From: "Justin Bacon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Which doesn't seem to synch up too well with his claim that Microsoft
> could be replaced as King of the Operating System Hill by somebody
> who came along with a sufficiently superior product.
Any product that hopes to replace Windows will have to either run Windows
applications, or be able to host an application more important than the sum
total of all the value of the existing compatibility with the existing
installed base of Windows apps.
The value that Windows brings to the desktop is tied directly to the fact
that it runs the most common business and entertainment software. That's
one reason Microsoft publishes business and entertainment software - so they
can do their best to ensure that Windows is a better platform than the
competition.
That's why they found Netscape so scary - Navigator, combined with various
other technologies like Java and JavaScript threatened to create a new
'platform' that could deliver the bulk of the functionality of the Windows
application base (either via ASP or simply by replacing a lot of apps with
an HTML-based front end).
The Network Externality for Windows is related to application software and
the common experience of users. The Network Externality for games is
related to the direct shared play value of having other people who know the
same rules as you so you can play a game together. In order to attack the
Network Externality of D&D, you need to create a larger pool of people who
know how to play Game X than the pool of people who know how to play D&D
(actually, you only have to attack the current and "likely" player size...);
or, you need to deliver a game that is better than D&D and still mostly
compatible with the rules known by the existing network (that's what 3E is).
The TCG business has a current example of how to achieve this. Magic has an
entrenched Network Externality. Five years of trying produced nothing that
came close to competing with Magic; for all of that time, to the best of our
knowledge, Magic was the #1 game for all but one or two months. For most of
that time, the #2 game has been 10% the size of Magic or smaller.
Along comes Pokemon, a game which created a network from a whole different
population of consumers (kids), and was supported by an external network (tv
show watchers and GameBoy players). Pokemon is a much larger game than
Magic, by a substantial margin. But it didn't "beat" Magic and it hasn't
done much to erode Magic's existing player community - primarily because of
factors related to the brand. There is not much perceived value in the
Magic community to move from Magic to Pokemon (although the converse is
certainly true). If Pokemon could transform itself into something that
college-age people wanted to play, it would have a ferociously corrosive
effect on the Magic Network Externality.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
