance or bugs.
By limiting the refund period, cash can be
given to the developer on a monthly basis without
putting the portal company at risk of having
to pay refunds on its own.
It's tricky to differentiate between refund
requests based on actual technical and quality
complaints, and refund requests made in an
effort to acquire software for free. Perhaps
statistics for each product will be kept
for number of purchases and number of returns
and reasons for return (with checkbox for
platform). Perhaps customers will have stats
for number of purchases and number of returns.
One wants to avoid recording specific purchases,
and automatic banning from making future purchases
(given a streak of refund requests). It's a
tricky problem, where some fraction of unethical
consumers gets jumbled with some fraction of
products with compatibility problems.
(9) The proposed company will not accept products
from developers without working mailing addresses,
e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.
Each application offered by the portal will
have a developer name associated with it.
(If a developer changes names on a per-product
basis, all names and a link to a common developer
history and reputation will be provided.)
If an application is discovered to just be spyware,
or other form of virus, or just plain bad quality,
the developer can be held accountable.
The portal is not RESPONSIBLE for such things, and
does not PROMISE protection from malicious or buggy
applications. But a conscientious effort to
stop the distribution of an application that has
been established as being malicious or very broken
is, I think, acceptable.
I was tempted to launch a company and corresponding
web site to do all of this, since I think that
it's difficult for most people to attain the kind
of simplicity and integrity I am seeking. Even
large, reputable companies have banner ads and
pop-up windows! Many companies require Flash or
scripting to make their web pages work, and then
there is the temptation to make everything look cool.
No! The point is only to accept the credit card
information, verify, and handle the download.
Things like FilePlanet, etc, are really annoying
sites.
CROSBIE'S "DIGITAL ARTS AUCTION" SITE:
======================================
>>> www.digitalartauction.com
I wish you luck with your site, Crosbie, however the
mission of your site is too broad to appeal to me.
Also, the demeanor of your writing style is too informal
for a site to which I would submit credit card numbers
and personal information.
GENERAL THOUGHTS ON GAME SALES PORTAL:
======================================
A corporation and a corresponding site that simply
delivered on its core promises, and was largely without
its own character to interfere with the branding and
motifs of its various developer clients, would be
great -- and would generate its own following.
We don't hear about all of the companies that support
the infrastructure necessary for the conveniences of
daily life (for example, telephone bills don't have
logos of fiber optic and transistor manufacturers
all over them). A pizza parlor doesn't have a giant
"Powered by NCR Point-Of-Sale Systems!" sign in the
window.
Maybe there's an opportunity here.
Perhaps the design of the company could in a sense be
"open source", such that people edit a mission statement
and list of policies in an open fashion, like a virtual
board of directors. Thus, the company would be founded
on principals and an integrity that appealed to the
very people who would be interested in becoming clients.
I know Debian Linux has a mission statement that is
voted upon by developers according to some sort of
reputation system.
I think it's very important to be very up front about
all aspects of the company operation, like: (1) Who
is doing the data hosting? (2) Who is handling credit
card transactions? (3) How is customer data stored and
handled? (4) Who is running the company? (5) What are the
sales figures? (6) Having largely-unmoderated forums for
customer feedback (moderation only to eliminate spam
and to demote off-topic threads).
Creating a portal would be a win-win situation,
generating some income for the portal manager, and creating
income for independent developers who are not interested in
starting businesses and who are not capable of handling
credit card transactions and managing customer data.
One big bullet-point for the portal: Software acquired
from the portal comes directly from developers and is
thus far less likely to contain viruses -- unlike
cracked or hacked versions floating around on KaZaA,
DC, and other P2P file-sharing apps. Also, a portal
formalizes a method for rewarding software developers,
as opposed to random donations (via PayPal or micro-
payment methods).
MY IGNORANCE; PORTAL MAY EXIST ALREADY:
=======================================
For all I know I am describing an existing service,
like "iTunes", but for games. I'd actually be surprised
if something very close to what I want didn't already
exist -- but not extremely surprised, since there are
many ways to screw up the execution. Even little things,
like having a banner ad, greatly adulterate the web
experience in my mind... Anyhow, I'm just ignorant,
listing principles I'd like to see in such a service.
It's tempting to create the proposed portal company,
but it's also tempting to avoid distractions from the
fun of computer programming!
--- Colin
|
