It's another Satuday in March, 2000. Y2K panic has come and gone, with some serious ripples in the power grid, some pain in the financial community and a few other related problems all but resolved.

You sit down at your 800MHz Pentium IV machine for some serious gaming in Falcon 5.2 under WIN2000. Today you are flying online with a naval MiG 29 squadron from North Korea against an F18 squadron based in Seoul.

But as you check your email you discover that the version 5.3 upgrade has now been released, with support for DirectX 7.5. Er.. did I say "upgrade" and not "patch?"

The Times They Are A'Changin'

Our friend the internet changes everything (well, many things), not the least of which is our hobby. Yes, there are still those who don't have access or those who have access but still consider anything but email a black hole. But, increasingly, the Internet is ever more pervasive and that trend is likely to continue.

The subject is patches, so why are we talking about the Internet? Because the retail channel for software, especially the kind of specialty games that the middle to hard core sim types really go for, is going to shrivel up and die before very long. And what that means is that the distribution means go elsewhere, or these games will cease to be produced. Enter the Internet and a new paradigm for distribution AND for development.

This change in distribution paradigm (bear in mind this is speculative, but based on the following quotation from Gilman Louie you can see where I am coming from) will affect how the business models for things like gaming software will work through the entire product lifecycle. For the serious simulation gamer, these changes will hold some interesting possibilites. Let's listen to Gilman:

Louie says that for the first 90 days after the game's release, the Falcon 4.0 team will turn its attention toward add-ons and enhancements that will be available for download at the game's official web site . . .

"I think the web is changing how we deal with product," Louie says.

But gamers who've been paying attention know that's not necessarily a good thing. Last year, it became clearer than ever that the Internet makes it all too easy for once-reliable game companies to rationalize releasing products that aren't ready yet----since they can always release a patch via the web. I pointed that out to Louie, who has an interesting take on the issue.

"I don't think Falcon 4.0 will ever be ready," he says. "It's such a realistic product that there's so many different directions you can pull it. So the team basically said 'This is what we think is ready; this is what our beta testers think is ready.' And as soon as it gets in the hands of half a million users, they'll let us know what they think is ready."

From Dan Bennett's interview with Gilman Louie, Vol 6, No. 3, March 1999 PCGamer

And the rest, as they say, "is history." Gamers have indeed let Microprose know "what is ready," which wasn't a whole lot. Unfortunately, MPS was not able to turn their attention immediately to add-ons and enhancements.

In spite of that, however, the enhancements are already in process. And the beginnings of a new paradigm are already glimmering like diamonds beneath a full moon.

Initially Dan Bennett seems prophetic. MPS may have created a new artificial life form, or merely a Frankenstein with radar and a nice paint job. It certainly seems easier to rationalize an unending stream of patches. But we need to dig deeper. What is happening benearth the surface, and where is it all going?

A Mining We Will Go!

Consider the online "housefan" games. In large part, their success depends upon a dedicated crowd that will download 12-15MB of game to play exclusively online. If you're willing to download the whole game, what's a patch or two among friends? Programs have been written for Windows that checks automatically for the availability of new drivers for your system and then installs them almost automatically. Remember the auto web-update patch for Total Air War? DiD may have jumped the gun with their technology, but this move is inevitable.

And if it's as easy as that why wouldn't this method become standard fare? By "easy" I mean a couple of things:

First, it's a near "push" update process. Consider an online game that, as part of the "login" sequence, always checks and offers you the chance to upgrade to the latest patch. Consider an offline game, even, that can tell if you have an Internet connection and can thus make the same offer. Easy stuff, and easy means a smaller support budget and happier gamers.

Second, I just got a cable modem (lucky me :-) and now the thought of downloading the entire F4 CD, all 600MB of it, doesn't hold much terror any more. And this is just the beginning for pipe bandwidth into the typical home -- this will continue to grow proportionately faster than game size for quite some time (based on subjective views of when CD games arrived versus how fast we've gone from 14k4 to 56k modems up through cable and DSL modems. Marketeers take note: I'd personally rather download a game while I do something else than sit in traffic on I-5 on a Saturday to obtain the latest title at EB or Circuit City.)

