Warren SpectorIn the fourth and final part of Warren Spector's sries on the state of the games industry, he discusses what is needed to break out of the best/worst trap.
Issue 40 - Gaming at the Margins, Part 4
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Original Comment by: Ben Humberston
To Mr. Warren and all those currently fearing for games,
I am an 18 year old white American male. Games, in short, are made for me. I've played since NES, with a growing interest as I've become older. But I believe that it should be clear that there are young people who read articles like these, who think about what games have been to them, and because of what they read, now think of what games might be. We think of how narrow they are, how limited by our culture's interests they are, how, well... stagnant they are.
While I'm not going to suggest that my generation will revolutionize games, I want to ask you to please continue your efforts to get out this message, because we are listening. Before this year, I'd never thought about games more than how much I enjoyed Halo or Mario Kart, etc. But now, because of your writings, we are inspired to help change the gaming world. I thank you for sparking an interest in what truly can be the next great medium.
To Mr. Warren and all those currently fearing for games,
I am an 18 year old white American male. Games, in short, are made for me. I've played since NES, with a growing interest as I've become older. But I believe that it should be clear that there are young people who read articles like these, who think about what games have been to them, and because of what they read, now think of what games might be. We think of how narrow they are, how limited by our culture's interests they are, how, well... stagnant they are.
While I'm not going to suggest that my generation will revolutionize games, I want to ask you to please continue your efforts to get out this message, because we are listening. Before this year, I'd never thought about games more than how much I enjoyed Halo or Mario Kart, etc. But now, because of your writings, we are inspired to help change the gaming world. I thank you for sparking an interest in what truly can be the next great medium.
Original Comment by: jed Ashforth
I often find myself agreeing with you Mr Spector, and on this count I seem to have reached practically the same conclusions as you again. I'm praying the medium doesn't have to commercially implode before things get better, but I truly fear the worst. One gleam of hope that I hold on to is the mobile market - where marketing counts for nothing, and prices are so cheap that gamers can afford to give games a quick go based on title and premise alone. Live Arcade seems another frontier where the 'indie' spirit might survive.
And in terms of the public's attitudes and how they'll affect the games we make, I take heart from the recent swing in interest towards boardgaming as a viable leisure time pursuit - the appeal of the social aspect of boardgames seems to be in direct response to 20-odd years of videogaming being the only type of gaming that interests the average gamer. Hopefully this interest in pitting your wits, rather than just your reactions, against a fellow gamer as a social exercise will reflect back on the types of videogames that we offer our customers in the future.
Fingers crossed....
I often find myself agreeing with you Mr Spector, and on this count I seem to have reached practically the same conclusions as you again. I'm praying the medium doesn't have to commercially implode before things get better, but I truly fear the worst. One gleam of hope that I hold on to is the mobile market - where marketing counts for nothing, and prices are so cheap that gamers can afford to give games a quick go based on title and premise alone. Live Arcade seems another frontier where the 'indie' spirit might survive.
And in terms of the public's attitudes and how they'll affect the games we make, I take heart from the recent swing in interest towards boardgaming as a viable leisure time pursuit - the appeal of the social aspect of boardgames seems to be in direct response to 20-odd years of videogaming being the only type of gaming that interests the average gamer. Hopefully this interest in pitting your wits, rather than just your reactions, against a fellow gamer as a social exercise will reflect back on the types of videogames that we offer our customers in the future.
Fingers crossed....
Original Comment by: narius
I am a 39 years old gamer. I do not entirely agree with Mr. Spector's thesis that the market will implode if we do not go find these "innovative" games.
You have to consider what people actually like. The success of World of Warcraft & other countless action RPG shows that people like to kill monster for better swords, although that gameplay idea is as old as Wizardry. If it is executed well, with improved features in the game, I don't see why this can be enjoyable for the consumers and successful for the game developers.
Recently I have been playing Untold Legends 2 on the PSP. I found myself hooked by it and enjoyed a great deal. Now I am not a action RPG newbie. I have played as far back as Ultima Underworld, Diablo (which gives rise to the hack-n-slash RPG), Champions of Norrath, Baldur gates Dark Alliance & Untold Legends 1. There is NOTHING fundamental innovative about this game but it is really well done with better graphics, good effects, good control, good skills and generally satisfying hack-n-slash. This shows that a game does not need to be innovative to be fun and successful. In fact, I would rather play UL2 than Katamari.
