🔒 Locked 🤖 Godot

Can a gaming-related television station actually thrive?

Started by Oluseyi Nov 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM 23 replies 6k views

Original Post

Nov 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I don't really pay much attention to gaming news or "gamer" lifestyle products, but I came across a sidebar link to a story on Joystiq about DIRECTV dropping G4. This got me to thinking about the prospects for a true, gaming-oriented television channel and what business model(s) could make it profitable.

First, we have to accept that G4 is not a gaming channel. It's sole remaining gaming-oriented show is X-Play, and many appear to criticize that for the lack of depth in its coverage. Code Monkeys was canceled 6 episodes into its second season. Attack of the Show is simply an internet/nerd/college culture variety show, with very little true gaming focus. The rest of the channel's line up consists of reruns of Cops, Cheaters, Unbeatable Banzuke, Ninja Warrior; new shows Campus PD, It's Effin' Science (what?); and junk like The International Sexy Ladies Show. Given this assemblage of late night slackervision trash, it's unsurprising that DIRECTV called out G4's status as "among the lowest rated networks based on the latest Nielsen data."

I'm not a gamer. I play video games, but not very many. I am fascinated by video game development technology, but I am not a game developer, either. I work as a software developer and I contribute to an open source project in my spare time, but my real passions are with media. So this news got me to thinking, What would a sustainable gaming-oriented TV channel look like?

In the comments on Joystiq, someone mentioned video blogs like Rocketboom, and, indeed, this is where I would start. However, I would deviate significantly from the accepted model and start by targeting game developers, particularly independents and aspiring professionals, and hope that the proven pros would come along for the ride, too. I would prepare a series of video podcasts on technical, design, artistic, ethical and political issues pertinent to game developers, reasoning that all game developers are gamers to some degree and most gamers look up to game developers and would want to know what they think and how they do their jobs - how they create the games they play. Editorially, I would focus on commentary rather than news, since a video resource is virtually bound to be less timely than pure text plays. For instance, having a Charlie Rosen-style show where game artists, software engineers, producers and executives speak, occasionally in panel or round-table format, on the peculiar technical, artistic and ethical challenges and rewards of their discipline and industry, and retrospectives on social, cultural and technological shifts and breakthroughs that have had significant consequences for the industry.

High production values. Non-didactic staging (these are not "tutorial" shows). A preference for philosophical perspective, mining areas of rich debate. Absolutely no reviews or previews.

That's right, no game reviews, or even hardware reviews. Instead I'd have in-depth discussions of specific attributes, features or design decisions of a game. There are already an abundance of excellent review resources, including video reviews. The objective here is not to compete with suppliers of services for needs that are already being met but to fill in the gaps where content is lacking and to develop a sustainable business model to bring that content to the widest possible audience in a mature fashion.

For the web, the revenue model would be advertising and subscription, with subscribers seeing few/no ads. Once proven, the initial attempt to migrate to TV would rely on On-Demand service. Rather than launching as a general-purpose channel and hoping the various cable and satellite providers decide to add us to their Basic Cable tier, I'd launch as a $3 to $5 monthly on-demand package. Having this small, focused audience with specific revenues and likely much higher levels of engagement (especially if content quality is world-class) should provide an abundance of high-value feedback on what works and doesn't, allowing for refinement of the product before attempting to launch as a Basic Cable package.

That's my pipe dream this afternoon, and I figured I'd share. Back to lurking... [smile]

karwosts

Nov 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Quote:

start by targeting game developers, particularly independents and aspiring professionals, and hope that the proven pros would come along for the ride, too.

Just how many game developers do you think are out there? This group sounds like it's too small by a factor of 1,000 to sustain a cable television show, much less an entire network. These cost millions and millions of dollars to produce and get spectrum for, and you and 100 of your buddies chipping in 3 to 5 bucks isn't going to come anywhere close.

Plus I'm pretty sure nobody who is not a programmer/developer will tune in to watch "discussions on technical algorithms". I'm pretty sure this stuff is highly uninteresting to the general public.

No offense to you, but this sounds to me about as practical as a cable network devoted to ham-radio operators or model train builders. Its a tiny niche market.

