Slashdot Mirror
The Manifesto on the Evils of GameTap
Gamasutra sits down with Manifesto Games co-founder Greg Costikyan to discuss how the revolution is coming along. They explore the group's business model, the retail market, and the dangers of GameTap. From the article: "They don't worry me, particularly; I'm skeptical that their business model is sustainable. But basically, my argument is that they can afford to offer so large a number of titles for a $10/month fee largely because the major publishers view older games as worthless, since they cannot be sold through conventional retail any longer, so they're willing to accept a small share of rental revenue. But I also believe that PC games, in particular, are going to move online in a big way over the next few years and will eventually disappear from game stores — PC games are responsible for just 6% of their revenues, and take up a lot more shelf space than that justifies." Mr. Costikyan further explores this last concept in a post on his site called, simply, Why GameTap is Evil.
To be fair to him, he clarifies that it's not necessarily a bad business model, that is, it may well be good for GameTap. He just thinks it's bad for everyone else. His reasoning involves repeating some sort of bizarre metaphor about making gravy from spoiled fruit. Is that, like, vegan gravy or something? It doesn't sound very appetizing, anyway.
As far as I can tell, he believes that GameTap's "bad" business model is going to cause some sort of vegan gravy apocolypse.
Mr. Costikyan's assertion that software, games in particular, are not like fruit, in that they do not have an "expiration date", is flat-out wrong. I think they have a very definite shelf-life, which directly corresponds to both the platform they run on and the available hardware.
A game written for DOS should not still sell for the same price it did when it first came out. A game that only plays on a console that hasn't been sold in years should not be the original price. If one extrapolates Mr. Costikyan's comments to other industries, such as automobiles, it's akin to saying that an 82 Pontiac should be the same price now as it was then. That, despite the engine, braking system, interior pieces, safety systems, etc., all being subpar by today's standards. If you apply it to the electronics industry, it's like saying an 8086 should still cost $2000.
That's nonsense. If a game doesn't work under XP/Vista/OS X/whatever OS you run, doesn't work with your fancy new gaming controller, doesn't play on the current consoles, then why should it's value not be reduced? Sure, the gameplay itself hasn't changed, but if you can't run it, then it's intrinsic value depreciates. Whether or not that's fair to developers is another issue, but everything gets outdated. I wouldn't spend as much for a copy of Windows 3.1 as I would for a copy of XP, and it's the same thing with games.
Ok I didn't finish the article because the first part has me slapping my forehead.
"My belief is that's as it should be. The value of a game has--well, not nothing to to with its age, because, say, there's not a lot of point in buying a game that only runs under DOS today. And I'm not at all sure I'd want to buy the original Civ, at this point, either (though a great game it was); I'd want the most recent version. But in general, a game is a game, and it surely doesn't lose 80% of its value in the course of a year."
But surely It does loes 80% of it's value. It's called supply and demand. Ok so supply of a game over the course of it's first couple years of release is relatively constant. Now since demand for a game is greater in the beggining a publisher can charge a premium price. Over time demand wanes but the supply is the same so the price must drop so people will buy it. It's a pretty simple concept. He also goes on to rant that somehow gametap is a bad model because it deprives game publishers of their due. It's providing easy access to games that are no longer is to obtain. So if a publisher gets only a small portion of the game, they aren't being shorted out of the full MRSP. Nobody is going to pay that, they are getting a small portion of money that they would never have seen. So in essence publishers are benefiting from Gametap. Of course I'm using economic princples and logic which don't make for assnine and "entertaining" blog posts.
The part I think he misses with his fruity analogies, is that room may exist in the market for BOTH models to coexist peacefully. The subtle flaw in his logic is where he manages to simultaneously argue that old games still have value, yet DOS games aren't as valuable because they're difficult to run. Both statements are true, but they create a huge divide between the 'old' and the 'new'.
No studio in their right mind is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to update a DOS game for a re-release. The most they're going to do is a straight-up port that they can cram in a shovelware collection. If they can shortcut this cost with an emulator, all the better. The down side to this method is that the product doesn't hold the same market value it once did. For example, Doom II can't directly compete for the same dollar that Doom III competes for.
This means that it's actually in a publisher's interest to promote these games as "classic". This removes them from direct competition with the new titles, and allows the studio to make more money rather than siphoning sales from their new product lines. So when push comes to shove, I don't think the online retailers will have anything to worry about from Gametap. The only way that Gametap could pose any sort of threat is if the Indies put out games in the vein of those from 10 or 20 years ago, rather than producing games that compete in the current market.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The whinefest "Games are Not Fruit" is a total joke.
And then a few paragraphs later...
Oh right. Unless, like you pointed out, they're on an older OS or a sequel comes out. Dumbass.
The market is changing. Adapt or die, Costikyan, and take your ugly-ass website with you.
...for indie developers.
But really, isn't that rather like saying "If this 'dollar store' idea takes off, they'll put every retail store out of business!!"?
I'm not convinced that gametap and the indie game markets are mutually exclusive. No one's going to release new games straight to gametap when they can sell them in stores and online for far more, just like no one releases new, quality products straight to the dollar store.
Relax. Keep making new, interesting games, and we'll keep buying them. The vast majority of gamers want the latest and greatest anyway. Most of those of us who play older games do so for nostalgia, because we played those games as children. All the kids turning 13 this year, and getting their first console are still going to want 2k7, and the latest FPS.
GameTap just lets us older gamers play our favorite NES titles without blowing the dust out of the cartridge and resetting the system a few dozen times. By the way -- you wouldn't be making any money off us doing that, either -- we either already own them, or bought them on the used market. At least you get a few cents when we play the same games on GameTap.
Well, whenever I download anything I want to hold on to, I burn it to CD or DVD and write any registration info on it in indelible marker. That way if my hard drive crashes and something is wrong with my backup, I can just reinstall it.
So, like I said, it is the same problem with boxware, but I would be out less money usually.
You say you want a revolution....