The same can be said about lots of franchise games such as Syphon Filter, Daxter and Burnout Legends. There is a reason why big budget franchise games sell .. because that is what consumers find entertaining.
Now I would never force someone to work on projects that they don't like. If you don't like the stress of a big team with responsibility of millions of dollars, do go to do independent games. But I think mainstream game really have an important place in the market place and I do want better looking graphics on my games.
I am a 39 years old gamer. I do not entirely agree with Mr. Spector's thesis that the market will implode if we do not go find these "innovative" games.
You have to consider what people actually like. The success of World of Warcraft & other countless action RPG shows that people like to kill monster for better swords, although that gameplay idea is as old as Wizardry. If it is executed well, with improved features in the game, I don't see why this can be enjoyable for the consumers and successful for the game developers.
Recently I have been playing Untold Legends 2 on the PSP. I found myself hooked by it and enjoyed a great deal. Now I am not a action RPG newbie. I have played as far back as Ultima Underworld, Diablo (which gives rise to the hack-n-slash RPG), Champions of Norrath, Baldur gates Dark Alliance & Untold Legends 1. There is NOTHING fundamental innovative about this game but it is really well done with better graphics, good effects, good control, good skills and generally satisfying hack-n-slash. This shows that a game does not need to be innovative to be fun and successful. In fact, I would rather play UL2 than Katamari.
The same can be said about lots of franchise games such as Syphon Filter, Daxter and Burnout Legends. There is a reason why big budget franchise games sell .. because that is what consumers find entertaining.
Now I would never force someone to work on projects that they don't like. If you don't like the stress of a big team with responsibility of millions of dollars, do go to do independent games. But I think mainstream game really have an important place in the market place and I do want better looking graphics on my games.
Original Comment by: Moustache
http://www.iconharvest.com/
It's true, games could be so much more.
However, I want to add that all is not so totally black. With the giants of the industry becoming bigger and bigger, what we call the margin becomes quite large and even sometime comfortable.
The change is ongoing right now, with "casual" gaming, internet and indie developpers. But it won't be enough. I dont agree with you that we need to make big decisions. In fact, I believe that what we need to do is make a large number of small decisions.
We have to put bread on the table, but it didnt stopped anyone from making their own original things back in the days. Finding our little ways, finding our niches (new niches are craving to be created) and making it work.
Games are about innovation after all.
http://www.iconharvest.com/
It's true, games could be so much more.
However, I want to add that all is not so totally black. With the giants of the industry becoming bigger and bigger, what we call the margin becomes quite large and even sometime comfortable.
The change is ongoing right now, with "casual" gaming, internet and indie developpers. But it won't be enough. I dont agree with you that we need to make big decisions. In fact, I believe that what we need to do is make a large number of small decisions.
We have to put bread on the table, but it didnt stopped anyone from making their own original things back in the days. Finding our little ways, finding our niches (new niches are craving to be created) and making it work.
Games are about innovation after all.
Original Comment by: Mark
Found myself agreeing on almost everything. Back when games were all about experimentation and exploration it had something magical in it. THere were lots of challenges for programmers and artists. Back then we wanted games to be a socially accepted medim like movies and music.
I will here talk about how I see the problem, hopng that somewhere a solution is found.
We thought we couldn't handle more platform games. Then Playstation (one) came along, the only challenge remaining was managing camera angles in 3D... Games DID become a mainstream thing and that is the problem! Someone discovered that there was a market for crappy games with every idiot buying a Playstation!
That is when everything went downhill especially with Publishers like Eidos comming to life, just because it had Lara Croft's developer in it's pocket. Eidos ruined Tomb Raider which was a great game at the time. I would even say that it ruined the best games on the pc... System Shock, Thief, Deus Ex.
Sure we blame the developers, but I think that if decisions on Deus Ex and Tomb Raider were left entirely to the artistic department they wouldn't have ended up like that :-( Let's see how good the revival of Lara comes about now!
Today games are a mainstream medium, and that is the problem. The majority of people are not happy with innovation, they are conformist in their thinking. They are superficial! They don't value games as the playground for exploring new, creative ideas... for them a game is just a short-term boost of pleasure, a drug that shakes them away from the boredom of their life. For the true gamer, games are a spiritual experience because his (generally male) psyche delights in exploring new paradigms... not seeking a technological drug for the sake of suppressing life's boredom.
