Blog - On Marketing Interactive Fiction
Sunday, March 23, 2008As he'll be speaking at GDX this year, I decided I should actually finish reading Chris Crawford's book on interactive fiction that I started a while back. I had plenty of time to sit and read as long render-times on one of my projects kept me from using the computer all day anyway.
I'm not quite done with the book, and I admittedly skipped around a bit, but in the book's conclusion, Crawford predicts how interactive fiction is going to come about.
He argues against "true" interactive fiction coming out of the game industry, and fair enough. There's likely quite a bit of truth to that claim, although I certainly feel like the game industry is going to be involved in at least some degree. Even if games and interactive fiction (as Crawford defines them) are different animals, they are certainly similar enough that the developers of each can benefit from feeding off one another. Game developers have already well learned that story can help sell games, and anything to give the player more agency over not only the game play but the story as well is something they're going to drool over and invest in.
I'm fairly sure game developers will hijack story world engines and hack in game mechanics as soon as a suitable story world engine comes along, making hybrids between the two media. I don't think the line between them needs to be so starkly drawn if there even is one at all, much in the same way that there is not much use in the end to arguing over whether a software title is a "game" or a "software toy" like Sim City.
He later goes on to claim that interactive fiction titles can't be marketed in the same way games are. In many ways, I'll agree with his arguments there.
The typical channel of going through producer, distributor, and retailer doesn't seem likely. I'll certainly give him that.
I also agree he's definitely right that if interactive fiction titles appeared on the same shelves as video games, they'd wither out and die, as their market isn't necessarily anything like the market that typically goes to look at those shelves.
However, there's one problem I see with his argument here, and that he's forgetting about the non-hardcore gamers out there. He's forgetting the whole rest of the game industry that doesn't make first person shooters. Sticking with my theme of late: what about the casual game developers and their audience?
From what I gather, this is a much larger industry than the game industry as he defines it (and how many define it, in his defense...)
So what if the interactive fiction market would not define themselves as gamers? Neither do most of the people who play Bejeweled, and that's a hell of a lot of people. Is Bejeweled having a hard time selling, and having trouble finding its market? No.
Granted, Bejeweled is one of the casual titles that have actually made it onto real world store shelves, but the casual industry in general seems to be doing fine without going through traditional distribution chains.
Crawford claims the game industry has too narrowly defined its market, and in some ways, yes, it totally has.
But Crawford has also narrowed his view as to what the game industry is and who the people who play games are as well.
Games are, I believe, a bit more mass-market than people think.
No, we still haven't reached his vision of what games should be right now. That too, I can lament. That is why I was interested in his book and the work he's doing in interactive fiction. Because when the technology for interactive storytelling does arrive in a workable, acceptable form, and game developers adopt the technology in their own way, well that's a day I want to see.
So keep being a pioneer, Chris.
Even if I'd argue with every third thing you claim. ;)
Labels: casual, interactive fiction, writing
posted by Brian Shurtleff @ 2:53 AM
0 Comments: