Lately, it seems that game-based learning is trying to make a new push in going beyond entertainment. I have been running into a lot of projects that want to involve games in health and construction sector, but practically all other business areas as well.
What is interesting is that I think we may be coming to a point where the developers and buyers are getting closer to understanding each other. Instead of thinking about game-based learning as a real game it has become a good compromise to think in a game-like product. So, you will actually have applications, processes and products that you enhance by using game elements. This can both be game mechanics and graphics, which depends very much on the actual application.
The game-lile approach is in contrast to previously where you would often build things from the ground up – trying to make it as a real game, which is of course triggy with the budgets out there. In many ways I think this is a sign of the area maturing, and it will be really interesting to see what happens. Also, because it opens a way for subject matters experts to easier understand what games are and can be in there own area. This should cater for innovational thinking, where the game-based learning people. don’t come up with good ideas but rather the subject matters experts are enabled by the game-based learning people.
Currently, we are examining ways of thinking about knowledge management, innovation processes, change management and internal communication in companies not as games, but rather to enrich them with a few twists (Less is more). We already have a few cases but would like to take it to the next level – hopefully, we will be able to get some forward seeking companies.
So things been quiet lately here, too quiet. As is usually the case no news are good news. Indeed, I have been way too busy trying to joggle new strategic initiatives, some ambitious client projects, hiring new people and getting a research paper out the door. What is always interesting when hiring new people is that you get a glimpse at what is going on in other areas of the industry. I was also fortunate enough to participate in Innogate, a seminar on serious games and talking to a master student who was trying to find out what the prospects were for the Danish games industry.
All in all it leads to a lot of thinking of what one can do – so many options so little time. The old talk about partnership, sharing technology, networking etc. keeps coming up in these contexts. However, even if I often try to seek out these things out it seems it often don’t really materialize. I find that its amazingly hard to find these win-win partnerships, research projects or alliances that really work. We have had our share of attempts, and will continue.
One thing that I am particular frustrated with is that we are involved in numerous research projects, and even if it creates some value it never really gets to the point where I want it to. Maybe I am just unrealistic but I think a lot of the time it relates to the fact that the university world defines the research projects more than the commercial partner. Even if for example EU are very much into the whole ‘make it a commercial viable and interesting project’ it seems it never really materialize in these projects. It becomes too much lip-serving to research agendas, research communities and strange deliverables promised in a early application stage with imperfect knowledge (+ all the other general stuff arising from running long term projects with many partners with ill defined roles).
So I am really thinking about how we can get more value out of these projects, and help drive the area forward. I think that one of the tricks are to be more realistic, down-to-earth and humble. I have read more than a few research applications (especially for EU) that just didn’t make any sense but was a ‘ton’ of long words with unclear meaning to everyone (perhaps except the three researchers that were experts in the area). From now on my first question will be what is the exit-strategy for a research project.
For the Danish speaking part of this blog who is around 1/3 there is an interesting seminar coming up in a few days about serious games. You can learn more about the program here.
I found time to visit Brede Værk which is a new ambitious Danish exhibition about the industrilisation in Denmark. In many ways its a relly strong concept, but when visiting it is still missing something, and have some of the problems that are often aimed at including digital technology in museums. Interestingly, it has two very distint ways of using digital technology which each have their own challenges.
The exhibition is built with an interactive ticket system so when you start up you select a character you will follow through the exhibition. When you come to a new area in the exhibition you put in your card, and get the selected character’s perspective on the situation. The story and exhibition beyond that is pretty linear but it actually works quite well, and show that there is a potential for pushing the exhibition through a narrative and make it more meaningful and easy to relate to.
The biggest problem is that you end up looking more on the video screens that the actual exhibition artefacts, which is of course one of the big criticism often levelled us digitale technology. In reality you could really have seen the video anywhere and got an almost similar experience. Although you have some artefacts in the background – they become little more than distant background as they are not closely integrated into the videos and the narrative.
The other part of the exhibition that really use digital technology is a machine factory where you are sitting at the assembly line and must put together items in competition with other, and with world events influencing this. The concept is really strong, the visitors engaged and very hands-on experience. I am sure all visitors will remember this experience afterwards The challenge with this game is that is requires a lot of visitors to really work and that the game is a bit too complex. Furthermore, even if the museum experience is embedded in this experience it still becomes somewhat external. The assembly line feels more like Vietnam today than Denmark 200 years ago. So here the artifacts are not background but they become too much like the present. On the other hand the experience of being at an assembly line is conveyed extremely well.
I hope the old ‘computer-games-are-bigger-than-films’ myth will soon dye. Here is a pretty good graph that captures a number of different data. It’s always triggy what is included but it doesn’t favour games if you include everything for other market as there is limited IP spin-off for games compared to other media. While this is only for the Danish market it draws on some pretty good data, and to much knowledge the numbers are not radical different in other countries.
As is apparent from this blog Nordic Game (as usual) sparks a lot of thinking. I gave a pitch on our future business area Touch Screen media for a professional board. What we had been hearing about all day was that the only chance you had in this business was to think ahead of the market and find places that was still emerging. So touch-screen seem to be one of those areas.
We are still working on the idea, but the three major takeaways was the following:
* It’s naive to go for the touch-screen market. You can’t possible win that.
* An exit of $4 mio. is laughable,and not interesting
* It needs to be defendable.
The two first are really just consequences of the last point. The third point is really just another way of saying we need a ‘good idea’ other people can’t steal easily. What is of course interesting is that the entire social game is the return of the first-movers advantage, and this may very well happen on the touch-screen media as well. If people get there first, build a strong customer base and overlook the market they will be able to quickly react to potential competitors.