So distributing whole games through the Internet is likely to become the norm. Because of easing bandwidth considerations and the explosion of effective e-commerce solutions for takin' the money (I haven't bought a computer part locally that's more expensive than a cable in nearly 9 months -- and I buy a *lot* of computer parts ;-) it's much easier.

For specialty games like sims, the Internet works just as well for reaching the core audience, probably even better than retail. And it's a heck of a lot cheaper to do this "soft-distribution" than to cut gold master CDs and make cardboard, paper and cellophane. Yes, the marketing types are going to have to figure out how to grab the attention of the buyer who hitherto has picked up a copy on the shelf at the local software rip-off emporium.

So what does this mean for patches? Today there are two ends of the spectrum, and for the sake of simplicity let's generalize. Don't read this as any kind of evaluation, rather let's consider the range of possibility. And in This Corner...!

In the left corner we have JANES. The "golden boy" is well dressed, his manager has diamond studded cufflinks. After all, there is "history" and that "old world" tradition at work here! The JANES team work feverishly to make the new title as perfect as it can be, right out of the chute.

Yes, to the delight of gamers world wide, JANES offer patches only when they have to and do so slowly and deliberately for one or two iterations only. Dust off the suit, hop out of the ring and that's an end of it. Hopefully it was a knockout blow in the third round, because if the second patch doesn't address your issue, be it bug fix or enhancement request, you are probably out of luck. WWII Fighters is the most recent release to follow this pattern.

In the other corner we have Microprose. He may not have the weight of tradition on his side, but he's in fighting trim and not afraid to try some new moves. The initial release of Falcon 4 was heavily bug ridden, even by MPS' own evaluation. But wait, the favorite is down but not out! He pulls himself up on the ropes. The "Golden Boy" thought the match was won, but it ain't over til it's over.

Microprose, bless their fighting hearts, have made a public commitment to continue supporting the product with patches until it's perfect. And in only three months they have shipped three patches with a clear roadmap for more.

Most of the hubris around the topic of patches seems to point to the conventional wisdom that Jane's are doing it right and Microprose are charlatans out for your wallet. Our little boxer scenario would lead to the opposite conclusion. I'm not so sure that either of these is correct, but perhaps Microprose is at least falling in the right direction.

The Eternal Upgrade: Fact or Fancy?

For my money, I'd rather have products that are given extended life by a continuous upgrade path. Particularly for sims with the depth and complexity of Jane's F-15 and Falcon4, I invest huge amounts of learning time. With F-15 my investment of time has already stopped giving returns; Jane's have as much as said that F-15 will evolve into some other form but it'll be a whole new universe and I've pretty much wrung the current scenarios dry. I had great fun while it lasted!.

With Falcon4's philosophy, especially given the track record MPS say they hope to duplicate from F3's "electronic battlefield" best-known-methods, my investment is likely to continue paying dividends. Rather than the terminal Universe of F15, Falcon4 will allow me to fly first with MiG drivers, then Hornet drivers, and after that SA-6 wallahs and other interesting things of that ilk (if Steve Blankenship's wish-list come to pass that is ;-).

So is it ok to release F4 with a huge bug list? No. And then again, maybe yes. I'd much prefer that we marry F4's development strategy with Jane's "JD Power" standard initial product quality. Who wouldn't choose that if it were possible. But then again perhaps in an Internet-time distribution model, maybe it's not such a big deal. Try a thought experiment with me...

The New Paradigm

Consider. How about a business plan that says: we build the game until we think it's ready for some amount of outside exposure. Peg this to what we know today as beta for most games though most companies will continue to do some level of "private" testing, so what I mean here is that code will be released earlier than the Janes standard.

