Last week I saw yet another article claiming that games were going to become more like movies. This seems to be a fairly common belief, since I see it in one of its forms every couple of months. In fact, it is not a new idea. Professor Steve Blank often uses the example of Rocket Science, an ill-conceived gaming start-up dedicated to marrying Hollywood and gaming, to teach entrepreneurship to students at the Haas School of Business. In 1994, the company had recruited star talent, attracted funding, and nailed the front page of Wired with an overly effusive write-up. But as it turned out, the games weren’t good and the company folded. Strike one for the video-games-as-movies concept.
Fast forward to today, and many games have started to resemble movies. Budgets for many games have exploded, as have their revenues. In fact, the opening week for the biggest games now dwarfs those of the largest Hollywood blockbusters. Development cycles last years and involve hundreds of people. Major franchises have been created and are refreshed endlessly by the big publishers. To those who who would say that games will become more like movies, I would contend that they have already been through that evolution. They’re now progressing to a very different model. Games are starting to become more like television shows than movies.
Television is a ruthless business where shows debut with a pilot and a limited run of follow-on episodes. Most shows only get a few weeks to find a significant audience. If they don’t find that audience, then the show quietly disappears. Even shows that have passed through this hurdle have to meet certain ratings expectations based on their scheduling, otherwise they get the axe. And while shows start with a certain premise, this premise evolves overtime as the audience reacts to plot lines, characters, and the overall tone of the series. TV writers often draw ideas from current events, fan suggestions, and show milestones (e.g., hundredth episode specials). Shows also often work with advertisers to do product placements. Does all of this sound familiar? It should, its how most social games and successful mobile games operate.
Social games are made in a fraction of the time it takes to make AAA games. They often aren’t fully fleshed out when they’re released, and the games grow with their audiences. Most social games are updated with new content on a weekly basis, and major new mechanics or levels every month or so. In mobile games, this is also becoming more common. Look at how Rovio keeps its Angry Birds franchise fresh with seasonal editions.
This model is much more efficient than the movie-making model. Rather than invest millions of dollars and years of effort to make a game, social and mobile developers can create a minimal viable product, release it, and then validate it with an audience before investing heavily. They can tinker with the original premise and tune it until it works. Once an audience is found, they can build new features and mechanics or work with advertisers to do promotions. Overall, the model is more capital efficient and less risky. Under this model, the developers are making smaller up-front bets that play out quickly rather than huge bets that take years to pan out and can be utter sinkholes for resources. It is also better for the staff that makes the games, because they are retained to build out successful properties and aren’t subjected to as much “crunch time” or the frequent downsizing that wracks developers following the completion of a long project that doesn’t pan out.
So, can we put this idea that games are going to be more like movies to rest? Because quite frankly, it misses out on what is really happening in gaming.
Like the Digital Erudite blog? Subscribe to our RSS feed or follow this author on Twitter (@bguenther).
