It is a big switch to go from putting out packaged titles to building a service. Casual game companies may not yet have the cultural DNA to build a robust online gaming world.
Integration of web and game development. In some larger groups, web and game development often exist in two separate silos. The development platforms are different, the skills are different, and the goals have historically been different.
Yet the development of the games and the development of the base web service are intimately intertwined activities. In order for the service to succeed, web and game development needs to be integrated in cross-functional teams. The game development teams need team members that intimately understand web metrics, web usability, flash development and customer support. Support for virtual currencies, achievements, and ties into service wide meta-games are typical features, and you need teams that can handle the cross-discipline requirements.
Packaged goods mindset. Currently, most casual game developers ship complete, packaged games. Teams are steeped in the premise that they create a complete set of levels and gameplay that is sold to the customer for a one-time fee. When you get into services, this assumption is challenged by the need for incremental updates, virtual goods, seasonal events, and hot fixes.
Inexperience dealing with community support. There is a rule of thumb that the real development on an MMO doesn't begin until it has gone live. The social anarchy that results from thousands of players interacting with your code requires a completely different form of support than a packaged game. An experienced live support team would need to be grown to handle these situations.
Not enough people on the team. Many casual titles are put out by one- or two-person shops. They outsource the artwork, the sound and often even much of the marketing and business. Some smaller groups barely have enough human capital to pop out a game or two a year, never mind manage a service. As a result, most successful casual services will be built by medium-sized groups who can devote a developer (or five) to building and maintaining the service.
Lack of business experience running a profitable service. Running a successful service means mastering the business side of micropayments, price setting, seasonal promotions, and virtual currency issues. Making that switch from monetizing each game to monetizing the service can be painful. A common mistake is to treat the service as a free add-on in the hope of selling more packaged goods. The result is a developer who finds that their service investments just don't pay off.
The next stage in the evolution of casual games
The future powerhouses of the casual games industry are companies that have the best attributes of both existing developers and portals, tied together by a rich meta-game experience. A community of passionate gamers, heavily invested in the service, helps the company weather the inevitable surge of talented upstart game developers and predatory middlemen.
Other companies are sprouting up that embrace the hybrid portal/casual game developer/MMO from the very start.
Start from scratch: BuildCafé.com and Flowplay.com both have the stated mission of building a social community around casual games, complete with avatars, virtual currency and virtual item sales.
Partner: Service operators such as Outspark are building up considerable expertise managing MMOs brought over from Asia. These are the new middlemen of the industry, though they have a much tighter relationship with the developer than current portals.
Add a service to your existing titles. Middleware companies like MetaPlace or Aria are making the cost of starting your own service smaller than ever. I suspect we'll see a half dozen more announcements over the coming year.
If your company is not interested in created a major online community built around casual games, others will happily reap the benefits of doing so.
Still plenty of room
Yet, this is not a winner-take-all market. A mere 100,000 active users can result in a vibrant, profitable community that lasts for a decade or longer. Some survive on far less. People will come for the games, and stay for the community. The business dynamics are far more palatable than the vast numbers needed to make a pure advertising or packaged games business work.
There is room for hundreds, perhaps thousands of such services, occupying a spectrum of interesting niches. Most will fly under the radar, completely unnoticed by mainstream media and generally unaffected by the ups and downs of the marketplace. The market, for at least a decade or so, will become a fragmented place spotted with islands of humanity. Some islands will be bigger and more noticeable than others, but they will not remove the opportunity for the willing entrepreneur to carve out a spot of their own.
Great article and echoes many of my thoughts, feelings and fears for the causal indie industry. Having worked on and recently completed two best-of-breed quality games I can say Strategy B: already fails. Portals are already demanding 75% and have no intentions of giving you their customer info. Not even if you were to give them 100% of your profits. They know, as you pointed out, it's the customer thats the gold. :-/
The main problem I see is that the portal themselves are utilizing community building to achieve lifetime customer loyalty, and if the developers try to compete against that, then the portals would nip the whole thing off at the bud when negotiating the initial publishing deal--stating that the developer cannot design such a system into the game that will lead the customers away from the portal and to the developer's own community. When that happens, what then? If no portal is willing to sign a contract with you unless you don't compete against their online community service, what do you do then?
Jason Pineo - I don't think you can simply say that. That's like saying "Just compete with core game publishers and win." Portals have massive financial backing and are in many ways far more powerful.
"Portals have massive financial backing and are in many ways far more powerful."
You are actually being naive. Sure, if there was one portal (publisher) and they had a monopoly on distribution (EA) then yes, you would be beholden to their demands. But that's not the case. There are a ton of Portals. If one of them is being unreasonable, go to the next, and keep going to the next until one of them doesn't put unreasonable demands on your product. Its unlikely that every single portal will be savvy enough to demand no-developer-services.
Not only that, but its simply a case of framing the pitch. If you say "my program has online scores!" then they'll actually use it as a selling point, rather than immediately assuming you are attempting to steal their revenue.
If all else fails, you can go it alone without the portals anyway. Since you as a service provider have instituted your own billing mechanisms, you have covered one-half of what the portals offer, and the other half is simply word-of-mouth. That means its time to go guerrilla, and email every online-game-blog, every review site, post on forums, and take the marketing aspect into your own hands.
At no point are you completely overwhelmed and smothered by the existing giants. It's simply an issue of thinking creatively and going around them when you can't go through them.
PlayFirst's Diner Dash Hometown Hero has a generic portal version which is sold at $19.95 and a Gourmet Edition with microtransactions and (PF-registration required) multiplayer which they sell at $19.95. Which distribution channels are giving away their customers by selling the Gourmet Edition?
Great article. I think that the casual game market is very competitive especially as the quality of free online games rises. As you pointed out, as tools used to create flash games and other like "Second Life" continue to improve they will play a much more prevalent role in the casual gaming community.
I needed such a description as I will publish my game soon through online channels. Hope it will work!
Best regards,
Charlie
You are actually being naive. Sure, if there was one portal (publisher) and they had a monopoly on distribution (EA) then yes, you would be beholden to their demands. But that's not the case. There are a ton of Portals. If one of them is being unreasonable, go to the next, and keep going to the next until one of them doesn't put unreasonable demands on your product. Its unlikely that every single portal will be savvy enough to demand no-developer-services.
Not only that, but its simply a case of framing the pitch. If you say "my program has online scores!" then they'll actually use it as a selling point, rather than immediately assuming you are attempting to steal their revenue.
If all else fails, you can go it alone without the portals anyway. Since you as a service provider have instituted your own billing mechanisms, you have covered one-half of what the portals offer, and the other half is simply word-of-mouth. That means its time to go guerrilla, and email every online-game-blog, every review site, post on forums, and take the marketing aspect into your own hands.
At no point are you completely overwhelmed and smothered by the existing giants. It's simply an issue of thinking creatively and going around them when you can't go through them.