At this point copies will ship via the net, for the intended purchase price, but make it clear to purchasers that you plan to continue development to completion and that they can expect to find unknown/unspecified problems.

Take the F4 approach and do incremental beta releases, er, I mean patches, and repeat until the software is finished. Make regular reports/updates to actual and potential buyers about the current state of the code and known problems etc. Let the punters decide at what stage they lay their hard earned cyber cash on the counter.

So Where's the Catch?

You don't want to deal with beta quality code? Don't buy the game until the updates show that the game meets your standards. Read the USENET news group or COMBATSIM.COM message boards for a while and you'll soon develop a personal feel for evaluating whether a game meets your requirements for prime time.

Don't have time for this? Are you sure? Considering the time I invest in learning a new sim, reading the forums for a while now and then is time well spent, especially if it saves me frustration with a game that won't meet my needs. And if your answer is still "no time!" then you are the person who should wait until a company says the game is done. Not that that is any guarantee of completion these days!

On the other hand, if you want to get your hands on the beta code for the new grail like all those lucky simulation writers and editors (;-D), now you have a way to do it. And you don't have to worry about NDAs and all the ticklish legalities that go along with them.

There are a couple of issues that need more thought here, I'll admit.

At what point is a game "done" and what's to stop a company taking money early and not following through until "done" comes along? I think "done" will be defined by some balance between customer demands for more fixes/updates and the marketing dweebs figuring out that they've saturated demand for sales anyway (hey, doing something new is never easy).

As for follow through, at least follow through on Internet time, companies that take the money and run from the hard core crowd will get to do that once. More likely not even half of once; people figure this stuff out pretty fast ;-). And statistics show that while the "hard core" crowd only account for about 20% of simulation sales, they have a HUGE influence over the rest of the crowd, to the tune of about 60%.

The Dead Duck Syndrome

But what about the case where a game is released and people pay money but the developer either can't fix the problems or hears overwhelmingly negative feedback to the point that the product is effectively a dead duck? Maybe products that fall into this category deserve to die an early death.

And as for the folks that shell out early: "you pay your money and you take your chance." Early buyers risk an orphaned beta quality product in exchange for the chance to get their hands on the latest-greatest-thing-wannabe. Doesn't sound like a palatable risk? Then don't buy early.

Some will call this process paying to beta test. If you are one of these, then you shouldn't be an early buyer. Others, however, will applaud the chance to financially support developers whose wares they enjoy and will consider the chance to pay for earlier access to the code an investment in their hobby: feed the goose that lays the golden eggs. This is me, by the way, in case it's not obvious ;-).

Industrial Strength Advantage

What about the industry perspective? Why would any sane company want to adopt such an early release process? Why did Microprose release early? Were they entirely unaware of the beta status of the code?

Of course not. They were under pressure from all sides: from those who had waited four years to see Falcon4, and from Hasbro Execs who were concerned to begin garnering a return on their investment.

And therein lies the potential for the developer. A process of early release has the potential for producing an ealier revenue stream. Using the net will also cut production costs, at least in media and packaging, I'd wager.

Furthermore, if the process becomes defined, instead of partially accidental as it seems to be in the case of Falcon4, these early buyers will effectually partners in the development process, helping to nail down the last 10% of bugs - always the hardest to find.

Suppose the early adopters find a lame duck that should be shot sooner rather than later? That too is valuable information for a developer, who can then reassess the need for further investment or euthanasia. Otherwise wasted development funds could be saved and invested elsewhere.

The Bottom Line

Boil this down a bit... Just because the retail release/patch cycle is what we face today, doesn't mean that it's the only way. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the software retail channel didn't exist either.

I happen to think that Internet distribution will win because of it's innate ability to sate the capitalistic demand for instant gratification. Furthermore, this system will likely be cheaper to operate once the marketing types figure out the issue of capturing the right market audience participants when they're online.

