Vudu-Wal-Mart-LogoVudu has finally, after years of absence, made it to the Web browser. Having been made available through hundreds of connected devices already, the Web was the obvious next step. And the step beyond that? Mobile.

Vudu

Originally a hardware-based video platform, Vudu then switched to being software-based in order to reach its full potential. Wal-Mart then acquired the company in early 2010, and it has since gone from strength to strength.

Vudu is now available on all manner of different Internet-connected devices, including TVs, set-top boxes, and games consoles. But its catalog of movies has never been available to view on the Web via your browser of choice. Until now.

Vudu Through Your Browser

Vudu announced on Monday that its extensive library of 17,000 movies was now available to rent or buy using a Flash-based player on the Vudu.com website. The same titles are available across the spectrum of devices Vudu supports, and a movie can even be purchased on one device and watched later on the Web.

Unfortunately the resolution is fixed at 480p due to licensing restrictions, and that’s a far cry from the 1080p available through many devices thanks to its pioneering HDX format. Still, with prices starting at $3.99 Vudu can cater to those people not able or willing to pay through the nose for high definition.

Vudu offers a nice alternative to Hulu, Apple iTunes, and Amazon, and one which will likely gain more fans now it’s available directly on the Web.

Conclusions

This could be a huge boost to Vudu and its owner Wal-Mart, as many people still rely on a PC and a browser to access the Web. Vudu still hasn’t made it to mobile devices, but that will surely be the next step for Vudu to take.

After all, people are increasingly eager to access the Internet while on the move, and watching movies is as much a part of that experience as anything else. Just don’t expect it to come cheaply, as there is talk of a Hulu Plus-style premium service being on its way first.

Earlier this month a group of journalists, game designers, and academics gathered at the University of Minnesota for a workshop on newsgames. I was there, as was fellow Knight News Challenge winner and San Jose Mercury News tech business writer Chris O'Brien. After the event, Chris wrote a recap of the meeting here on Idea Lab. TechCrunch's Paul Carr penned a grouchy reply, and O'Brien responded in turn.

As an early advocate and creator of newsgames who has spent the last several years researching and writing about the subject, I'm encouraged to see debate flaring up on the subject. But it's important to note that there's not one sole position for or against newsgames. For my part, I can't embrace either Carr's critique or O'Brien's defense.

Carr's riposte boils down to this: If people can't process news without having it turned into a game for them, something's tragically wrong. That's not the position I advocate, of course, so it's heartening to see O'Brien respond so quickly with objection.

But O'Brien's response isn't right either. His retort amounts to: Games are an increasingly popular medium that can keep people engaged; since news doesn't seem to be doing so, why not try something that does?

He's not fundamentally wrong, of course. Games are becoming increasingly popular, and they can capture people's interest differently and sometimes more effectively than other media.

How Games Engage

But vague ideas like popularity and engagement aren't the interesting aspects of games.

newsgames cover.jpg

In fact, there are many different sides to newsgames. My co-authors and I identify seven different approaches to the form in our book"Newsgames: Journalism at Play," including current events, infographics, documentary, literacy, puzzles, community, and platforms.

But the most interesting aspect of games in the context of news is their unique features as a medium. Games communicate differently than other media: They simulate processes rather than telling stories. For this reason, games are great at characterizing the complex behavior of systems.

While traditional methods of newsmaking like writing and broadcasting may seem more sophisticated and respectable than videogames in theory, the opposite is true in practice. In fact, the type of knee-jerk, ad hominem rejoinder and rapid-fire retort that Carr's andO'Brien's posts represent offer a superb example of precisely what's wrong with news today -- online or off. Personality and gossip reigns, while deliberation and synthesis falter.

Because complex characterizations of the dynamics underlying events and situations are already scarce in the news, to accuse games of trivializing civic engagement risks hypocrisy. But it's more than that: The forms of traditional storytelling common to written and broadcast journalism just can't get at the heart of systemic issues. They focus instead on events and individuals, not on the convoluted interconnections between global and local dynamics.

Yet, systemic issues are the most important ones for us to understand today: economics, energy, climate, health, education—all of these are big, messy systems with lots of complex interrelations. As we put it in "Newsgames": "Games offer journalists an opportunity to stop short of the final rendering of a typical news story, and instead to share the raw behaviors and dynamics that describe a situation as the journalistic content."

Intoxication with Games

Despite their recent dispute, O'Brien and Carr share something in common: an affiliation with Silicon Valley-oriented publications. Over the past year, the Valley tech sector has become intoxicated with games, particularly the runaway growth of social network games and the promise of "gamification," the application of arbitrary extrinsic rewards for desired actions on websites or smartphones.

In championing newsgames, I'm advocating something different and more sophisticated than low-effort user acquisition, blind trend-hopping, or crass incentives. It is a value completely at odds with both Carr's critique, and one that O'Brien's defense doesn't adequately capture.

Newsgames don't make news easier and more palatable; that's the negative trend the media industry has embraced for three decades, from USA Today to Twitter.

Instead, newsgames make the news harder and more complex. We shouldn't embrace games because they seem fun or trendy, nor because they dumb down the news, but because they can communicate complex ideas differently and better than writing and pictures and film. Games are raising the bar on news, not lowering it.