Not that it wouldn't be fun to see, but I think you're right that it's just a pipe dream :)

lithos

Nov 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Whenever I wanted to watch TV programs about computer science I would turn to the 9,000s on direct TV. They have a few channels from colleges, which have lectures, interviews(they got some pretty interesting people), and one pretty awesome special I always watched(essentially taking a bunch of their graduated students and their start up).

Nytegard

Nov 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I personally don't feel any form of gaming related television can survive. It's been tried with talking with developers, reviews of games, cheats of games, original game related content, etc., and in the end, all the shows tend to end in failure. Even Microsoft tried with "primetime" content on their XBox 360 with 1 vs 100, and it ended up starting strong, but like TV shows, the audience dropped every week until they finally cancelled it. And that included prizes for the audience! They're trying again with a poker, but I believe it will go the same way. Start strong, and end with a whimper.

I feel it has to do with the viewer. Gamers themselves want on demand content. Yes, DVR's exist which can time shift shows, but not everyone has one, and at the shows might conflict with other shows, not being able to be recorded. As far as a more in depth look behind the scenes, that's better left to web sites which can get around time limitations, and it's too niche for mainstream TV.

Oluseyi

Nov 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Quote:
Original post by karwosts
Quote:
start by targeting game developers, particularly independents and aspiring professionals, and hope that the proven pros would come along for the ride, too.

Just how many game developers do you think are out there? This group sounds like it's too small by a factor of 1,000 to sustain a cable television show, much less an entire network. These cost millions and millions of dollars to produce and get spectrum for, and you and 100 of your buddies chipping in 3 to 5 bucks isn't going to come anywhere close.

I think you've missed a few details.

Start on the web. Here, a small audience is not a barrier to entry. As your audience grows and looking at geotargeting information, you can get an idea of which markets have likely sufficient viewer density for you to make an on-demand play in.

Presuming your audience has been growing, which is a prerequisite of any attempt to transition from a pure-web play to a web-and-TV play, you initially offer your programming on-demand in individual local markets. On-Demand does not require a designated channel or 24-hour programming; it's actually very much like a video blog in that you provide the carrier with your content (say, 5 shows a week) which is uploaded to the network head and then the subscriber initiates playback from his/her set top box. Remember, modern cable networks are IP networks.

You mention spectrum. I'm talking about cable, not OTA. This is pure wireline delivery across one or more private networks. For the most part the costs here are either a revenue share with the carrying network (when you have the leverage due to popular demand, such as with ESPN) or an up-front payment to the network to carry your content while you take all the ad revenue (probably the case for Versus, née Outdoor Living Network, for example).

$3 to $5 a month from a couple thousand subscribers on a single carrier network in a single local area is actually quite good. If it scales linearly nation-wide, that easily translates to $5 million a month in gross revenues, if not more. But the plan would be to start with your highest density area and let the model prove itself before expanding.

Quote:
Original post by karwosts
Plus I'm pretty sure nobody who is not a programmer/developer will tune in to watch "discussions on technical algorithms". I'm pretty sure this stuff is highly uninteresting to the general public.

How "technical, design, artistic, ethical and political issues pertinent to game developers ... game artists, software engineers, producers and executives speak[ing], occasionally in panel or round-table format, on the peculiar technical, artistic and ethical challenges and rewards of their discipline and industry, and retrospectives on social, cultural and technological shifts and breakthroughs that have had significant consequences for the industry" translates to "discussions on technical algorithms" is baffling.

Video games are in the news all the time now - the Supreme Court of the United States has been hearing oral arguments over California's proposed law to ban the sale of certain violent video games to minors. You really think a series of shows interviewing thoughtful game developers, designers and producers, from Will Wright and Sid Meier to David Jaffe to Tim Sweeney would interest nobody? Games are hallmarks of our culture today - ESPN.com runs a weekly simulation of NFL games using Madden, a game franchise famous for the affection the pro athletes have for it and infamous for its exclusive license. You really think discussion of the relationship between the game and the players - fudging ratings to placate a player's ego, expensive technology deployments to attempt to capture their likenesses - and more wouldn't be worth watching to anyone but a few hundred of my friends? Read this. And this.

