Kickstarter games losing their appeal

2013 was one of the biggest years for video games in the recent decade. Kickstarter, the crowd-sourcing website, had many successful projects that were backed by thousands of users. A wide spectrum of games, ranging from small indie games like Shovel Knight, to big studio releases like Broken Knight , were all completed and received positive criticism. With many good title attributed to it, its a weird phenomenon to think that Kickstarter games are starting to lose their appeal. The proof is in the money, as this article from Gamespot explains.


With over $53 million raised for Kickstarter games last year, and only $15 million raised in the first half of 2014, there is an obvious decrease in popularity for these types of games. The article gives multiple reasons for this steep decline.

"Bidaux theorizes that the decline is in part because all the big name Kickstarter projects were already funded"

This may be true to a certain extent, but doesn't take into account that even small unknowns still get discovered and funded if the idea is creative enough. A prime example of this is Monsters ate my Birthday Cake.

"Bidaux says that some priojects might be going directly to Steam Early Access instead of Kickstarter, which might be better for many developers with playable builds since there's no end date for the funding campaign."

Again, this seems like a plausible reason, but it also misses that Steam Greenlight isn't for funding. it's a voting platform where user's can decide and discuss what type of games they want in the steam store. So, in essence, it's comparing apples and oranges. The final reason the article gave, however, was very intriguing to me.

"Another reason for the decline, Bidaux thinks, is that people are more aware that Kickstarter projects can fail. "

With the high profile failures of games such as Yogsventures, Clang, and dozens of other smaller projects, investors are getting more skeptical of Kickstarter projects. I believe that many people used to have an idealized vision of the Kickstarter mission, which was to help aspiring game developers achieve their dream and receiving compensation in return. With a few sore thumbs in Kickstarter's history, there is a more overall negative perception of the Kickstarter process. Most of that hate is focused on Kickstarter's policy about returning money on failed projects (Hint: they don't), and its understandable. The allure of the Kickstarter campaign has started to wane, and it is no longer the preferred method for marketing. We may instead see the rise of competitors to Kickstarter with better return policies that may restore the confidence of the online community.  

Maiberg, E. (2014, October 5). Funding for Kickstarter Games in 2014 Drops by More Than Half. Retrieved December 12, 2014.

Artsy Video Games: Is it sacrificing game play?

Videogame developers and players have long struggled for their passion to be validated as an acceptable art form. Roger Ebert is credited for saying that he didn't believe games to be on par with movies, simply because there has never been a game that was on par with the greats in music, theater, poetry etc. In my opinion, Roger forgets that the definition of art is personal to the viewer; nothing is imbued with the inherent status of art. We, as a society, have standardized the definition of art to mean many different things, and it seems that video games just barely miss the quota according to general opinion. Games, however, have taken strides to reverse this and be respected as a true art form. There is a new trend of artsy games being created with wonderful creative direction and bold experimentation. In this article by CNET, the rise of the indie developer is displayed with such hit titles such as Monument Valley and Journey.

"The game has to work as a puzzle, but it also has to work as piece of graphic design." This was dilemma for Monument Valley: How was it possible for the art itself to be as big of a gameplay mechanic as the puzzles in the game. Looking at the still from the article, its clear that they intended for level to be art. Taking influences from Escher, the world inside the puzzle is splashed with a pallet of color, and the puzzles are designed around the world itself. In essence, the art becomes the puzzle, and a good example of using of art being used. The article, however, delves deeper into the problems of being an indie developer: the lack of funding and attention. In order to survive in the rapidly changing market, indie developers need to find their niche and get their name out there. It just so happens that their method of getting noticed is by emphasizing on their artistic styles. As the article claims, "Getting noticed is the most important step to long-term survival in the gaming industry."

At what point, however, does focusing on the art of the game impede on developing the gameplay? Does focusing on the artistic side of the game too much distort the overall goal a game is trying to achieve (that is, an interactive experience for the user)? At what cost are we willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the allusive classification of art? Recent controversy came out of the game Gone Home, when gaming journalists and gamers had two very polarizing opinions of Gone Home's ''classification." In Gone Home, the plot revolves around a girl who has, fittingly, come home and explores her house. Along the way, the player can unfold the story through various clues around the house. Critics praised it for its artistic take on telling a story in the first person. Players, however, believed that there was little to no substance to the game, and it did not warrant a 20$ price tag. Sure, it told a great story against a great soundtrack, but there was barely any player input. If anything, the "game" was closer to a movie where you could control the pace. Can Gone Home really be classified as a game then? In an effort to produce a video game that could be considered art, Gone Home created something entirely different, almost akin to a new medium of interactive storytelling. It is not a game by any conventional definition; this is why that there is a threshold between complimenting a game with art and complimenting art with an interactive medium. Creating the latter only hinders games from ever being classified as art, because it sets a standard that an actual game can't achieve, and it doesn't showcase the mechanics of that a game should have. 

Source: Statt, N. (2014, November 23). Video games aren't all guns and gore; artistic titles are on the rise. Retrieved December 5, 2014.