I'm sure Warren would agree with the above statement.
The SOUL-ution is in unity of this minority of gamers and artists, who is nowadays easier considering they all end up on internet. They may be found reading a comic like Penny-Arcade and Extralife waiting for a game to grab their interest. They can be called to attention on the surviving System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex fansites (or anythng related to an innovative game).
We could self publish... like GOD does
We could deliver games via the net like Steam or DIRECT2Drive does
We should believe in a purpose higher than profit (www.authenticbusiness.co.uk)
I believe we should support Modding communities... those are the gamers that value innovation to the point they want to take part in it... those are the Spiritual Seekers of Gaming on the Consumer sside. It is no wonder that Many demanded the release of modding tools for Thief
S and DX:IW
About funding, I have an idea! I trade in the most proftable business in the world.. FOREX!!! It has a virtually unlimited supply of money to give out.
Maybe you Warren would be glad to find out more about it. If so I'd be glad if you let me know at reality_mark@hotmail.com . (I could even show you my ideas for Deus Ex and Thief sequels should you like that :-D)
Mark M(trader, gamer)
Found myself agreeing on almost everything. Back when games were all about experimentation and exploration it had something magical in it. THere were lots of challenges for programmers and artists. Back then we wanted games to be a socially accepted medim like movies and music.
I will here talk about how I see the problem, hopng that somewhere a solution is found.
We thought we couldn't handle more platform games. Then Playstation (one) came along, the only challenge remaining was managing camera angles in 3D... Games DID become a mainstream thing and that is the problem! Someone discovered that there was a market for crappy games with every idiot buying a Playstation!
That is when everything went downhill especially with Publishers like Eidos comming to life, just because it had Lara Croft's developer in it's pocket. Eidos ruined Tomb Raider which was a great game at the time. I would even say that it ruined the best games on the pc... System Shock, Thief, Deus Ex.
Sure we blame the developers, but I think that if decisions on Deus Ex and Tomb Raider were left entirely to the artistic department they wouldn't have ended up like that :-( Let's see how good the revival of Lara comes about now!
Today games are a mainstream medium, and that is the problem. The majority of people are not happy with innovation, they are conformist in their thinking. They are superficial! They don't value games as the playground for exploring new, creative ideas... for them a game is just a short-term boost of pleasure, a drug that shakes them away from the boredom of their life. For the true gamer, games are a spiritual experience because his (generally male) psyche delights in exploring new paradigms... not seeking a technological drug for the sake of suppressing life's boredom.
I'm sure Warren would agree with the above statement.
The SOUL-ution is in unity of this minority of gamers and artists, who is nowadays easier considering they all end up on internet. They may be found reading a comic like Penny-Arcade and Extralife waiting for a game to grab their interest. They can be called to attention on the surviving System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex fansites (or anythng related to an innovative game).
We could self publish... like GOD does
We could deliver games via the net like Steam or DIRECT2Drive does
We should believe in a purpose higher than profit (www.authenticbusiness.co.uk)
I believe we should support Modding communities... those are the gamers that value innovation to the point they want to take part in it... those are the Spiritual Seekers of Gaming on the Consumer sside. It is no wonder that Many demanded the release of modding tools for Thief
S and DX:IWAbout funding, I have an idea! I trade in the most proftable business in the world.. FOREX!!! It has a virtually unlimited supply of money to give out.
Maybe you Warren would be glad to find out more about it. If so I'd be glad if you let me know at reality_mark@hotmail.com . (I could even show you my ideas for Deus Ex and Thief sequels should you like that :-D)
Mark M(trader, gamer)
Original Comment by: Chris Smith
http://www.cedarstreet.net
I've just read all 4 installments of this article, and I agree with almost all of it. I have seen the components such as diversity in the industry workplace, the "cash cow" of the MMO market and so on, in various other places, but as isolated accounts. Bringing it all together like this is a fantastic overview of the issues facing the industry today.