The interesting part was that while my pitch was in early start and naive in capturing the future market. Other pitches from more mature setups that wanted to get a foot into quite well-established areas were apparently not.I usually try to have respect for investors as they have a clean and outside perspective on the business, but the idea that going for the touch-screen media market is naive compared to setting up company number 200 in an area blood red from competition without an edge – well that’s just plain silly. This was pretty much what two of the other companies wanted.. Oh, well can’t win them all.
As I have been writing lately I am struggling to decide in what direction to take Serious Games Interactive, and we have been shooting back and forth ideas in kind of directions. So far the company has been known for the Global Conflicts-series but made the money from work-for-hire. We haven’t really paid the work-for-hire all the attention it deserved. I have been wondering where it could if we actually started to sell pro-actively rather than ‘waiting’ for customers to find us. I we definitely will. However, I have still not given up on the game-based learning space. I am increasingly skeptically that games will go into schools anytime soon – at least if schools have to pay real money for it. Of course there are other revenue streams but I am leaning more towards the private space.
The reason the private space is more interesting is that we have evidence that there is a demand. Back in the 1980s edutainment made up (according to some reports) 25% of the market, but as shelf space got more tight edutainment was driven out because it didn’t sell through quickly enough. Since then its been impossible to get edutainment ‘working’ – not even with a solid brand it seem to work well, at least it wasn’t quite enough from what I heard. So we are losing the eyeballs of the parents that are the buyers. We have to find a new channels.
The obvious place to look these days are digital distribution (both online for Pc, but maybe also mobile phones). Maybe also the consoles shops but I doubt it and it was partly confirmed at this years Nordic Game conference that young children (below 6 years are not really not on the consoles, and definitely not buying. Of course there parents may but my impression, it next to nothing.
In any case the retail space is not going to resurface for game-based learning. So digital distribution is the key. The challenge is really how do we get make the digital distribution as easy as going to the supermarket to buy milk, and then also picking up a learning game for our 4 year old. Parents are definitely not on Steam, Impulse, Gamers Gate and what have you. They might be on some of the more casual oriented sites (like BigFish). I was also told that GameStreamer may be trying to open up the space by moving the shop from their site to the places, where the users. To reduce the entry barrier.
However, in my opinion there is a really obvious channel, and although it may still be on the verge of its beginning that doesn’t change its potential. The IPhone and IPad have a smooth interface and a to-kill-for digital distribution system. After having played around with the Iphone for a while, and lately the IPad it strikes me as completely insane what you have to go through installing programs on a Pc/Mac. So, that is were we will be putting our money for the next years: Touch Screen Media. Basically because I believe that for game-based learning to work in the private space we need to make it dead simple – that will not be on the Pc anytime soon.
- see some of my favorites below – tested with my kid
So even if it’s not related to serious games in particular, the advice from PlayFish certainly hold true for our space. Obviously the below won’t be enough to make one successful but we could definitely use some more biz-minded people in the learning and games space. That is what is ultimately the biggest challenge. I still believe that before we prove that games and learning can generate real money it will stay niche, because we won’t get the venture money needed to scale the business/area.
“Lesson 0: If you want to be a successful entrepreneur, don’t try and win the market today. You will lose against the competition. Think 3-5 years ahead. Think forward, not about what’s out there now.
Lesson 1: Think like a chief financial officer. “Even I find this boring but it’s important,” said Segerstrale, adding that he always imagines CFO’s to look like Darth Vader. Develop a financially led operating model. If you don’t do this your company will not survive over time. It’s an insurance policy, he said. Understand and manage risk in a hits driven environment. You will get to insure you get to make games tomorrow and get more users over time. How? Look for leverage – can you make operations more efficient or find more ways of increasing revenue? As important as making a game is, ensuring you can have a future as a company is vital.
Lesson 2: Create great product. It sounds obvious but you’ve got to be number one or two in the category you go after. There’s no point being number five. If you don’t believe you can do it, you need to try a different category. Attract the best team, specialise, love your product and polish, polish, polish. Make sure you protect the IP you’re making.
Lesson 3: Kill product ruthlessly. Don’t let it develop if it’s not going in the right direction, no matter how much you love the product. It’s a resource drain. Avoid bad product because you need a high hit ratio. Implement green light gates on projects, assess constantly. Make these formal processes. Get everybody’s input. Don’t see a kill as a failure. Playfish has a kill ratio of 30 per cent.
Lesson 4: Build a platform. Develop adn document tools, technology and processes to constantly improve your efficiency. Think about creating a company not just creating a game. This gives you a better operating leverage and you can scale by hiring junior people to follow those processes rather than higher skilled people to create from scratch. It brings the costs down. Automate everything that can be automated.
Lesson 5: Be a numbers ninja. Playfish collects a billion data points a day. It’s so much data that it’s challenging to figure out what questions to ask from the beginning. Learn to test everything with numbers. Embrace rapid, iterative design. It makes better games, it helps you execute better every day. Create culture around experimentation with numbers. Collect everything, analyse what you can. Get a rocket scientist on board who will relish this data. Make sure metrics are measuable, but not vanity metrics.”
I am going to the Nordic Game conference tomorrow – I hope to see many interesting talks and people. The conference has been growing greatly since its early days where I was a contributor quite a number of times. The only issue I have is that the conference is quite expensive – really a shame.
This blog aims to discuss the area of game-based learning that have a long history but some times seems to be moving sideways rather than forward.
more →
