In this question we are looking for an understanding of the general market environment and the overall picture with regard to possible adoption? This could include:·
Any barriers that you may have to overcome before your idea/product reaches the market.
What technical approvals or endorsements are required for this product / idea to be accepted by your eventual target market?
Is there any legislation that will present a barrier to adoption of you idea / product?
Or conversely is there any new legislation planned that is likely to create a market for the product? e.g. EU legislation on recycling or emissions targets.
What further changes to practice and/or investment might be required were this idea to be adopted?
Is there a heavy existing investment in the current technology such that potential users will be reluctant to change practice?
Is the function performed by the product critical in any processes?
SANCTUARY and "ten weeks in the head bin" are crossover products, bridging the divide between the games industry and the film industry. This means that the production process will suffer the problems inherent to both film and game independently, as well as new problems which will arise from relating the two fields.
One barrier is the rate of change in this highly competitive field. In the time that this proposal is reviewed (judging from events this year) the marketplace may become transformed by a new product, requiring the concept to be revisited. This is a constant barrier to innovation in the interactive media industry and one which thequality.com has a track record of overcoming.
Industry funding will be difficult to acquire for this concept until it is proven in the market-place - a catch-22. The film industry and game industry have heavy investments in the status quo, available technologies existing technologies. Both are increasingly reluctant to fund innovation until it has been not only proven, but established elsewhere. The idea of a film that is broader than long is counter-intuitive to the film industry because traditionally film narratives are immutable. Nomenclature is also an issue. "Production" in film terms equates to "Development" in game terms.
The project will require a developer license from Sony or Microsoft in order to realise the vision of an interactive film instrument on a broadband game console. These vendor/publishers have different strategies and technologies within the console market. The choice of platform for SANCTUARY will have implications on the interactive design and online architecture.
It has been suggested that this project could be made for PC, bypassing the console manufacturer hurdles, and the barrier of customers requiring a console, therefore potentially missing out on a far wider global audience. The reasons for declining this route are as follows:
The current legal system is not designed to facilitate sharing so any project using Creative Commons licenses may have to overcome resistence or apathy from potential partners who question whether there is money to be made. Moral rights legislation should support the case for content authors to relinquish all but moral rights over their work, although this hinges also on the individual filmmaker's willingness to relinquish a certain degree of control.
The music and film industries are trying to stamp out piracy through increasingly draconian measures (e.g. prosecuting primary students over their MP3 collections, refusing to issue screener tapes to film industry judges like BAFTA members). My idea may be unwelcome to those who support such measures and there is an education issue as to how futile these efforts are given the eagerness to exploit new technology (e.g. Sony sells films and computers used to pirate films). I have no doubt that this barrier is temporary. Protectionist measures are all about self-interest. Once a re-mixable film business model is demonstrable working, industries will co-opt it. This is already evident in the way that the music industry is acknowledging the value of P2P file-sharing data to measure trends in an unprecendented way.
The re-mixable film platform and film assets must be judged by the market to be sufficiently malleable. The idea revolves around the re-use of of existing technology and materials. The market needs to endorse this idea and view it as an opportunity to recycle, to save money and extend the lifespan of existing products.
The product is self-contained entertainment, not critical to any industry process but it has the potential to enhance the results of inductry processes, to act as an catalyst for new forms of entertainment. The product needs a gestation period out in the market in encourage new forms. They will not appear overnight.
There are always additional up-front costs to funding, developing and producing something genuinely new for the global marketplace.
Until products of this nature (i.e. a film/game hybrid) are shown to be commercially successful there will remain a conflict of interest between film and game service providers and some suspicion from these camps as to whether this is an approach suitable for high end production, irrespective of its appeal as grassroots creativity. People question whether there is any financial gain to be made from a more open approach because they do not appreciate how directly the open source movement has contributed to the evolution of the Internet (and Internet related business).
My track record of world-class online production can help break this chicken-and-egg situation, but the project does require key partners who are not intimidated by the risks associated with new business model. This is why support from an organisation such as NESTA is vital. A small highly skilled team will be able to surmount the main barriers to re-mixable film-making if funded speculatively.