Yesterday we began our two-part article on alterative funding models which may save computer games development from a deplorable and seemingly inevitable creativity downwards spiral. We talked business, from advertising in games, revamping the industry infrastructure towards a Hollywood Model to episodic and downloadable content. Today we get all Guardian and discuss the warm fuzzy independents and public broadcasters.
4. Independent distribution Sure, distributing an indie game without the corporate nod of the big publishers and format holders is setting it up for a hard slog to the top of the pile, but without the financial constraints of a "owned" title, such a model could really encourage innovation. Furthermore, without the time sensitivity of most named projects, an indie game wouldn't require end-of-development crunch time, and therefore could even address some of the quality of life issues that have sent most talent away from the industry never to return.
Now might be the best time to branch out into indie, as next generation consoles move towards a model of user-generated content via community channels. Much has been made about the potential of the Xbox 360 community platform and the Nintendo Revolution for publisher-skirting, and it's already evident with the home brew culture of the Sony PSP handheld.
As Greg Costikyan ranted at the 2005 Game Developers Conference:
You have choices too: work in a massive sweatshop publisher-run studio with thousands of others making the next racing game with the same gameplay as Pole Position. Or you can riot in the streets of Redwood City! Choose another business model, development path, and you can choose to remember why you love games and make sure in a generation's time there are still games to love.
You can head to his Manifesto Games site ("the Miramax of independent games") to find out more about indie games. Also, check out the nominees and winners from this year's Independent Game Festival awards.
5. Public Broadcasters Finally, there's been a lot of chat on the blogsphere lately about whether and how public broadcasters are fulfilling their remit to inform, educate and entertain when it comes to computer games. Of course, we're not talking about the BBC funding the next Grand Theft Auto, but broadcasters may gain from exploring the serious games genre as a method of disseminating their information to their audiences.
The topic was first tackled by David Rejeski on Gamasutra, who argued for a Corporation for Public Gaming:
A Corporation for Public Gaming (CPG) could be established that would operate on a model similar to its broadcasting equivalent, providing grants to develop a diversity of games for the public good. Like CPB[roadcasters], the goal of the CPG would be to provide high-quality games, which "inform, enlighten and enrich the public." A $15 million annual investment would be made for a three-year period with a review conducted at the end of year three followed by recommendations for continuance, modification, or termination of the program. Grants would be made available to qualified non-profits who could partner with commercial game developers, universities, museums, schools, or government entities. All grants would require a 15 percent set aside to support a rigorous evaluation of the game's impact. A portion of the overall funding would go to universities to conduct research on how to improve the content, impact, and evaluation of such games. An alternative model would be to support serious games within the existing Corporation for Public Broadcasting, by increasing the appropriation and changing the allocation formula from the 75-25 percent split between television and radio to one that reflected the additional funding for games.
Having spent a lot of time over the past few weeks discussing serious games, I'm particularly interested in the academic rigour which Rejeski proposes. This does tend to slow down the process of releasing a product to market, and can - notice I didn't say does - reduce the whimsy and fun of interactive software.
Still, $15 million's a pretty substantial investment. It could seriously reduce the between-jobs terror that befalls many traditional games developers.
On this side of the proverbial pond, Alice at Wonderland does a doozy on the role of her employer (the BBC) in the digital sludgepit.
...public service creations should go where others haven't dared to tread (yet); they should experiment on behalf of the commercial industry as well as customers interested in the new, the alternative or the different. Public service creations should strive to quest out at the edges, and bring back news of gold or inclement weather for the benefit of others. Public service entities are, after all, millions of tiny investments by the Many: they should risk more because they can afford to, and they should share those lessons and insights with everyone else. (emphasis as in original)
The comments Alice gets are equally as interesting.
The BBC has done a terrific job in the past bringing digital entertainment into the home. The well-loved BBC Micro is an excellent example. As Mark Kelly at gamepolitics points out, however, Fightbox wasn't so good.
One caveat which both David and Alice point out: it would be best for the broadcasters to keep the "worthy" thing a secret and simply plump up the cash for some stimulating and worthwhile entertainment.
There are plenty of alternatives out there for the designer-in-the-making. You don't have to buy a development team on eBay, you just have to broaden your horizons away from the overly-commercial corporates and do some lateral thinking.
