The Pilot Paradigm

To summarise, there are several business and sociological trends which can be taken into consideration regarding this method of IP development; and subsequently the players approval or disapproval of it. Players have shown that they enjoy compact gaming experiences with the sustained success of XBLA and PSN. They have proven that they enjoy shorter, more directed games with very creative and experimental approaches to gameplay. The player spends less money, and often gets a very satisfying game; which is really at the heart of this matter.

For a player to pay $60 on a boxed product and find they're wholly disinterested in it, is a problem in my view. It's a problem for the gamer, and a problem for the developer because they risk future sales. Furthermore, this risk of developing large scale titles forces publishers to limit experimentation, thereby further limiting the player's choice.

We often hear about a lack of innovation from players, or industry media telling us that large swathes of people from developer X have been laid off, and how less than 10 per cent of games pay for the other failed 90 per cent. This is a result of copying the worst aspects of Hollywood, the hype and 'sequel-itis', while ignoring their best aspects.

TV Networks will do a pilot to see if there is any chemistry with the audience, or if the project can be successfully developed, but we don't release pilot games to show off our interesting new mechanic/visual theme; we just make massive assumptions about what's 'cool' and 'fun' and then plow into a $40 million project. The end result is more redundant experiences for the player, and embattled publishers who are financially enslaved by the need to make franchise soup, again and again.

Proof of this sort of test marketing/development is very apparent in the comic book industry. I've worked with comic book developers, and their business model now mirrors the pilot or 'pre-DLC (preview downloadable content) ideology. They basically float a story/comic to see how the audience reacts. If the idea hits, they usually prep it for the TV and film markets. The end result is such that the consumer/reader gets the media experience they find fascinating, and the comic publisher manages to save a lot of money while providing said content.

This idea of being able to spend less money to launch an IP isn't some sleazy business move; it allows larger companies to become highly agile in their creative process. Instead of betting $40 million on one game, they can bet $2 million on 20 new ideas and find out if people are interested; the ones that hit move forward, the ones that don't are killed; it's like game development death-match.

Now here is an important thing to take-away: To the player, this is not ramping up an IP. It basically translates to publishers releasing many more, smaller, experimental games. The player only benefits from it. They spend less money to see if they're interested, and it injects some indie spirit into monolithic publisher practices. The games/ideas that prove themselves to the audience will get the huge budgets and releases. As the financial risk is reduced and then spread across multiple projects, the desire to take risks on each individual project increases, much to the benefit of the player.

An obvious comparison is episodic gaming. Although this method is not exactly the same, it does have similarities, and players have proven that they're willing to adopt episodic gaming for the right games/ideas. Mind you, episodic gaming is really just a short release form for sequels, hammering away at what worked in order to cash in; this is not allowed in the pilot model. New games based on the same IP must change things up. If you consider the fact that many developers/publishers are starting to release smaller/amended/test versions of a game via Facebook, I think a strong case can be made for this ideology.