I think your expectations are conditioned by what you've been served so far - content so poor, so devoid of imagination, so nerdy and unrelated to the interests of the majority and presented in such wonkish and unappealing fashion that even game developers and gamers wouldn't want to watch. I think it can be done better.

way2lazy2care

Nov 7, 2010 at 3:14 PM

One thing that you mentioned but didn't really highlight is that G4 was growing when it was more game focussed. Once it went mainstream and started airing cops and cheaters for 8 of their 24 hour schedule is when it started going downhill imo.

There's no reason a game station can't survive, but if people keep half assing it it just won't do well. Why are things like WCG ultimate gamer on syfy instead of g4? GTTV on spike is another example.

People want to see these reviews and previews of games and see people competing at games, but G4 just doesn't deliver as much as it should for a video game centric network.

I find AOTS funny. XPlay has good reviews for my tastes, but when I know that every time I go to G4 I have a 75% chance of having to watch cops or cheaters I just don't go there anymore. I actually started watching xplay reviews and AOTS clips online and completely ignore the channel.

Oluseyi

Nov 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Quote:
Original post by lithos
Whenever I wanted to watch TV programs about computer science I would turn to the 9,000s on direct TV. They have a few channels from colleges, which have lectures, interviews(they got some pretty interesting people), and one pretty awesome special I always watched(essentially taking a bunch of their graduated students and their start up).

I've never been a DIRECTV subscriber (and right now I don't have any pay TV subscription, by choice), but I remember finding college channels on cable systems in Manhattan and Maryland. I found the content interesting enough, but the production values were pretty abysmal, and the presenters (professors) very uncharismatic - if you were seeking "infotainment." As a purely academic resource, however, they were pretty good.

Quote:
Original post by Nytegard
I personally don't feel any form of gaming related television can survive. It's been tried with talking with developers, reviews of games, cheats of games, original game related content, etc., and in the end, all the shows tend to end in failure. Even Microsoft tried with "primetime" content on their XBox 360 with 1 vs 100, and it ended up starting strong, but like TV shows, the audience dropped every week until they finally cancelled it. And that included prizes for the audience! They're trying again with a poker, but I believe it will go the same way. Start strong, and end with a whimper.

I feel it has to do with the viewer. Gamers themselves want on demand content. Yes, DVR's exist which can time shift shows, but not everyone has one, and at the shows might conflict with other shows, not being able to be recorded. As far as a more in depth look behind the scenes, that's better left to web sites which can get around time limitations, and it's too niche for mainstream TV.

Perhaps. To some degree, though, I see weaknesses in the sort of content that has been offered so far. First, there has been an overreliance on content directly related to buying and playing the game - reviews, cheats, even cutscenes. Such content has severely limited appeal, particularly because of the timeliness factor: you can virtually always get the same content online quicker, and possibly for free, in a format that's more useful - you can copy-and-paste, you can save to your HDD, etc. Second, non-play-related content has tended to focus too much on the process of creating the games, which is pretty boring to describe or show to others. There has been very little coverage of shared experiences, ethical, sociological and political issues and the broad interactions of video gaming as an activity and culture with the larger public, at least not from the perspective of gamers or producers sympathetic to gaming, and not in a mature fashion. Coverage has either tended toward sensationalized outrage (see: Fox News) or fanboy slobber.

I think that there is the opportunity for an objective middle ground that can talk about games and gaming (and game development) in the same ways that we now can talk about films and viewing and filmmaking, and I think it may be an even larger audience because the conversation and its delivery as video are fundamentally orthogonal to the activity of play. What I mean is that you watch a show about a movie in exactly the same way that you watch a movie, but watching a show about a game is vastly different than playing it. This can allow people who don't play games to participate in the larger discussion about games and their place in and impact on society - non-gamer parents getting a window into their gamer kids' world that isn't driven by fear and panic.

But it has to be tried to be proven.

Oluseyi

Nov 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Quote:
Original post by way2lazy2care
One thing that you mentioned but didn't really highlight is that G4 was growing when it was more game focussed. Once it went mainstream and started airing cops and cheaters for 8 of their 24 hour schedule is when it started going downhill imo.

There's no reason a game station can't survive, but if people keep half assing it it just won't do well. Why are things like WCG ultimate gamer on syfy instead of g4? GTTV on spike is another example.

People want to see these reviews and previews of games and see people competing at games, but G4 just doesn't deliver as much as it should for a video game centric network.

