Like its name suggests, every time a game goes up on Steam, the account auto-posts a 6 second trailer of it. This allows you to see, in real time, the fire-hose like rate at which these games are cranked out. A new game is posted every 45 minutes to an hour or so. For instance, at the time of the time of this post, the account had put out 33 trailers in the past 24 hours.
If I was an indie dev, scrolling through this feed would scare the living crap out of me. It’s one thing to read stats on paper about how 7,000 games were released on Steam last year and so forth; it’s another thing to see it happen right in front of you like this, and to know that somehow your game is going to have to differentiate itself from all of these to see any sales.
PUBG’s publisher has filed a suit in California for copyright and trademark infringement against Chinese gaming behemoth NetEase, developers of “Knives Out” and “Rules of Survival,” two popular PUBG mobile clones. The move comes only a few days after the release of a mobile version of PUBG, and after its publishers attempted to remove the clones from the app store without success.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. While PUBG essentially created its own genere, things like game concepts and ideas are not protectable IP. Any developer can make their own battle-royale style game, copying things like the airplane drop, last-man-standing format, shrinking play area, etc. without worrying about a lawsuit.
However, it’s still possible for PUBG’s publishers to succeed if they can establish NetEase’s games copied the “look and feel” of PUBG . This is a pretty nebulous legal concept that basically means that, even if NetEase didn’t directly copy any actual code or art assets from PUBG, if the two games are substantially similar in terms of both visuals and overall functionality, NetEase will have infringed the PUBG’s publishers’ copyright.
Generally these kind of infringement claims have been successful in regard to less complex games with easy-to-define rule sets like Tetris or simple tile-matching games. PUBG is of course a far more complicated beast, and its publishers will probably have an uphill struggle on their hands showing there are enough similarities between it and NetEase’s two clones to establish infringement. If this claim succeeds it will probably be the first time the a court will have found this kind of infringement between games of this level of complexity.
If any of you are wondering what the e-sports landscape is going to look for most games coming out the next few years, the best place to look probably isn’t major events for established titles like the International, or Blizzard’s Overwatch league, but rather Clash Royale’s Crown Championship Series.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Clash Royale, it’s a mobile game by the makers of Clash of Clans. It’s got its’ own small (but growing) fan base, but it’s no DotA or CS and doesn’t have a huge pro scene. However, that didn’t stop SuperCell, the game’s publisher, from pulling out all the stops in putting this event together.
As you can see from the video above, this event involved, among other things: a full studio arena with live crowds and expensive-as-hell looking giant projection screen showing the proceedings, multiple sets of commentators and assorted studio people, and an $150,000 USD grand prize for the winner. For some previous events theyeventraveled to the players’ homes to do human interest pieces on their home lives and families.
There’s absolutely no way that SuperCell came anywhere close to making back the money it put into this event (the video above only has 1.5 million views for instance). But you know what, they’re probably OK with that. Putting something like this together helps generate interest in the game, which should lead to more revenue in the long run. And if it helps kick-start a pro scene, perpetuating self-reinforcing cycle of interest in the game, which leads to more events, which leads to more interest, and so forth, even better.
If I had to guess, I’d say that in the long run, this will probably be the model followed by games that aren’t quite at the top-tier in terms of an e-sports audience. Putting together events like these, and supporting a competitive scenes that would otherwise probably not be strong enough to support themselves, will become almost standard practice for companies that can afford it, going into their marketing budgets right beside traditional advertising like TV commercials, magazine ads, and paying for good reviews sending swag and perks to game websites.
Remember that Pokemon GO lawsuit I posted about a few months ago? It turns out that Pokemon GO probably is protected by the right to free speech, as the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors has agreed to settle the case for the sum of $83,000, with the entire amount reportedly going to the plaintiff’s legal fees. The park board will also agree not to enforce the ordinance at issue, which creates an awkward permitting process for any augmented reality games to be played in Milwaukee public parks.
This settlement comes after a July court ruling holding that it was likely that the plaintiff would succeed in establishing that the park board ordinance banning augmented reality games from public parks violated their right to free expression under the first amendment, and granting an injunction preventing the park board from enforcing the injunction.
This is as close to a 100% win as you get in law, with the board agreeing to give the plaintiffs everything their were asking for, and pay their legal fees. Score one for the forces of justice and freedom.
I recently did a podcast with local game developer Christian Sears, and a really interesting question came up and I thought I’d write a post about it, as it’s probably one of the most interesting issues to follow as the e-sports industry develops. The question comes down to this: as e-sports, and in particular e-sports leagues, become more established, how are revenues they earn going to be split?
