In Third Person

Nine months after 1 vs. 100 launched on XBOX Live, Microsoft announced earlier this week that the game would not return for a third season. While I did not play the game that often myself (which sort of makes me part of the problem), I thought that the game was very forward-thinking in its execution and quite fun to play. I’m sad to see it go.

Why did this happen? I don’t have any insider information on the situation, so anything I’m about to say is strictly speculation. But based on the information that’s publicly available and my understanding of games and business, I’m going to try and write my way through what I think happened.

1 vs. 100 was the pilot program that would launch XBOX Live Primetime. There were a number of factors that made this game different from any other offerings on XBOX Live. This game was free to any XBOX Live Gold subscribers. This game was massively multiplayer, which at one point hit over 114,000 players at once. It  featured consistently updated questions. 1 vs. 100 even featured Chris Cashman as a live announcer to the show, which turned out cooler than I thought it would. Between game segments, he would shout out players in the game, answer questions and interview guests. Most importantly for gamers, MS Points were on the line as prizes, which could be used to buy downloadable games or game content.

All of these elements made 1 vs. 100 feel like something I’d never experienced before in a video game. However, I highly suspect that the business model wasn’t there to support all of this. I’ll point out the key factors that I think ultimately lead to its demise.

Accessibility

1 vs. 100 was hampered by two major hurdles when it comes to accessibility: required XBOX Live Gold and required attendance for the shows. Requiring Gold cut out roughly 27% of all XBOX 360 owners right off the bat. The bigger problem for gamers was the timing of the shows. This wasn’t a game that you could play any time you want. I think the game could have lived on 24/7 if Microsoft wanted to, but that would take the live announcer out of the equation and probably some ad revenue as well. Due to the nature of time zones, it’s very difficult to pick a time that works for everyone. I think that they would have had more success timing out their shows based on Eastern time, but they went with Pacific time instead. They also didn’t choose the best days. I couldn’t imagine anyone wanting to spend their Friday or Saturday night playing this game rather than being out of the house. While thousands of gamers did make time to play the game, I don’t think enough players committed to it to make it worth Microsoft’s resources.

Expenses

This game may not have featured the most intricate graphics or sound, but I can’t imagine an endeavour like this being cheap. Because the game was “free” to XBOX Live Gold subscribers, there was no money coming in to cover the creation of this game. There were other ongoing expenses to consider, too. Writers had to be paid to create new content for every show. Servers and IT professionals were required to make sure the whole game doesn’t break under the weight of thousands of users logging into the same game. Can’t forget about Chris Cashman, either. Even the prizing for the game was MS Points, which indirectly costs Microsoft money. For this game to run, it would need to find a way of consistently making money throughout its lifespan…

Advertising

…that money was supposed to come from advertising. Microsoft planned on covering their expenses by selling ads during commercial breaks. I don’t think this has officially been confirmed, but I’m pretty sure some of the trivia questions were also paid for by sponsors. When I first played 1 vs. 100, it had a ton of ads all over it. It was excessive to the point where I think every last question on that first show was paid for by a sponsor. As someone who actually works in the advertising business, even I found it a bit excessive.

Over the following months though, I saw fewer ads. Unless the writers got really good at hiding their sponsors, the questions all seemed like standard trivia game fare. What was most alarming was the lack of commercials that ran during breaks in the game. My brother, who was a consistent player throughout the game’s run, said by the end of season 2, the ads were mostly repeats of XBOX Live promos.

Now lets put these factors together. Microsoft designed 1 vs. 100 so that the game’s expenses would be covered by ad revenue. Advertisers will buy space if there is an audience there. Unfortunately, the audience wasn’t there in the numbers that advertisers were looking for, which lead to the ads not being there to cover the expenses of the game. Without the money to keep the game going, Microsoft pulled the plug.

To me, this story makes absolute sense, but I could be completely wrong. Crazier things have happened in the video game industry. Whatever the true story is, I’m sad to see 1 vs. 100 go and I hope that the idea comes back bigger and stronger next time.