I find AOTS funny. XPlay has good reviews for my tastes, but when I know that every time I go to G4 I have a 75% chance of having to watch cops or cheaters I just don't go there anymore. I actually started watching xplay reviews and AOTS clips online and completely ignore the channel.

That's a really good point: G4's lack of strong editorial and content identity at least hastened, if not precipitated, its ratings collapse. You can be a niche channel, so long as you truly serve your niche with appropriate content.

way2lazy2care

Nov 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:
Original post by way2lazy2care
One thing that you mentioned but didn't really highlight is that G4 was growing when it was more game focussed. Once it went mainstream and started airing cops and cheaters for 8 of their 24 hour schedule is when it started going downhill imo.

There's no reason a game station can't survive, but if people keep half assing it it just won't do well. Why are things like WCG ultimate gamer on syfy instead of g4? GTTV on spike is another example.

People want to see these reviews and previews of games and see people competing at games, but G4 just doesn't deliver as much as it should for a video game centric network.

I find AOTS funny. XPlay has good reviews for my tastes, but when I know that every time I go to G4 I have a 75% chance of having to watch cops or cheaters I just don't go there anymore. I actually started watching xplay reviews and AOTS clips online and completely ignore the channel.

That's a really good point: G4's lack of strong editorial and content identity at least hastened, if not precipitated, its ratings collapse. You can be a niche channel, so long as you truly serve your niche with appropriate content.

I think the cops/cheaters thing is what really puts me off. I have absolutely no desire to watch cops or cheaters (at least not more than once a week), but I'd watch even loosely video game based shows all day. I even like ninja warrior and unbeatable banzuke because they are at least game-ish.

I just counted, and there are 26 episodes of cops, cheaters, campus PD, or paid programming on in the next 24 hours. I have no idea what that's tough is, but if you include that you're up to 30. I discluded the international sexy ladies show (which has 4 episodes in a row during that 24 hours) because it has international sexy ladies which may appeal to gamers. There are 2 episodes of ninja warrior and one of unbeatable banzuke.

With xplay and AOTS that is 3 hours a day (once replayed in morning, once at night) of game/tech talk, news, and reviews and between 15-19 hours of stuff that is not relevant to gamers.

Chronicles of riddick is on tonight sometime, which I'd also approve of. Decent syfy movies are always cool and the movies that don't suck is a pretty solid thing to add variety.

tl'dr: In the next 24 hours there is 15-19 hours of content that has nothing to do with gamers. IMO at least 15 hours of it is just shitty tv on any channel. Cops is boring.

yaustar

Nov 8, 2010 at 5:01 AM

This has me thinking how GamesMaster and Bad Influence (UK shows from WAY back) managed to least a fair number of seasons.

GamesMaster had the concept of setting challenges for gamers to come and try to beat (eg Speed runs, boxer vs gamer for SonicBlastMan) which cheats and a mini feature in the middle.

Bad Influence was more interesting in terms of news, they did a mixture of reviews, previews, developers visits (they did one at Rare for Killer Instinct arcade), hardware coverage and even piracy for the SNES (floppy drives).

Silvermyst

Nov 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I would definitely pay to see more gaming programming ala the Icons series, which, before they changed the theme from gaming to pop culture, was a must-see G4 show for me.

Game reviews are somewhat meaningless in today's environment. There are plenty of free sources to get game review ratings plus plenty of ways to test the water without an actual purchase (decent demos, renting, buying preowned with money-back guarantees), so there's no real need/demand for game reviews in paid-for media.

I can just imagine a site/channel like www.ted.com with game development material.

Oluseyi

Nov 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Quote:
Original post by Silvermyst
I would definitely pay to see more gaming programming ala the Icons series, which, before they changed the theme from gaming to pop culture, was a must-see G4 show for me.

Game reviews are somewhat meaningless in today's environment. There are plenty of free sources to get game review ratings plus plenty of ways to test the water without an actual purchase (decent demos, renting, buying preowned with money-back guarantees), so there's no real need/demand for game reviews in paid-for media.

I can just imagine a site/channel like www.ted.com with game development material.

