(I’m still going through emails…)
No matter what I say about user generated content, people believe that I am against editors and map generators!
Malstrom,
I have to take issue with your argument that user-generated content
games both provide no benefit to the customer and inevitably fail in
the marketplace. Look at Neverwinter Nights (the Bioware game not the
AOL MUD). The Official Campaign was god awful! However, the wealth of
good campaigns and persistent worlds (think free MMORPGs) kept it
viable. For many people, it was the next best thing to playing
tabletop D&D, but it was not limited by geography. Okay, Gamespy did
call it overrated
(http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index2.shtml),
but I still think it was successful. I am not saying User-Generated
Content cannot be a rip-off, but it does have its uses for developers
willing to think about Blue Oceans.
What is the opposite of User Generated Content? It is Game Company Generated Content. It is the game company making the content and we, the consumers, buying that content.
User-Generated Content is a radical change from this tradition. Instead of the game company making the content, the users make the content. Do the users profit from this content? No. The game company profits from this content.
User Generated Content is nothing more than game companies attempting to leverage other people to do their work. It is bad enough the customer buys a game with no content, but the customer is expected to spend their valuable time to make content for someone else to profit.
User Generated Content is a new concept. It is new because the idea of putting out a game with no content is radical (and is a rip-off).
What the emailer is referring to is not User Generated Content. The emailer is referring to mods, to custom maps, custom scenarios, custom dungeons, and so on.
The fraud of User Generated Content is that game companies are attempting to profit from YOUR work. They aren’t profiting from THEIR work, but from YOUR OWN. This is bad for the customer because they end up playing unprofessional content and other garbage.
My despising of user generated content goes well beyond the video game medium. If you notice, this website has no comments. While people have made forums and threads on their own to discuss what is at this site or blog, I do not do so. I want people to come here for the content I put out. I am not going to create a “platform” full of circular ‘discussions’ just to draw eyeballs. I consider it a farce, but it is also bad for me. Any skill I had in making content would degenerate since the aim would be to ‘stir things up’.
Think of a website like “Kotaku” and you generally get the idea. The aim is not to post the news. The aim is not to post interpretations or analysis or entertainment of the news. No, the aim is to incite feedback. People generating comments is zero cost, and it gives people stuff to read. Measures are implemented to either ban the ‘bad stuff’ or to reward the ‘good stuff’. These sites and message forums WANT you to invest your time writing “brilliant commentary”. Slashdot has the most intricate system I’ve seen of this.
Only from an informational context has User Generated Content succeeded. Information is not opinion. And many people can add to it. Wikipedia is a success from that standpoint. News aggregators posing as Internet forums are a success as well. But from an Entertainment standpoint, no.
YouTube is the most extreme example. People confuse ‘users’ and ‘customers’ as to think the two are the same. But they are not. YouTube has many ‘users’. Its ‘customers’ are the advertisers. YouTube has been a massive failure due to all it generates is red ink and is a copyright blackhole.
User Generated Content is like the video game version of Internet Message Forum. In other words, it sucks.
All the ‘user generated content’ you see at sites like Wikipedia and elseware works because it is not only information but because it is FREE. User Generated Games *might* work only if they are given away for free. But no one has to pay a dime to look at YouTube or Wikipedia.
In the old days of the Internet, one had to know HTML in order to make a webpage. Blogging and all has somewhat eliminated this need. The proponents of ‘User Generated Content’ say they are making it easier to let people ‘make games’ who do not need to know how to program. But the thing is, places like the one this text is at, WordPress, doesn’t claim copyright of my words. User Generated Game Content does. Even YouTube doesn’t claim that the videos on it are the copyright of YouTube. Yet, User Generated Game Content does.
Then there is another line of thought saying that User Generated Content will allow users to ‘express themselves’. This is the Will Wright version. And we saw what a disaster that was with Spore. Will Wright based this analysis on Sims. But people don’t play Sims for ‘user generated content’ or to express themselves.
Imagine how ridiculous User Generated Programming would be. “Buy this game, user, and you get to program it! Yay!” Everyone would say, “You lazy SOBs! I want a full product. You need to program your own games, and don’t try to scam the customer in doing your work for you!” So is it is the same with User Generated Content.
Since content is the primary reason why people play games, the user might as well learn some programming and then be able to make and sell his game on his own. Why give away the precious content to someone else? Why let someone else copyright your ideas?
Malstrom's Articles News 