Developers, publishers and carriers are bringing new titles to market every day in their haste to cash in on the exploding mobile-game industry. But the crush of new games includes far too many mediocre offerings, some say.
“My fear is that we have games that have great names but that give the user a bad experience,” said Jason Ford, general manager of games for Sprint PCS. Ford has assembled a group of about a dozen Sprint employees who meet regularly to test new games. Those that are approved get on the carrier’s deck.
“We reject probably 50 percent of the concepts that come in the door,” Ford said earlier this month, adding that he was in the process of rejecting one branded title from a major publisher. “(Our acceptance) doesn’t always go in line with big names or big publishers. … It’s on a game-by-game basis.”
The problem isn’t as much what gets filtered out, though, as what gets onto the carrier decks, which are the most prized real estate in the wireless content industry. Games with eye-catching titles based on big-budget Hollywood blockbusters or noted console franchises often get premium deck placement and may be the most attractive to users trying out games for the first time.
Carriers are eager to offer such big-branded titles, which usually sell well in a short period of time. Earlier this year, Cingular Wireless L.L.C. said it planned to offer an astounding nine mobile games based on the “Revenge of the Sith” Star Wars film. Sprint enjoyed success with a “Looney Tunes” game it released several years ago despite the game’s utter lack of good game play, Ford conceded.
“There was no fun in it; I pulled it down the first day I could,” Ford said of the game, titled Zany Racer. “I regret that we felt it necessary to alienate so many people” by bringing the title to market. One reviewer said the game was so bad Sprint customers should be reimbursed even if they hadn’t bought the game.
It’s not all that easy to buy a game either. Users generally have to drill down through several layers to find the kind of games they want, then wait while they download the content. And some carriers charge usage time in addition to the game transaction, effectively forcing the customer to pay just to see what’s on the shelves.
After jumping through all those hurdles, customers-particularly first-time game buyers-who are disappointed with a game aren’t likely to shop again anytime soon, Ford warned.
“We need to be careful we don’t duplicate the PC game market of the mid-’90s, when there were too many publishers, and the quality control was not there,” he explained. Installing games was often difficult, Ford said, and users were often disappointed once they finally could start playing.
Vodafone Group plc’s content chief Graeme Ferguson called attention to the number of inferior titles last month, saying he was amazed at how many games with noted licenses are “really rubbish,” citing a “Lord of the Rings” title the carrier rejected. Carriers aren’t the only ones concerned about mediocre games; developers and publishers say they see the threat as well.
“Almost every gaming conference I go to, they go around the room and ask what the biggest challenge is,” said William Erickson, chief executive officer of M7 Networks Inc., which powers Sprint’s gaming community Game Lobby. “Quality always seems to be at the top of everyone’s list.”
PC and console gaming enthusiasts addressed similar problems in those industries years ago, establishing Web sites where both professional reviewers and consumers rate games and post comments. A few of these sites now include wireless titles, offering some insight for wireless gamers in the know.
Sprint’s Game Lobby also provides a forum where players can recommend and review titles, as well as exchange comments and post high scores. But first-time game players are unlikely to use such resources before buying games, and most probably aren’t aware of them.
Some games are offered on a trial basis, allowing users to play a few times before requiring a purchase. But carriers fear the bottom-line repercussions of offering a taste of a product when its life cycle is already measured in days.
The open nature of the market is also a contributing factor, according to Daniel Kranzler, CEO of Mforma Group Inc. Big-budget media companies and new developers flush with venture capital are rushing to market with poorly designed games that simply aren’t fun, he said.
Kranzler compared wireless gaming to the early days of the console, when Atari allowed any developer to make games for its system. The result was an avalanche of games, many of which were lackluster.
“There were 50 bowling games for the Atari, 40 of which were crap,” said Kranzler. “The counterpoint was Nintendo, which said you had to be certified” to make games for its platform, resulting in fewer titles but higher-quality games.
Indeed, carriers seem to be whittling down the overwhelming number of titles on their decks. While it’s not unusual for an operator to offer hundreds of games at any one time, most operators are beginning to be more selective in the games they make available to their subscribers.
“All the carriers have way too many games,” Erickson explained. “Every carrier is retiring SKUs like crazy.”
The key to creating more quality games is moving beyond traditional games to titles that take advantage of the platform, said Erickson. While the wireless phone is an undeniably poor platform for traditional games, game makers have yet to take full advantage of its connectivity and mobility. Publishers should also develop games that offer self-refreshing content, Erickson said, encouraging user interaction and extending a game’s life cycle.
“What you need to do is the next new thing” instead of simply moving an arcade classic to the phone, Erickson said. “I think the network flavor is something that hasn’t really been exploited enough yet.”