I loved early Icons, too. [smile]

The TED comparison is quite apt, because the fundamental concept is deep subject matter experts sharing novel, intriguing or even humorous findings and performances with lay audiences. One of the basic errors I think has been made in the past is targeting "gamers" as an audience demographic. This has led to a poor selection of material, typically focused around the preview/review/cheats angle. In addition to having been obliterated by the internet (Metacritic and a hundred other review sites), the prevalence of demos to let you actually try before you buy has, as you correctly note, Silvermyst, made such material moot.

I think the audience to target is a cohort of game creators on the one hand and "suburban moms" on the other. It sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. The conversation over gaming in the popular media is essentially between these two parties, the people who make the games and the people who do the bulk of purchasing (for children and spouses; I'd cite ESA/ECA stats here, but I'll assume we're all familiar enough that I don't need to). The problem is that neither side has really had representatives at the table, with reporters and "advocates" acting as intermediaries while completely garbling the messages and the issues.

A format that addresses, head on and with no sense of irony, legitimate concerns over what sort of material is appropriate for children of different ages, the right balance of play time (spousal EverCrack, WoW addiction, etc, for instance), and creative/editorial intent (why did Rockstar think it was a good idea to potentially let you have sex with a hooker into your car, gun her down and recover your "fare"?) and so forth, alongside exasperations with the stereotyping of games as exclusively "children's toys" or the legitimacy of mature-themed games that explore sexual and other themes for appropriate audiences... such a format could be highly compelling, and maybe even influential. If this stuff is out there and it begins to percolate, eventually it serves as an elevation of the discourse that exists in mainstream media today.

Most people think this works as an internet play, and that's absolutely true. It almost certainly does. But it also almost certainly will only attract previously interested, dedicated audiences. The power of television as a medium often lies in its "passivity" and its serendipity. Who among us hasn't stumbled onto something new and interesting while channel surfing, perhaps on a topic that had never warranted much thought? This is why having this sort of material on TV in some fashion is an appealing objective, particularly from a gaming advocacy perspective. So the challenge is to find a sustainable, cost-effective means of doing so.

An idea that's come up in other discussions I've had is not to operate an entire channel, but instead to provide a "block" of programming to an existing channel - similar to the "Horsepower TV" and "Powerblock" automotive programming that airs on Spike TV weekend mornings in the US. That's quite an interesting model, and can be a way to gradually grow capacity to produce television-quality content over time. There are many channels with too little content to fill their daily schedules.

JackOfAllTrades

Nov 8, 2010 at 7:48 PM

G4 was dropped because all they ever had on were reruns of Cops... I mean they were marketing their channel to gamers and actually airing stuff that was completely not related... They had less views then some YouTube channels. Personally if I were the owner of a network I would drop them as well...

LessBread

Nov 9, 2010 at 4:55 AM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
What would a sustainable gaming-oriented TV channel look like?

ESPN

Seriously though, with XBox and PlayStation capable of streaming video, why fuss with a television channel at all?

Oluseyi

Nov 9, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
What would a sustainable gaming-oriented TV channel look like?

ESPN

Doubtful. ESPN carries professional athletic engagements (yeah, yeah, college sports; they're de-facto junior pro leagues, which is why most people care; I wish we'd just be honest about it and stop pretending athletes need to go to college for a year or two to prepare for the pros) for spectators. The overwhelming majority of its programming is built around those games and commentary on those games, with only minor quantities based on examination of intersections of sport and society (Outside the Lines). I'm not convinced that there is a significant enough North American gaming audience that would pay to watch others play any one game, or even six. This isn't South Korea and StarCraft.

What I propose is what ESPN would look like if the majority of the programming was Outside the Lines, with an occasional smattering of ESPNEWS. It may fail, but at least it's a different tack than what's been tried before. ("ESPN for gaming" sounds like the old G4 show "Arena" in many respects.)

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Seriously though, with XBox and PlayStation capable of streaming video, why fuss with a television channel at all?

Quote:
From my earlier post
Most people think this works as an internet play, and that's absolutely true. It almost certainly does. But it also almost certainly will only attract previously interested, dedicated audiences. The power of television as a medium often lies in its "passivity" and its serendipity. Who among us hasn't stumbled onto something new and interesting while channel surfing, perhaps on a topic that had never warranted much thought? This is why having this sort of material on TV in some fashion is an appealing objective, particularly from a gaming advocacy perspective.