You Say You Wanna Revolution

Historically, some revolutions are planned, and others occur by happy chance. With the early release of Falcon4 and the commitment to not only follow through but to expand the Falcon4 universe, MPS has stumbled onto something new and attractive. It would have been handled more smoothly if this had been the plan all along, but someone at MPS has seen the light. What I am suggesting is that developers now plan and staff to do things this way.

Not to say that software quality a la Janes wouldn't be better from the outset, I just think that getting there behind closed doors may not need to be the only way.

There's a win-win struggling to be birthed for both producers and hard-core early adopters, and maybe, just maybe, game producers with horribly underfunded test programs might end up with a greater chance of reaching good product quality with some outside help and early financial support.

Rebuttal by Eric Marlow

After reading the recent article by Mark Doran and Len Hjalmarson regarding the state of game development and distribution, I felt compelled to respond. While I agree with many of the statements they made, their comments may lead some to accept these paradigm shifts as the way of the future. I sincerely hope this is not the case. (Read the original article HERE.)

Internet Impact on Software Distribution

While I agree with the authors that the Internet has changed how software CAN be distributed, I'm not sure they have proven that it will or even should be done this way.

Hasbro Interactive

The authors seem to predict that the software retail channel will shrivel up and die. I concur that there are changes in the software industry taking place, most notably the attrition in the number of software retailers. But the software industry's primary means of moving its product - the retail store - is quite strong and is currently not in competition with other software delivery channels.

On-line software distribution (OLSD) has yet to take off. There are several reasons for this - reasons in fact that I believe will prevent this distribution channel from ever taking hold.

The vast majority of software purchases, especially in the electronic entertainment categories, are purchased off-the-shelf only after looking at the box, examining the screen-shots on the back, and feeling the weight of the product. Like many consumer purchases, there is a tactile pleasure in knowing that you have a physical product to take home.

With most games large, colorful manuals are included. Can you imagine hordes of Falcon 4 or Jane's F-15 players attempting to play the sim without a suitable "old-fashioned" manual for training and reference? Even the use of PDF files wouldn't make up for the lack of a printed manual.

OLSD would also be difficult to implement because of the size of the actual software files. As CD-ROMs and DVDs proliferate, the software industry has signaled their interest in the size of software files actually increasing, not decreasing. A game of 100MB might be downloadable with today's cable and xDSL modems, but I'd hate to try to download my Wing Commander Prophecy Gold via ANY modem, even a fast one. With a cable modem, you are still looking at download times of over 1-hour per CD-ROM (650MB).

Software manufacturers are discussing including even more video in their games because of the capacity of DVDs. I think this is great, but please don't tell me we can use streaming technology to play the video. My vision is going down hill as it is!

At a COMDEX several years ago, I head someone from Sun Microsystems say that the hard disk is just a substitute for bandwidth. A good substitute indeed! Within the current technology paradigms, a hard disk will ALWAYS be faster than the Internet.

Empire USA

The developers will always have to design their product and delivery channels around the lowest common denominator. Right now the average home Internet user is plugged in at 56k. Until cable and xDSL modems become more accessible, this trend will continue.

Once downloaded, then what? Will I have to make secure backups of the files so any system crash can be recovered or re-installation can be conducted? With my handy CD-ROM I can pull the game off the shelf, and CD ROM shelf life for all practical purposes is infinite. Having the game on the shelf also helps if I need to secure some hard drive space for other games. Since games will continue to grow, hard drive real estate will probably always be at a premium, even in the future.

Electronic distribution of software has been tried, and hasn't yet achieved the success the marketers had wished - software via free CD-ROM with an encoded password access system. OLSD amounts to nothing different that software distribution via CD-ROM with the additional hassle of having to download it first.

Unless software developers can come up with a strong base of retail websites that can handle the downloading of games, the developer would have to go it alone. That's a pretty high investment for any company. Add in the dimension of price competition (who wants to have to go to the manufacturer and pay full price?) and you've got a difficult formula indeed.

