[With the Hollywood model,] developers can get experience at a number of companies, which means that they'll have more games under their belts than with the traditional model. The constant flow of employees should also establish a cross-industry code of practice, thus increasing the quality of life in an environment which rapidly chews up and spits out its most able and experienced workers. Furthermore, contractors would be able to charge for overtime, unlike full-time employees.

Personally, I'd like to see the contract-based Hollywood model take off a bit more. There are certainly many tightly knit studios that work better under the currently prevalent model, keeping a large team together from project to project. However, it's worth noting that animation studio Pixar, which works in a similar way as game development firms, still cooexists perfectly well with other smaller Hollywood studios that operate more on a contractual basis. Much of the games industry seems to work under those terms now anyway, with publishers hiring for big projects then downsizing or relocating employees when a project changes in scope or comes to an end. Some developer are already moving towards this different model. Wideload Games, headed up by Bungie co-founder Alex Seropian, is a small studio that augmented its ranks on a contractual basis during the creation of its first title Stubbs the Zombie (Xbox, PC). It should be interesting to see how Wideload fares with those practices in an industry not currently set up to support that particular route.

The other four models offer interesting possibilities as well, with some--such as episodic gaming--already more heavily discussed than others. Particularly worrying is the notion of heavily advertising-supported games, which may have uncomfortable ramifications in an industry where developers sometimes end up at the creative whim of larger entities providing funding.

Many of these approaches may become possible as the games industry continues to grow and encompass wider audiences. Certainly, there are frustrations that sometimes occur in cases when games can feel dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in order to cater to as many different audiences as possible. However, slightly paradoxically, that expansion is crucial to ensure that games don't end up becoming focused too heavily on one specific group. As the audience grows, it will become more and more possible for games to diverge wildly in terms of gameplay, themes, and content, as more and more niches and markets must be addressed. This has happened both in Hollywood and the music industry, which--despite many, many, many less than desirable attributes for creative fields--both have strong and viable avenues for the creation and distribution of many different types of work.

To bring this around in a topical way, that's one reason I'm so excited about E3 this year. The range we'll be seeing is simply incredible: mind-blowingly open-ended extravanganzas of game design such as Spore on the PC, blockbuster action/adventure-ish games on systems like Xbox 360 and PS3, something totally different in the control/interface arena with Wii as well as the concerted attempt to branch out to non-traditional audiences, major handheld gaming systems pursuing almost opposing types of game experiences, efforts toward keeping gaming history accessible to the masses with Wii, the potential of independent game distribution through PC as well as all three major console platforms, massively multiplayer games that have lately been drawing in various new audiences, and so on. ...Five more days!