Ravenlock
Joined 18 years ago
Joined 18 years ago
Would I buy a $5 special every two weeks? No, but I wasn't going to buy a $20 special every 8 weeks, either, and Louis made $250,000 PROFIT in FOUR DAYS. He doesn't need to do this every two weeks or every month or even every six months (nor could he; he edits it all himself). Would I pay $5 every year for a new special from Louis CK? I certainly would.
Now, I guess the more logical way to interpret what the author wrote is "what if, between all the comedians, these things were dropping every 2 weeks?", but that's no different than what you have now, except it's physical media, a higher price, and a slightly more spread out timeline. In both cases, people will buy the stuff from the people they really like and want to support, and prioritize their spending along those lines.
Though actually I would argue that if 4 comedians get $5 out of me, that's better for all 4 of them (assuming I'm part of a larger audience) than if one of them got some cut of $20.
Well, I'd certainly be more willing to pull out my credit card for a $5 charge than I am for a $20 charge, which means it'd still be more successful with me than it is on the shelves at Walmart. And since I've never purchased a comedy DVD from anyone but threw down $5 without hesitation for Louis CK's special, it's infinitely more successful than the physical model in my case already.
How often would I do that? No idea. Depends how many comedians I really wanted to support, how often they put stuff out, and how my finances were looking at the time. But all three of those factors equally impact their chances at my money in "the real, physical world" (which is an utterly stupid phrase in this context, btw - he made $250,000 very real dollars in 4 days), and I'm still more likely to spend $5 than $20.
The only variable here is exposure. Can Louis (or other people who want to try the same) reach enough people using non-corporate-media methods to make up the difference between a $5 sale and a $20 sale, or can't they? Obviously a brand new talent isn't going to have the success with it that Louis CK does, but a brand new talent, with the rarest exception, isn't getting shelf space at Walmart either.
This strikes me as a lot of doom and gloom over nothing. He paid for production costs with ticket sales for the live show. He made back his money on putting the thing online more or less instantly. Will it work for everyone? Of course not, nothing works for everyone. But I bet it'll work for him again the next time he does it.
The market is there, and the landscape is shifting. The reason $60 AAA titles from giant monoliths all feel like they're imitating each other is that they don't know how to do anything else. But small, innovative developers are finding a lot of success.
As someone who loves the indie scene, it's hard for me to think of a better time to have been a gamer, and I too have been playing since the days of 5.25 floppies.
It felt GREAT.
Seriously, it's off to a really nice start. I very frequently mentally "put away" a set of tabs to use later (things to show my wife, or items to compare when shopping, or news stories I want to read) but then I have to remember which tabs in the 20 or 30 I have open they are so I can revisit them, and it takes up way too much mental space.
Being able to physically lay them out like paper piles on a desk and name them is a great way to approach solving the problem, and I'm already enjoying using it. There are some technical details I'm curious about (does it keep non-active tab groups in memory? That seems like it could become unmanageable, but I might want certain ones to still be "live", if they had updating info I cared about), but I'm impressed with what I see so far.
Not-so-good-old-days indeed.
I mean, a certain amount of the point is self-evident by its asking you to re-evaluate your original statements and feelings, but I feel like it's an exercise I would do once, learn or discard, and then never need the website again after that. What further functionality is planned?
Strangely, her counter-argument that it's no more ridiculous to think that she would sue for spinal problems relating to sitting in the standard provided office chair wasn't given much attention.
See "Shuttering Manifesto", here: http://www.manifestogames.com/node/5151
Excerpt: "...Clearly, we haven't succeeded in realizing that vision. There are a host of possible reasons why; perhaps we launched with an excess of naïve optimism, through of course a surfeit of optimism is an entrepreneurial necessity. We did not achieve the critical mass of support by independent developers that we had initially envisioned (some of whom, bizarrely, viewed us as a competitor), though we appreciate the strong and enduring support we received from some. We always knew that the essential problem we were trying to solve was a marketing one, but we never figured out how to crack the marketing nut, at least with the minimal financial resources we had available. We failed to raise substantial venture money, despite engaging with many VCs over time. And of course, the recession doesn't help."