In-Game Economies: How and How not to do it. Week 1

With recent outburst over Electronic Art's system of micro transactions in their games, most notoriously in their mobile apps, I felt that it would be good to look at a model of micro transactions that works. Valve's three flagship games, Counter Stike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, and Dota 2, are the shining examples of how good customer service can expand player base, maximize profits, and keep users happy. In early 2014, Valve hosted an event called Steamworks, whose aim was to advise game developers who want to publish their game on the Steam distribution service. Among the many topics talked about, the one concerning in game economies and micro transactions was the most prolific. Here is the video of that presentation; it is long, but very informative:

Kyle Davis, the presenter, focused on five main points throughout the video:
1) Focus on persistent customer value: "Making sure that customers will be happy about making a purchase and make sure they stay happy." Valve's model wants players to be confident about the purchases they make and continually be happy with them over the long run. To avoid regret, Valve makes sure they describe clearly the products they're selling to avoid ambiguity and they keep the value of such items through their trade system.
2) Positive Externalities: Making sure that the purchases people make do not negatively effect  someone else's experience  is key. Including purchases that remove barriers in the game and give an advantage to a player over those who didn't invest money only hurts the consumer. Valve's outlook is to make purchasing opportunities that benefit the players in the game as well as improving the game overall.
3) Make everything tradable: As Kyle Davis puts it "Trade makes every item that is tradable to be worth more. It makes the trading system more valuable, and makes users more valuable to other users." Cross-trade between different games encourages players to invest more money into the system and makes everyone happier overall.
4) Random distribution: Random distribution of in-game items through "drops" is superior to static distribution, because it allows game developers to have more flexibility over wealth and power distribution. Players will have an incentive to play more in order to hopefully receive a drop that is worth a lot.
5) Let users make value for each other: Prices of tradable items are not dictated by the game developer, but by the players themselves. They will take an active attempt to make improve the quality of the game they play by creating new items, new updates, and new communities alligned for a particular goal. This allows the product to grow in ways that "couldn't be possible with just people at the office," as David explains.

After listening to the the multiple examples that are given in their case examples, I believe that any game should include an in game trading system that models Valves' in order to receive longer term customer satisfaction. In the case of EA, many people were outraged over their business models of putting artificial boundaries in their game that could only be surpassed by investing into the game. The term "free to play" gives a bad taste in the mouth of the gaming community, and rightly so; they are, in most cases, very limited in their features unless money is invested. In the end, they end up not being "free to play", but rather "pay to win."

In my experience with playing Counter Strike, the in game trading system is what keeps me coming back and investing my time in playing. The insane amount of hours that I have in both Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike is a monument to that hold that Valve has over their customers. By maintaining a good relationship with its player by way of its trading and micro-transactions, both those who spend money and those who don't end up benefiting each other, and Valve is able to make a huge margin of profit. If every appropriate candidate for an economy was given one, companies would be able to sell more and have a higher customer appreciation rating.

In-Game Economies in Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 [Motion picture]. (2014). United States: Youtube.

Dreamhack 2014. Week 1

Counter Strike: Global Offensive is a first person shooter that has evolved into one of the biggest E-sports in the world, a virtual take to physical competitions with professional teams and tournaments. As the cold, bitter winter approaches, the CS:GO competitive is only heating up with Dreamhack, one of the biggest competitive events in the CS:GO professional scene. Teams from all over the world fly to Sweden for a three day shooting-fest in an attempt to win the $250,000 grand prize. Warowl, a prominent CS:GO community member, made a video called, "Get Ready for Dreamhack Winter 2014 CS:GO!" in which he details the teams and events:

Alongside his predictions for team performance, he comments on E-sport event itself. "Tons of people tuned in last time" isn't an overstatment: Over 13 million unique viewers watched Dreamhack 2013 on Twitch, a video game streaming website. Just like last year, the tournament will be funded by Valve, the company who made CS:GO; As such, the game will also be available to watch on the games in-game client viewer GOTV. Using GO:TV, spectators will be able to control how to view the game by switching cameras and perspectives to gain an in-depth look inside. As Warowl states, "Never before in Sporting had the viewer been given so much control over how they watch a tournament." 

E-sports have come a long way since its inception in the early days of PC gaming. With more and more people tuning in to watch Dreamhack, the CS:GO e-sports scene only grows in popularity and, ultimately, pulls the rest of the e-sports alongside with it. CS:GO is an easy game to understand, which makes it a perfect entry point into more complicated E-sports, such as League of Legends and Dota 2. With constant updates and and increased viewership, CS:GO will  redefine the definition of a sport and make E-sports widely regarded as a valid event. Other countries have taken this step already; Sweden, the unofficial home of Counter Strike, has "a McDonald's burger that is named after Ninjas in Pyjamas," according to Warowl. The increased technological advances in E-sports viewing will hopefully give it the validity to be broadcasted on networks such as ESPN. But for now, we wait.

Source:
Get Ready for Dreamhack Winter 2014 CS:GO! [Motion picture]. (2014). United States: Youtube.