Why Episodic Gaming Isn’t Working

Over the last several years, we’ve all heard the pitch on episodic gaming (which for our purposes I’ll define loosely as content that is developed, delivered, and/or consumed in smaller installments, with no one installment being more primary than any other). It goes something like this: the company makes a game not in one huge release, but in smaller chapters that have their own beginning and end and yet tell one cohesive story. This has several benefits (in theory):

• development costs and over all risk are lowered for the publisher
• the entry point (read: purchase price) is lower for the consumer
• episodes are released every few months, instead of waiting years for sequels of normal games.
• it nurtures innovation, because lowered costs even the playing field between the big dogs (EA, Activision, et al) and the small developers, and encourage publishers to green light out of the box ideas.

While this seems like a good model for everyone involved, the reality of episodic content hasn’t exactly been a smash hit–yet. Here’s why:

Digital distribution isn’t mainstream yet

For the episodic model to work, it needs to partner with another growing niche of the gaming universe–digital distribution. No sane financial model would include breaking up a game into slices and multiplying the distribution costs (box art, production, and shipping) by the number of chapters therein. Fortunately for developers and publishers, the option of digital distribution (downloading a game directly to your hard drive via the internet) presents an attractive solution to the issue.

The problem is, if video games are in their adolescence, then digital distribution is in the embryonic stage, or at best in its infancy. The last three years have seen some amazing advances, with communities like Steam and Direct2Drive gaining popularity, but for the most part the general public remains unaware and/or unable to use those services. Until digital distribution becomes more mainstream, episodic gaming won’t be a financially feasible model. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you’re the impatient type), this will be solved by the simple passage of time. As technology and these services advance, the current bottle neck that is digital distribution will open up.

Certain genres are resistant to the episodic model

This point can best be summed up in a quote that Ritual’s Ken Howard made to Gameindustry.biz in an interview last January–

I believe some genres are better suited to episodic format than others. And I believe this is based on the customer base – not the developer or the game. The success of episodic content per genre will completely depend on the demands of the consumers who play that genre.

Episodic gaming is going to be most successful in genres that do not demand as much new content. Genres that depend on characters more than locations are more likely to succeed in episodic gaming. This is why we put a lot of emphasis on creating memorable characters.

I think it is still too early to say which genres will be best fits, but I think traditional adventure games, with the same core cast but a new mystery to face, is a great example of building a business around what the customer wants. Compare this to a genre where the customer is looking for the new “ooh and ahh” factor. That genre is going to be harder to develop episodes in because of what the customer is looking for.

The point is, up to now the only modern success in episodic gaming that has combined critical acclaim with reasonable or strong sales numbers has been Sam & Max, while graphical, AAA titles like Half Life and Sin Episodes have either seen lackluster sales or have been canceled altogether. Until there is a proven track record with a genre like the latter two titles, the viability of the episodic model for these types of games will remain in doubt. Which brings me to my next point…

Development time takes longer than is reasonable 

One of the biggest complaints that consumers have had with the generally excellent Half Life series has been the delays in development of the episodes. Part of this may be attributed to its genre–it’s a first person shooter, which is typified by cutting edge graphics, a bench mark that keeps changing and requires significantly more time to develop than an adventure game, which is focused less (or not at all!) on graphical quality and more on the narrative and the interaction between the recurring characters.

The brainstorm behind episodic gaming must pay it’s dues to the syndicated television show–the comparisons between the two models are rampantly abundant. But whereas a television program can produce and distribute episodes on a relatively quick basis (in terms of weeks), episodic games can take months and even years to develop. When these games run into delays, consumer confidence is shaken and more people are put off to the idea of episodic games. Who wants to pay to start something that may never even finish?  I’m looking at you, Sin: Episodes…

The financial models are too simplistic

I’m definitely not an expert in game development costs, but several key factors about episodic gaming present questions to the assumption that developing a title in parts represents a significant cut back in overall expenses. The first of these is the fact that costs are front loaded when developing a game. Art needs concepting, engines need to be designed or licensed, the general story arc must be written, the code programed, the voice acting hired–I could go on and on. Secondly, an episodic game must be given Quality Assurance testing multiple times, instead of just once for a “once and out” game. Likewise, several marketing pushes must be made, instead of a solitary blitz. These factors complicate the financial model, clouding the verdict on how viable the episodic model actually is.

One positive point about finances that I did think had merit came from MIT Associate Director for Special Projects David Edery, who said,

“If an episodic model enables you to cut your losses on underwhelming titles sooner, you’ve got more time and money left over to gamble on the next potential hit.”

What he’s essentially saying is that even if there was only a reasonable reduction on development costs, it would indeed mean that the consumer would see more innovative and interesting titles, instead of the same cookie-cutter franchises that tend to get green-lighted in today’s market–and that’s certainly something to champion.

——————————————————————————————————–

I want episodic gaming to succeed. I really do. I just think that there are several significant hurdles that any episodic game has to traverse before it can become a hit. An upcoming episodic game like Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rainslick Precipice of Darkness has what I consider to be the greatest chance of success because they already have a loyal fan base, as well as an established graphical style that can stay constant without looking outdated. Add to this their homage to point-and-click adventure style game play, and you have a pretty good vehicle with which to test the episodic waters.

However, until there are more proven success stories with this new style of content development, delivery, and consumption, and until the above hindering factors can be dealt with, episodic gaming will remain a concept that is more appealing in it’s potential than in its application.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)