Internet Impact on Software Updates

I will agree whole-heartily with the authors that the Internet has given software manufacturers a new way of distributing software fixes and patches. I've already observed that each release of a patch includes the fixes included in a previous patch. Whew! Falcon 3 fans know where I'm coming from - "Can I install the Fighting Tiger add-on before or after the F/A-18 add-on?"

I would love the ability to seamlessly update my game with the latest version via the Internet. I think this idea makes sense, especially in an on-line play environment. Note to developers: even if you can integrate patch installation into your game, always give the gamer the option to download the patch and install it off-line!

Internet Impact on Software Releases

While it may be possible to envision an unending stream of patches, I feel this spells doom for game developers, since there are no new profits in the release of patches. Microprose is finding out as we speak how much effort is involved in producing patches. This effort has detracted from their longer-term vision of add-ons for the Falcon 4 line - add-ons that will create additional revenue instead of draining their revenue stream.

The authors seem to imply that somehow the release of unfinished software could make sense. They state that if we can be allowed to participate earlier in the software development that it's good for the software developers and the consumer because it starts the revenue stream earlier for the developer and we the consumer get to play with the game sooner.

By the authors own admission, hard-core gamers make up 20% of the market (I think this numbers is actually smaller.) This means that the vast majority of purchasers are beginning/intermediate level gamers with the intent of playing the game and NOT participating in a beta process. Most of these gamers are unfamiliar with some of the USENET groups and the likes of COMBATSIM.COM (sorry Len, we're working on that!)

Also, persons like myself are turned off by the USENET groups - groups that are magnets for the disenfranchised and belligerent. I really can't take much stock in what most of those hooligans say.

I'm not sure that even the hard-core gamers would be willing to shell out a full-price of $49.99 to participate in the product's early development cycle. To make it palatable for the early adopter, you'd have to reduce the price - say $29.95 or so. Well, you've just cut into the revenue stream of the group who are usually first on their block to pony up the full $49.95 for the sim.

Assuming 200,000 total copies sold, that's about an $800,000 potential loss in revenue in just the 20% hard-core crowd, if you assume that the hard-core types will be the early adopters. I don't think that amount can be recovered up by reducing the CD-ROM burning and manual printing. $800k might be the breaking point for a category that traditionally does not sell as well as first person shooters.

Of course these numbers reflect gross profits and do not take into consideration the gain in revenues by the removing of the distributor/retailer from the channel. And if the software developer is unable to offer the software directly, then an on-line distributor/retailer enters the equation again!

The question I ask myself is, "Does the release of software sooner with bugs, rather than later and nearer to completion, help or hinder the revenue stream?"

The realities of business and the goal of 4th quarter profits always seem to get in the way of quality code. This is as true in my other life as a Director of Information Systems as it is in the selling of PC Games. As a businessman I ask myself, "Does the increase in short term profits outweigh the potential of customer returns and loss of consumer confidence?" A tough choice indeed.

Here is some additional food for thought for those wishing to hit the Christmas buying season: the success of a product release is many times dependent on what other choices the purchasers have to quench their gaming thirst.

Everyone seems to agree that a software release during the Christmas buying season makes sense. But what happens when there are so many other Christmas releases (as there were this last Christmas) that you start to see a dilution of attention and dollars away from your product?

If your product is the best in it's category, it probably will sell well no matter what time of year it is released. But if the product is of poor quality and you choose to release it early, then there are many other game releases to prefer.

Many parallels can be drawn to the motion picture industry. Who wants to have their picture released the same time as "Episode One: The Phantom Menace?" Sometimes it's better to hold off for a better product and reduced competition. Cheers to SSI for holding off on Flanker 2.0.

I am torn by some of my statements. As my primary hobby and psychological diversion, I love to play military simulations. I wish the best for the developers so we can continue to receive new and interesting products. While I do not profess to have at my disposal a crystal ball, I'm familiar enough with the electronic entertainment industry to identify trends. The observations I've made regarding the release of unfinished code do not bode well for a product category that is already behind the eight ball as it is.

