Re: [GD-General] Pyrogon Postmortem

[Mike W. <mi...@ge...>]

www.plimus.com

www.esellerate.net

both do exactly what you want

www.swiftcd.com

print on-demand cd's as your customer orders them, no up-front fees.

it works for gamespy, we've been selling our game engine through these 
sites for 10 months now have been 100% rock-solid.

no crap-ass publisher, no 'middle man'. the 10% ecommerce fee and that's 
it. no bs.

cheers
mike w
www.realityfactory.ca


> 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
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557
> 
>