Silvermyst

Nov 9, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I agree that the TV is a better medium for this, due to its passive status. Sure, a 360 or PS3 might be able to stream it, but... I'm not watching media on a 360 or PS3, I'm interacting with it. (And I just found a new way to interact with my Wii, thanks to this Johnny Lee lecture on cheap Wii hacks that I found on ted.com yesterday when browsing for "gaming".)

Oluseyi

Nov 9, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Quote:
Original post by Silvermyst
I agree that the TV is a better medium for this, due to its passive status. Sure, a 360 or PS3 might be able to stream it, but... I'm not watching media on a 360 or PS3, I'm interacting with it. (And I just found a new way to interact with my Wii, thanks to this Johnny Lee lecture on cheap Wii hacks that I found on ted.com yesterday when browsing for "gaming".)

An interesting point that came up in conversation yesterday is how devices like Google TV are poised to formally bridge the gap between internet video and television (without laboring under the label of "toy" or "video game console" like the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii), particularly by offering the possibility of "channels."

PS. Johnny Lee is awesome. Maybe I should build a rudimentary "virtual reality" gallery shooter using his tech, just for kicks... [smile]

keinmann

Nov 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM

http://g4tv.com/

- Entire network dedicated to gaming. Though oddly, I just tried to flip to it and my receiver says "G4 is no longer available on DirecTV"? WTF? I never watched it all that much, but doesn't make any sense. I'm sure they're still thriving, as they have been for years and years. So of course, a gaming-related TV show can be big.

- A show targeting game DEVELOPERS? Not on large national television networks; I would seriously doubt it. As someone said above, you'd want to start on the internet and try to work your way up and expand your audience.

- Contrary to popular belief, it does NOT take millions of dollars to make and get a TV show on national television. My older brother runs his own outdoors (hunting, fishing, outdoor sporting) television show on the "Pursuit Channel" (DirecTV Channel# 608). They are a very "young" show compared to others which have been running for years, and they are already really great. If you're into hunting/fishing, you would probably love it. Yes, it is quite expensive to run. But like almost every other show, revenue from commercials and sponsors keeps things going. So the point is, you don't need a million dollars to get a show going. Though you might spend many thousands and get started on local TV/internet before you're able to break out onto the national stage. Some of the things you would need:

1) VERY high-quality video camera. I would suggest nothing lesser than a Cannon GL series.

2) VERY nice PC and a high-end video editing suite (my brother uses a custom Mac and (I think) Final Cut Studio for the editing they do themselves. But they now have professionals editors at a 3rd party studio as well.

3) Not to be broke after buying that stuff. If you can't get this stuff from the start, you'll have to work your way up from more humble roots. But this is about all you *physically* need to create the show itself.

Getting the show on the air is a different thing altogether. The idea has to be good, you must find willing sponsors and advertisers, you have to find a network willing to run your show (or start privately, online), and much more. But anyone with a little sense, ambition and some skill (or the ability to develop the skills) can at least have a good chance at making it. There is no guarantee of success, and it will be HARD to make it to the national level, but don't think this is the exclusive territory of super-rich people with millions of dollars of "play" on their side. A show like this will NOT cost as much as something like a sitcom on Fox using high-profile actors, for example.

Hope that helps!

Rattrap

Nov 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I used to love some of the shows back when it was TechTV. Call for Help and the Screen Savers were good shows. Screen Savers kind of evolved into Attack of the Show, but they kind of got rid of everything that made the show good.

After they became G4, they really did go downhill.

Silvermyst

Nov 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
An interesting point that came up in conversation yesterday is how devices like Google TV are poised to formally bridge the gap between internet video and television (without laboring under the label of "toy" or "video game console" like the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii), particularly by offering the possibility of "channels."

I wonder if the "on demand" aspect of all the new media will improve the long-term experience. Continuing to use ted.com as an example, I love the way I can just search a term, start playing it while I do my work, and then just select the next "you might also like" video once the first one is done. But we may lose out on that captive audience aspect of the older media. Would we know songs like "I Will Survive" and "Maggie May" (both B-side songs) if our parents and grandparents could've just downloaded the A-side songs?

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.