One good starting point for an answer to this question is probably traditional sports. In most traditional pro sports leagues like the NBA and NHL, revenue is generally split roughly 50/50 between owners and players. Each league has arrived at that split after years of hard-nosed labour negotiations, including lockouts, strikes and countless melodramatic press conferences, so maybe there’s something about that number, and we can expect that in e-sports revenue will also end up being shared along those same lines.
Of course, with e-sports you have a third power group that doesn’t really exist in traditional sports: the companies that make the games. While no one “owns” basketball or hockey, someone does own games like Overwatch, League of Legends and DotA. Anyone who wants to operate an e-sports event needs the game maker’s consent, which means the game maker is going to get a piece of the pie. For this reason, I think the key issue regarding how revenue will be allocated in e-sports leagues is not the split between players and owners, like in traditional sports, but the split between the game companies and everyone else.
That seems to be the direction things are heading for a lot existing sports leagues. For instance, the League of Legends North America League Championship Series (NALCS) recently unveiled an overhauled revenue sharing model that states revenue will essentially be split three ways with Riot Games, the company behind LoL, getting 32.5% of league revenues, teams getting 32.5% and players getting 35%. In Blizzard’s upcoming Overwatch league, the split is apparently going to be 50/50 between Blizzard and the teams (with no details regarding how much of the teams’ share will go to the players).
While 32.5% and 50% are already significant numbers, if I had to guess, I would say that as things continue to shake out, the revenue going to the game companies is only going to increase. This is because, as discussed above, they’re literally the only game in town, and have all the bargaining power.
Say for example Blizzard goes to the owners and players in the Overwatch league a few years from now and asks for 70% of revenue instead of the current 50%. Even if all the owners and players were united against Blizzard’s demands, they can’t exactly tell Blizzard to f*** off and start their own league, because, as discussed Blizzard literally owns the game their league is based on and can prevent them from doing that. Instead, the owners and players would have essentially two choices: (1) take the 30%, or (2) stop operating and make nothing.
Blizzard, on the other hand, could always find more teams and players to replace the ones sitting out. They probably prefer not to go through the effort, but if the league is making money hand over fist and that extra 20% of revenue works out to a lot of cash, the effort may be worth it to them. Plus, if the league is doing well financially, there will probably be no shortage of new teams and players looking to sign up, even if they’re only getting 30% of revenues instead of 50%.
The bottom line is that Blizzard can always find more teams and players. The teams and players can’t find another Overwatch league.
Right now, the owners and players in e-sports leagues are basically in the same situation baseball players were before unrestricted free agency came along. They’re basically at the mercy of the game companies, who can pay them the minimum they’ll accept to continue operating and no more, then keep all the remaining profit for themselves.
I may be overstating things here of course. There’s obviously PR aspects to this I haven’t really considered. As EA has learned recently, the gaming community can get petty worked up by things they perceive as unfair. This would also take a certain cold bloodedness from the game companies that we haven’t really seen yet, nor would I expect to see anytime soon given that a lot of these e-sports leagues are just getting off the ground, no one knows how successful they’ll be, and everyone is in the “let’s all get together and make this thing work” phase.
However, and as e-sports gets more established and the amount of money at stake increases, that phase might start to give way to a more business-minded approach by the game companies (it’s worth noting, for instance, that Blizzard has essentially spent the year essentially shutting out independent Overwatch tournaments, harming the Overwatch scene in the process, in order to prepare for the roll out of the Overwatch league), and lead to the kind of negotiations you see in traditional sports. If that does happen, I can tell you right now who’s probably going to win, and it’s not going to be the teams or players.
It looks like the video game industry isn’t immune from the kind of ransomware attacks that have been hitting…well, everywhere, recently, as CD Projekt Red, the Polish developer behind the Witcher series, reports being subject to a blackmail attempt by thieves who have stolen some early development materials for its’ upcoming game, Cyberpunk 77. The blackmailers have reportedly threatened to release the materials online if their demands aren’t met.
What’s been great to see is the way the company has responded to to the situation. Taking a page from the Jaromir Jagr handbook, they’ve basically told the blackmailers to go ahead and release everything. They’ve also put out a public statement summarizing the situation, and noting that the materials are old and don’t represent the current state of the game.
All in all, this was a fantastic way to handle this by the company. In the end, I wouldn’t be surprised if the positive PR, and the extra exposure for Cyberpunk 77 that the company gets as a result of this incident (ironically enough, this story will probably be the reason many people hear about the game for the first time) will outweigh any damage done if the materials are released.