One question that was constantly at the back of my mind, however, was why every title produced had to be a Triple A title. I'm sure that every publisher wants to "hit one out of the park" every release, and every rank-and-file developer want's to be associated with a household-name title, but to aim for the brass ring, to accept nothing but reaching the pinnacle of sales figures, or to fight tooth and nail for the hot IP of the moment which you hope puts your studio on the fast-track towards profit is NOT what being an indie developer is about. Look at Stardock. They're best known for WindowBlinds, but they crushed the established 4x darling Master of Orion III with their PC version of Galactic Civilizations. They couldn't keep stock in stores with the release of GalCiv II. Stardock is no EA, and because of this, would anyone consider GalCiv I or II as a Triple A title? As counter-American as this is to say, the notion of "win big or go home" is the #1 problem, in this and many other industries.
While there may never be hope that indie developers can reach the levels set by big name developers, or that they would be able to harness the development power for next-gen consoles, I personally would be fine if they did not. I'm 32 years old, and I also seek more depth to my games beyond the visceral feedback of GTA, or the "every-gamer" accessibility of World Of Warcraft. God bless Will Wright for rocking the entire gaming world with Spore. I can't recall when I had ever heard "can he really PULL THAT OFF?" in response to a title. That is the kind of reaction -- from the media, from the POPULATION -- that developers and publishers should be aiming for, and on gameplay and concept, not on graphics and physics. There's no illusion that had this been pitched by anyone OTHER then Will Wright, it wouldn't have even gotten in the door. Because people like Mr. Wright, Richard Garriot and Warren Spector were present at the birth of the industry, their names carry weight. With the current environment of sequels, rip-offs and mind-numbing parades of titles released solely for profit, it's sad to consider that some day, the industry won't HAVE any well-known players left with this kind of cache.
http://www.cedarstreet.net
I've just read all 4 installments of this article, and I agree with almost all of it. I have seen the components such as diversity in the industry workplace, the "cash cow" of the MMO market and so on, in various other places, but as isolated accounts. Bringing it all together like this is a fantastic overview of the issues facing the industry today.
One question that was constantly at the back of my mind, however, was why every title produced had to be a Triple A title. I'm sure that every publisher wants to "hit one out of the park" every release, and every rank-and-file developer want's to be associated with a household-name title, but to aim for the brass ring, to accept nothing but reaching the pinnacle of sales figures, or to fight tooth and nail for the hot IP of the moment which you hope puts your studio on the fast-track towards profit is NOT what being an indie developer is about. Look at Stardock. They're best known for WindowBlinds, but they crushed the established 4x darling Master of Orion III with their PC version of Galactic Civilizations. They couldn't keep stock in stores with the release of GalCiv II. Stardock is no EA, and because of this, would anyone consider GalCiv I or II as a Triple A title? As counter-American as this is to say, the notion of "win big or go home" is the #1 problem, in this and many other industries.
While there may never be hope that indie developers can reach the levels set by big name developers, or that they would be able to harness the development power for next-gen consoles, I personally would be fine if they did not. I'm 32 years old, and I also seek more depth to my games beyond the visceral feedback of GTA, or the "every-gamer" accessibility of World Of Warcraft. God bless Will Wright for rocking the entire gaming world with Spore. I can't recall when I had ever heard "can he really PULL THAT OFF?" in response to a title. That is the kind of reaction -- from the media, from the POPULATION -- that developers and publishers should be aiming for, and on gameplay and concept, not on graphics and physics. There's no illusion that had this been pitched by anyone OTHER then Will Wright, it wouldn't have even gotten in the door. Because people like Mr. Wright, Richard Garriot and Warren Spector were present at the birth of the industry, their names carry weight. With the current environment of sequels, rip-offs and mind-numbing parades of titles released solely for profit, it's sad to consider that some day, the industry won't HAVE any well-known players left with this kind of cache.
Original Comment by: Tynan
I'm 18, young, and fired up about the gaming industry. I just wanted to comment on how nice it was to read this article. For a very long time I have been far from satisfied with the gaming industry and what it has to offer, in fact the majority of the games I've been enjoying have been experimental freeware titles, custom total conversion mods, or old school games that the licenses have expired on. My dissatisfaction was never something that I consciously realized until shortly before reading this article, which made this article like a call in the woods, like a light in the dark, like a man alone and confused in his cause finding others to share it and fight for it with him.