Mark Doran Replies to Eric Marlow

As predicted, I enjoyed Eric's "rebuttal" on the "patches and paradigms" editorial piece (he warned me that I'd stirred up a hornet or two ;-). We agree in some fundamental ways.

But while there is common ground, our vision is clearly at odds. If our future access to the tools of our trade (urr, hobby) is in the hands of retailers the likes of Software Etc. and Babbages, we are truly in a world of hurt.

Market Size

For hard core games, the market size is too small for the games to compete for shelf space over the long run with the inevitable (and irrelevant to me anyway) spin-offs from Star Wars: Episode 1 and Quake 27 etc, etc. It costs money to *buy* that shelf space, money which the relatively small market size for hard core sims can't justify.

Consider, recent articles in CGW (Dec 98) put the cost of buying a game onto retail shelves at around $250k. At a modest burdened rate, that's the equivalent of having somewhere between one and two pretty sharp engineers on a game development team for a year. That's a lot of over head for games that don't really generate huge revenues anyway.

I still see "binder copies" of Falcon4 in local stores so the first 200k units haven't sold out yet and prices have gone from around $55 at intro to as little as $15 this week, I hear. Even averaging this out generously this means that Microprose (MPS) are spending at least 3 or 4% of their *gross* Falcon4 revenues just to put the game in these shops; probably considerably more.

A quarter of a million bucks could buy a lot of internet distribution horsepower by comparison, methinks.

The other thing I want to re-emphasize is that I was talking about a shift of distribution and development model for hard core sims; not necessarily games in general (I happen to think it will go that way for games and all sorts of other commodities too but that wasn't my point for this context). We represent a niche market. And since I'm a straight fast-jet-only kind of person, I'm right in the corner of the niche.

I checked (PC Data sales figures), and in the last 2 years precisely TWO games I'd consider hard core sims have made it into the top 20 sellers in the retail market: MS Combat Flight Simulator and Falcon4. Falcon 4 made it to #19 for one month in January 1999 but then dropped out again immediately (apparently no mean feat all by itself given the precedences but depressing nonetheless in the big picture.) No sign of Janes F-15 and Longbow(s) or EF2000.

So what? Well the "what" is the inescapable conclusion that the retail chain is not motivated to serve the "hardcore" part of the market. These sims are a fraction of the games retail sales business. How could you possibly believe that the business types that drive the game producer/retailer axis (producer comapines now distinct from developers mind you) is going to operate to the benefit of hard core sim fans that make up a tiny fraction of their customer base??

No, we are far more likely to see ever more emphasis on hunting games and first-person-shooter clones and cinema-box-office-tie-ins oh and don't forget Barbie games because these are what the retain chains are selling in quantity.

Retail vs. Direct (Internet)

But even if this weren't the case, I don't buy the assertion that the retail chains are all that healthy anyway. Consider: fully 1/3 of retailers have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the last five years (CGW stat again). The survivors are doing the "Wall Street" thing and cosolidating, looking for economies of scale.

What's more, it's the fees producers pay to put the games on shelves that are making the money for the few retailers that are financially in the black. In general, the games themselves are being sold at or near cost by the retailers. In this context, there's just no motivation for the retail channel to stock things that aren't flying off the shelves. We're a step away from the grocery market model for software and as a buyer of minority interest products, I'm quite worried.

These businesses are not out to serve the hard core sim fan as a priority part of their core business. It just doesn't pay them to give priority to the kind of games we crave. Tell me again why we think we should not be actively looking elsewhere for the survival of access to our kind of games?

The Tactile Argument

Cheers for the comment on putting hands on the box. Got to agree, there is value in being able to see and touch product before you remove the safeties on your wallet. This valid consumer need for touchy-feely gratification is something marketeers are going to have to address if the internet sales channel is going to work for customers that are of the "walk-in" variety today.

