 |
|
 |
|
10.18.2004
Gamesmanship
|
Strategy Page has an article "Are Commercial Wargames Better Than Pentagon Wargames?"
The author notes that "Worldwide, military forces in [sic] are adopting commercial wargames as cost effective supplements to their high-end wargames in increasing numbers" because "in many ways, commercial games may be superior."
He examines several pros and cons of commercial products versus normal military procurement, but for purposes of IP the interesting one is:
Fourth, commercial games have an informal, rigorous, intense verification and validation procedure thanks to the hundreds of dedicated enthusiasts who provide a constant critical, check of designer assumptions, implementation, data, and results. Professional simulations have relatively few testers, and shorter, less intense VV&A by people who do not share the amateur's dedication. This sounds awfully open-sourcy, but as Solveig has written and posted, open source has not been a viable model for game development, and is unlikely to become one in the future.
So the crucial point is that commercial development is perfectly consistent with the existence of a community of enthusiasts who interact with each other and with the developers to improve the product. But this model does require that the people making a living from the product understand the contributions of the community, and avoid trying to propertize these for their own benefit. The professionals must be -- I hate to use the word -- sensitive, and ensure that the relationship is reciprocal, and that the enthusiasts believe this.
The game people seem to be succeeding at this. So, I think, are the software developers (including Microsoft, despite the deluge of spite to which it is subject), and such Internet companies as AOL, judging by its recent TV ads.
The music industry has had a problem. Mulling over the debates of the past few years, there is a strong flavor that music fans believe that the base of enthusiasts makes a big contribution to the value of the product, and that this contribution is not appreciated by the music companies, that the latter want to propertize for themselves the value created by enthusiasts. Any solution to the file-sharing crisis must address this issue.
ADDENDUM:
An article in Newsfactor entitled "Who Profits from Open Source?" (Oct. 14) looks at this dilemma in the context of open source software. After saying that IT companies participate in open source for good greedy reasons (I'm shocked, shocked!), the author notes:
In an effort to gain credibility as vendors that can accommodate open-source systems, suppliers must contribute something of value -- something that is not seen as self-serving, says Dan Kusnetzky, program vice-president of system software for IDC. However:
[T]hat does not mean they are turning into altruistic organizations with no concern for the bottom line.
They will "cherry pick what aids and abets them, doesn't detract from their revenue, and hurts their competitors," Dana Gardner, senior analyst for application infrastructure and software programs for the Yankee Group, told NewsFactor. "So far, though, their donations have been rather spotty and insignificant."
In terms of competitive advantage, "we will see vendors continue to push open-source business models on competitors whose profits depend on commercial-software businesses," says Gartner's [David] Smith.
posted by James DeLong : 10/18/2004 10:06:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