The only thing that I disagree with is the view that we are on the precipice of disaster, this article paints a picture of a one way or the other, life or death, path for the future. It gives us the impression that we have a single choice and the cousequences to that choice will either be "the Promised Land" of gaming goodness or a damned cultural fad, a niche for the niche crowd, pastiche. I believe that games will always have a rather stagnant or dissapointing mainstream (I believe this is ture because it is ture of many mediums where the artistic and capitilalist are at war with each other), and as a counterpart it will always have a relativaly thriving "margins" (the interesting thing about this is that in alot of artistic mediums the "margins" become the mainstream in what seems a revolutionary change in the style of the medium, and then that style becomes stagnant and the new "margins" moves to the center for a new "revolution" and so on and so forth. This is one of the biggest patterns in movies and music to name just a couple.), which to a large amount we have now, in our current state we have a poretty strong gaming "margins". I think that the steps for forward movement that you outlined are quite right, but before we get to that point we have to find a way for the margins to gather, for I think the biggest problem isn't the lack of creativity or ingenuitey in the mainstream but the fact that the margins of gaming are scattered. I think the biggest step forward we could make is a festival, an independant gaming festival, in which the "margins" could gather and have dialogue over the different styles, in which the mainstream could come and see the inovation that's happening on the fringes of its medium. Maybe private investors could come and a board of judges could choose the top 5 games that look most inovative or promising and they could win funding, and then maybe they could be distributed over the festival website or through interested developers. There are an amazing amount of possibilities open to the gaming community, and while it may look dank and dreary at times we should always have hope that there are and always will be inovative people working on the sidelines because they have a passion the we should all hope to have ourselves for games, and because of those people I have faith that games will stay alive and fresh for many years to come, even if they hit some downward spots.
I'm 18, young, and fired up about the gaming industry. I just wanted to comment on how nice it was to read this article. For a very long time I have been far from satisfied with the gaming industry and what it has to offer, in fact the majority of the games I've been enjoying have been experimental freeware titles, custom total conversion mods, or old school games that the licenses have expired on. My dissatisfaction was never something that I consciously realized until shortly before reading this article, which made this article like a call in the woods, like a light in the dark, like a man alone and confused in his cause finding others to share it and fight for it with him.
The only thing that I disagree with is the view that we are on the precipice of disaster, this article paints a picture of a one way or the other, life or death, path for the future. It gives us the impression that we have a single choice and the cousequences to that choice will either be "the Promised Land" of gaming goodness or a damned cultural fad, a niche for the niche crowd, pastiche. I believe that games will always have a rather stagnant or dissapointing mainstream (I believe this is ture because it is ture of many mediums where the artistic and capitilalist are at war with each other), and as a counterpart it will always have a relativaly thriving "margins" (the interesting thing about this is that in alot of artistic mediums the "margins" become the mainstream in what seems a revolutionary change in the style of the medium, and then that style becomes stagnant and the new "margins" moves to the center for a new "revolution" and so on and so forth. This is one of the biggest patterns in movies and music to name just a couple.), which to a large amount we have now, in our current state we have a poretty strong gaming "margins". I think that the steps for forward movement that you outlined are quite right, but before we get to that point we have to find a way for the margins to gather, for I think the biggest problem isn't the lack of creativity or ingenuitey in the mainstream but the fact that the margins of gaming are scattered. I think the biggest step forward we could make is a festival, an independant gaming festival, in which the "margins" could gather and have dialogue over the different styles, in which the mainstream could come and see the inovation that's happening on the fringes of its medium. Maybe private investors could come and a board of judges could choose the top 5 games that look most inovative or promising and they could win funding, and then maybe they could be distributed over the festival website or through interested developers. There are an amazing amount of possibilities open to the gaming community, and while it may look dank and dreary at times we should always have hope that there are and always will be inovative people working on the sidelines because they have a passion the we should all hope to have ourselves for games, and because of those people I have faith that games will stay alive and fresh for many years to come, even if they hit some downward spots.
Original Comment by: Kim
http://www.kpallist.blogspot.com
Great article. Warren, you are 4-for-4!
I did find it interesting though, that you seemed to group finding alternate funding models with the separation of funding & IP ownership. I agree there needs to be paths to doing both, but they aren't necesarily coupled.
http://www.kpallist.blogspot.com
Great article. Warren, you are 4-for-4!
I did find it interesting though, that you seemed to group finding alternate funding models with the separation of funding & IP ownership. I agree there needs to be paths to doing both, but they aren't necesarily coupled.