Mind you, I read CGW, CNET and such reviews of hardware and buy "sight unseen" these days with great confidence. Cheaper. More efficient with my own time. Barely less satisfying now I've got over wanting that new sound card RIGHT NOW! :-)

Likewise for software I place great value in reading both online and in-print reviews and looking at screen shots, far more than I do in the blurb on the box. You definitely don't need to suffer the USENET hyperbole overload or obscurity and obfuscation of COMBATSIM.COM™message board operation to get a whole lot better information on a new title than you can get from the box.

It would be unwise to underestimate the ability of marketing dweebs to overcome the "browsing" shopper problem. People are already figuring out how to target advertising and info delivery on the internet. It's early yet so it's painful now, but given that Merrill-Lynch predict internet trade will be worth $1.4 trillion by 2003, I think someone has an idea on how to make some of these problems go away, and independently of our little corner of the problem to boot.

So I beg to disagree that online software sales can't work. I've bought lots of commercial programs this way. Most recently, "Pocket Mirror" (syncs Outlook calendar for my Palm Pilot) and Power Quest "Lost and Found" (oops, didn't actually mean to delete that partition after all.)

The big difference between these experiences and the CD + 800 number to buy a license key (which, BTW, I was involved in trying unsucessfully to make a business of at one point -- bad money maker as Eric says! ;-), is convenience. To describe "free locked CD, go buy a key" as the same as downloading from the internet is just a broken comparison.

First and foremost, hotbot and friends fix the hardest problem for the "locked" CD model -- no more problem figuring out how to connect a consumer with a product that they are looking for. The locked CD model borrows from the junk mail tradition -- fire off thousands of CDs to questionable mailing lists and hope the CD finds its way to an interested customer or two. The internet gives customers who are looking for a particular class of product much better access to a myriad of alternatives than a local retail outlet or this week's crop of junk mail. AOL and MSN Marketeers take note: I have enough coasters now thanks so please don't send me any more of your sign-up CDs -- thanks!

Internet and PC Neophytes

What about the spontaneous purchaser you may ask?? Well on the internet today, junk email and annoying banner ads (unfortuntely) are the tip of the marketing iceberg that will surely sink this problem before too long.

Yes, there's a behavioural switch needed to make shopping on the internet, window or otherwise, a reality. Still, look around you, how many of your friends now surf the web looking for info and whatever else... bet that number is growing!

My father is by his own admission a neophyte PC user and very recent internet dabbler. Still, he was able to determine from online reading that a web accelerator program would speed up his browsing experience. He bought, installed and availed himself of tech support on one such, all via internet only means (and most certainly without any help from me 6000 miles away). He told me this in the context of how pleasantly surprised he was at the ease and effectiveness of the whole thing. And if MY Dad can do it... (no offense, Dad! ;-)

It's no trick to click a URL and feed in a VISA number after trying out the "Lost and Found" demo for example. I did the demo download, test and purchase of full version in a couple of hours on a Sunday night. Try that with the local CompUSA store!

Code Size, Backups, and Docs

As for code size, I'd add that I was trying to look far forward... Our local cable provider is upgrading the local back bone to 100+ megabits (yes 100+) in a couple of months... Bandwidth is coming and give it three years and I'll bet you'll scoff at downloading a DVD or two.

Recovery and backups is an interesting problem though. I wonder if writable DVDs will be along soon or not (in an economical form...of course)? Licensing considerations are also interesting conundrums in this context. Hey, I said internet distribution was a good idea, not that it was going to be easy :-)

I'd also point out that the nearest decent size software retailer is 50 minutes drive from my house, one way. A single hour to download a CD looks like a pretty good bet to me versus nearly two hours, perhap more if there's an accident on I-5.

