<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Hits Get Bigger</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.edery.org/2009/08/the-hits-get-bigger/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.edery.org/2009/08/the-hits-get-bigger/</link>
	<description>For those interested in the business of making good video games. Entrepreneurial spirit a must.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:52:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David J Edery</title>
		<link>http://www.edery.org/2009/08/the-hits-get-bigger/comment-page-1/#comment-263742</link>
		<dc:creator>David J Edery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edery.org/?p=1096#comment-263742</guid>
		<description>Mathematician -- that&#039;s the same argument that Chris Anderson has been using to defend his position for years now. Unfortunately, it isn&#039;t terribly satisfying. First, in the old retail model, 1% of games did NOT account for 50% of playtime -- the ratio was/is much less skewed. The fact that there might be a greater total number of games in the top 1% still doesn&#039;t make the creators of the other 99% of content feel any better about their lack of profit. The Long Tail has long (pardon the pun) been misrepresented by many as a phenomenon that could be the ultimate panacea to the concerns of independent developers. It is not. Nor is the Long Tail proof that &quot;The Future of Business Is Selling Less of More&quot;... unless you&#039;re a platform holder, that is. 

No critic of the Long Tail (as positioned by Chris Anderson) denies that it is fundamentally changing certain aspects of content delivery businesses, and we all understand that 1% of a large number is more than 1% of a small number. But there&#039;s more to the debate than that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mathematician &#8212; that&#8217;s the same argument that Chris Anderson has been using to defend his position for years now. Unfortunately, it isn&#8217;t terribly satisfying. First, in the old retail model, 1% of games did NOT account for 50% of playtime &#8212; the ratio was/is much less skewed. The fact that there might be a greater total number of games in the top 1% still doesn&#8217;t make the creators of the other 99% of content feel any better about their lack of profit. The Long Tail has long (pardon the pun) been misrepresented by many as a phenomenon that could be the ultimate panacea to the concerns of independent developers. It is not. Nor is the Long Tail proof that &#8220;The Future of Business Is Selling Less of More&#8221;&#8230; unless you&#8217;re a platform holder, that is. </p>
<p>No critic of the Long Tail (as positioned by Chris Anderson) denies that it is fundamentally changing certain aspects of content delivery businesses, and we all understand that 1% of a large number is more than 1% of a small number. But there&#8217;s more to the debate than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mathematician</title>
		<link>http://www.edery.org/2009/08/the-hits-get-bigger/comment-page-1/#comment-263732</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathematician</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edery.org/?p=1096#comment-263732</guid>
		<description>Your statistics do not make sense as evidence of your hypothesis. 

For example: &quot;The top 1% of games on Kongregate account for a whopping 50% of total user playtime.&quot; Suppose in the old retail model there were 1000 games released and 10 of these accounted for 50% of the playing time. Then 1% of games accounted for 50% of playing time. Now suppose because of digital distribution 100 000 games were released and 100 of these accounted for 50% of the playing time. Then we still have 1% of games accounting for 50% of playing time. However, the number of games that are &quot;hits&quot; (based on being in the top 1%) has increased by ten times! Hardly evidence that &quot;the Long Tail primarily benefits platform holders and the creators of hit content&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your statistics do not make sense as evidence of your hypothesis. </p>
<p>For example: &#8220;The top 1% of games on Kongregate account for a whopping 50% of total user playtime.&#8221; Suppose in the old retail model there were 1000 games released and 10 of these accounted for 50% of the playing time. Then 1% of games accounted for 50% of playing time. Now suppose because of digital distribution 100 000 games were released and 100 of these accounted for 50% of the playing time. Then we still have 1% of games accounting for 50% of playing time. However, the number of games that are &#8220;hits&#8221; (based on being in the top 1%) has increased by ten times! Hardly evidence that &#8220;the Long Tail primarily benefits platform holders and the creators of hit content&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