Original Comment by: thip
The something-that's-about-to-happen is already happening. "It" is the internet- and PC-driven spread of a "digital cottage industry" of music, comics, games and movies. All that stuff can now be produced by small teams or even single creators working in their spare time, "funded" by their daytime job, and distributed via the web, for free or paid for via, say, PayPal. The phenomenon is not even something new. There's always been more enthusiasts/producers than commercial opportunities. The money men need do nothing to (re)vitalize their industry; they simply need to notice when some new product or niche catches on, and step in with the offer of some serious financing. Once the serious financing is has moved in, all the careful screening and vetting to ensure a maximally sellable commodity starts, and, of course, the originality goes out the window. And someday the creator probably goes back to the nice, creator-controlled indie world. Timothy Albee's indie "Kazeh" is a fine example of this cycle, in two ways. Albee, a seasoned animation professional, set out to make his indie animated movie "Kazeh" to prove that you could make mainstream quality on a cottage budget. Now, instead of continuing to make all-his-own work on all-his-own budget, he is looking for outside financing for his next product. The moral of the story is the Catch-22 of any creative endeavor : you can always realize your ideas better with better financing, but the guys giving you the financing will always have ideas of their own about what should and should not be realized. This Catch-22 is seriously compounded by the fact that for every indie creator who has decided that s/he wants viewers/listeners/gamers to PayPal before pleasure, there will always be a thousand that are still satisifed with praise. An no, I see no ready solution to this. Short of the (non)paying public becoming more interested in the long-term consequences of their (non)buying decisions, my guess would be that we will continue to see a glitzy, mega-budget, no-risks-taken mainstream market, and a wildly creative, in-your-spare-time, e-indie scene that won't really be a market, as the creators will have to choose between being free or being forgotten. Some people say that technology will close the gap (to wit : Albee's experiment), and I'm looking forward to that - but it might only mean that users will come to expect that even mainstream-quality product is free! I would love to hear any ideas on how to solve this conundrum, honestly. I agree with those people, far smarter than I, that think it is one of the most important challenges for creators of any content that is digitally deliverable - and what kind of content WON'T be that in the very near future?
The something-that's-about-to-happen is already happening. "It" is the internet- and PC-driven spread of a "digital cottage industry" of music, comics, games and movies. All that stuff can now be produced by small teams or even single creators working in their spare time, "funded" by their daytime job, and distributed via the web, for free or paid for via, say, PayPal. The phenomenon is not even something new. There's always been more enthusiasts/producers than commercial opportunities. The money men need do nothing to (re)vitalize their industry; they simply need to notice when some new product or niche catches on, and step in with the offer of some serious financing. Once the serious financing is has moved in, all the careful screening and vetting to ensure a maximally sellable commodity starts, and, of course, the originality goes out the window. And someday the creator probably goes back to the nice, creator-controlled indie world. Timothy Albee's indie "Kazeh" is a fine example of this cycle, in two ways. Albee, a seasoned animation professional, set out to make his indie animated movie "Kazeh" to prove that you could make mainstream quality on a cottage budget. Now, instead of continuing to make all-his-own work on all-his-own budget, he is looking for outside financing for his next product. The moral of the story is the Catch-22 of any creative endeavor : you can always realize your ideas better with better financing, but the guys giving you the financing will always have ideas of their own about what should and should not be realized. This Catch-22 is seriously compounded by the fact that for every indie creator who has decided that s/he wants viewers/listeners/gamers to PayPal before pleasure, there will always be a thousand that are still satisifed with praise. An no, I see no ready solution to this. Short of the (non)paying public becoming more interested in the long-term consequences of their (non)buying decisions, my guess would be that we will continue to see a glitzy, mega-budget, no-risks-taken mainstream market, and a wildly creative, in-your-spare-time, e-indie scene that won't really be a market, as the creators will have to choose between being free or being forgotten. Some people say that technology will close the gap (to wit : Albee's experiment), and I'm looking forward to that - but it might only mean that users will come to expect that even mainstream-quality product is free! I would love to hear any ideas on how to solve this conundrum, honestly. I agree with those people, far smarter than I, that think it is one of the most important challenges for creators of any content that is digitally deliverable - and what kind of content WON'T be that in the very near future?