Eric found the "size" achilles heel though -- I don't fancy printing out a 600 page PDF file for the Falcon4 manual either. And I am the worst luddite when it comes to docs -- I must have paper...guess I need one of them 40 ppm colour laser printers after all, eh?? ;-)

Still not convinced?? Well, perhaps it will take a while to get enough pipe width into the home to warrant downloading Falcon5 over the net. But go back to my soundcard purchase. I researched the "right" choice and ordered up the card, all this via the net from the comfort of my own home after midnight.

I got much better informed reviews of the subject card from an hour or so's research on the net than I would have from going into a store, even if I had bothered a $6-an-hour salesperson for information beyond that on the retail packages themselves.

So even if you don't buy the download-the-whole-game argument, I think the case for the purchase-over-the-net-deliver-by-mail model is still pretty compelling all by itself.

And another thing...

I absolutely reject the idea that Microprose has seen any degradation of their add-on plans becuase of work to "finish" F4... far from it. As Steve Blankenship tells it, the future of add-ons is assured (as much as anything can be in this business that is!) This is part of my main point. If F4 had released when "finished" we'd still be waiting (Steve says he hopes 1.08 will be "finished" by the conventional measure.) I'm enjoying F4 now... aren't you??

Yes, it's taken them longer to get to 1.08 than envisioned and that has *slowed* down Mig29 and F/A-18 etc. but the release practise they've used has barely affected this slow down in any meaningful sense -- the code is just taking longer to finish than they'd planned for. And the work they are doing to knock the sharp edges off Falcon4 goes forward into the code base for the add-on titles anyway.

Don't confuse difficulty with distraction -- just ain't the same thing. This is not to say that MPsS are doing everything right -- I'm sure if they'd planned to use this incremental distribution model, things like the hue and cry over the closing of the supposedly open beta on v1.04 would probably not have been part of the story. Hindsight 20-20, right, Steve??

Early Adopters and Price Point

What about the suggestion that in order to get people to pay for what amounts to unfinished code you have to reduce the asking price. Revenue loss?? No, the suggestion I was making got bent and I think the logic is still there; albeit for that particular class of adopter, granted. I've had a half dozen or so mails on the original editorial agreeing that paying full whack to a developer as an "investment" in the good stuff is a great model.

I think the potential here has been underestimated. If full price is too rich for you to make it worthwhile, then I'd humbly submit that you are not in the early adopter category I described. The beauty of the model is that you get to choose your purchase point.

Assume for a second that what I envision comes to pass. Eric is right, there's a good question (or two) to be found in the balance between unscrupulous developers that will chance their reputation by releasing rough code to make a fast buck and how many developers are left standing come the finish.

But I'd argue that market forces will be the eventual arbiter in this context. Such unscrupulous behaviour is unsustainable on Internet Time, certainly not beyond one product release. The word will be out. The hard core crowd will figure out which developers they should put their faith in faster than I write this article, I'm sure.

Finally, we must agree on the Pavlovian treatment of the Christmas season. I too deplore the short sighted policies forced by the producers (note NOT the developers typically) to get something on the shelf just in case some bozo that doesn't know better will pick up a copy for cousin joe's xmas stocking. But it sort of reinforces the point I was trying to make -- the retail model as it exists today is not helping gamers in some substantive ways.

New Times, New Challenges

Eric makes some fine points on the challenges that a new distribution model must meet if it is to succeed. But I would argue that the status quo is a likely road to disaster for our genre anyway. Thus not only should we be skeptical of the value of today's retail distribution model, we should in fact be actively seeking to get away from it.

The internet has possibilities in this space, in spite of the challenges that lie in the path. These challenges can be overcome; forces beyond our little hobby will make the internet a commercial marketplace of immense proportions. Think big, think outside the boundaries with me. We need to reverse an ugly trend in distribution and the internet just might be the right tool.

A healthy debate! I surely hope a few of the rotten money-bags producers read it and start shaking in their boots -- they should be afraid, very afraid that customers are thinking about how the business should be run. The ability to move your business on Internet Time is a very powerful force.