tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post113140670284044577..comments2023-11-03T01:45:11.288-07:00Comments on Lost Garden: A five step program to move beyond the game geek cultureDaniel Cookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10437870541630835660noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1133734460242399832005-12-04T14:14:00.000-08:002005-12-04T14:14:00.000-08:00The entry is 1 month old so maybe the discussion i...The entry is 1 month old so maybe the discussion is over. But I just stop here once in a while to read your last articles :)<BR/><BR/>I have the feeling the the actual game situation is not only unattractive for non gamers, but also driving gamers away. I have played since NES and I like most acctual games, I love Halo, C&C and so on. But somehow its not so much fun anymore. I think I have just consumed to much of the same and would like to get something new. And I am starting to get less interessted in too complicated games. <BR/><BR/>I have a friend wo his mental handicaped we used to play a lot of games together during the NES and SNES time, he liked the jump and runs like Super Mario and we had a lot of fun. But this ended with the N64 and Playstation. Too much 3D and too complicated for him, now he does not play videogames anymore. I know that he is not representing a big share of the market and he is maybe a person in an unique situation but this could be an indicator why people who play games are mostly hardcore gamers. <BR/><BR/>As a hardcore gamer I though Nintendo is crazy after I heard their opinions at the last E3s. But now I start to realize that they are on the right way. Somehow I used to talk more about games then to play them. I bought the new games to talk about them on forums and with friends. But I didn't have much fun, maybe I am crazy but don't know what was happening to me. Now I play less games and read more books :) Last week I thought about buying an Xbox360 but ended up buying an DS with Mario Advance 3+4 to bring back the good old times ;)<BR/><BR/>As far as Nintendo is concerned: I played Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES and the SNES and now on the DS. How can a company that was able to sell me the same game 3 times be wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132878740088588612005-11-24T16:32:00.000-08:002005-11-24T16:32:00.000-08:00Yes this post is old, but this article (http://www...Yes this post is old, but this article (http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3145837) made me think of it again.<BR/><BR/>The article talks with game designers about possible game uses for the Nintendo Revolution controller. And all through it, I find myself banging my head against "conventional" ideas, and gamer stereotypes.<BR/><BR/>An idea for an orchestra conductor experience, was met with this repsonse:<BR/><BR/>"1UP: Going along with that, even if the gameplay turned out well, do you think a game with a concept like this would sell at all in either the U.S. or Japanese market?<BR/><BR/>AR: Honestly, no. Sadly, the number of people who listen to classical music is rather small, particularly among the console gaming demographic, so I suspect that a conducting game would be destined to be a niche product. I would love to be wrong about that."<BR/><BR/>They don't get it. Don't just make games, make experiences.<BR/><BR/>I had the good fortune of playing Buzz on PS2 this weekend with some friends. It's a music quiz show experience, that just happens to use the PS2 as its platform. It coould easily have been a stand alone plug into your TV product. the point is, that it is an experience, broader than one designed for traditional gamers. Although it still has game standards like a high score table (which i found uneccessary), it has completely non-game related things, like a prize at the end of the show. From a game-orientated view, this prize is worthless, but it fits so well into the game show format (a necessity even), that it became a highlight, with all of us screaming for another prize of a "chesses of the world platter"!<BR/><BR/>The 1up article annoys me, hopefully it is not totally representative of what game designers (and designers in general) have in mind for this REVOLUTIONARY controller.<BR/><BR/>Here are two more snippets from the interviews:<BR/><BR/>1UP: When you picture a mechanic like this, how do you imagine the rest of the game working? Would it be a typical third-person game and then go into a special setup for spell-casting, or would the whole thing revolve around the spell-casting?<BR/><BR/>Eric Holmes: I think it would be best to view it as a 'layer' which goes on top of an existing game model. If I had free reign, I'd suggest a somewhat conventional third-person action adventure with this as a layer on top. Now, that means it could arguably be implemented on any platform, but I'd think the nice thing about the Revolution is that you could cast a spell as you were maneuvering, dodging, fighting -- rather than stopping and going into some other mode, as you'd almost certainly have to do in the other platforms. It'd also be just so much more visceral to cast with a 'wand' than just flailing an analog stick around.<BR/><BR/>1UP: One of the problems with this and other Revolution game ideas we've heard floating around is that -- like some EyeToy games -- they seem like great fun for a mini-game or a couple minutes of play, but it might be challenging to turn them into full-length games. Do you think this Harry Potter concept could hold up for a full game, or would that be too gimmicky/would players get too tired?<BR/><BR/>EH: It'd be hard to make game that's purely based around casting spells and make it compelling for four hours -- you're totally right in that it would suffer from the mini-game syndrome. I think we'll see a lot of novelty value use in the first wave of games, and then people will figure out how to more tightly integrate it into 'complete' games. It's a medium, just like when the Dual Shock first turned up. There were a good few abortive attempts at using one or both sticks when that first came out, and now the majority of games have many good, conventional models to follow for using both sticks for first-person shooters, third-person action games, and so on. I just wish people would learn that using the right stick as a fighting controller doesn't work (Blade 2!)."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Arrrgggg. Will someone please continue the revolution, so that the next 100 games don't all feature boxes to smash, lives and an annoying, unrelated stealth level?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132718836525510032005-11-22T20:07:00.000-08:002005-11-22T20:07:00.000-08:00As a woman and occasional game player I'd like to ...As a woman and occasional game player I'd like to say thanks for writing the article, it was a very interesting insight into why the game market is the way it is.<BR/><BR/>For all those feeling baffled as to What Women Want (hello Freud), this is a list of games I or other women I know have played:<BR/>The Sims<BR/>Sim City<BR/>Themepark<BR/>Mah Jong<BR/>Solitaire<BR/>Sudokus<BR/>Lemmings<BR/>Riven<BR/>Tetris<BR/><BR/>It seems to me they betray an interest in planning, strategy, and exploring/learning from new environments, and tend not to include violence, point-scoring, or overt conflict. And they're all great fun! So I don't believe making a game women enjoy is beyond the industry - all that's needed is a respect for and interest in what women find entertaining.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132692349632752182005-11-22T12:45:00.000-08:002005-11-22T12:45:00.000-08:00Yes, I know this post is way old so no one's actua...Yes, I know this post is <I>way</I> old so no one's actually going to read this, but I just had to jump in to dispel the myth that having employees working "12 hour days, six days a week, for six months straight" is the key to getting a game shipped on time. In practice, it leads to worse games and missed deadlines. This fantastic article sums it up: http://www.igda.org/articles/erobinson_crunch.php<BR/><BR/>Quality of Life is not a passion problem, it's a management/production problem, and there are lots of great management/production solutions to our "crappy hours" problem. The average amount of actual business management training most managers/producers have in this industry is unfortunately very small. As with many of our industry's problems, we promote up from our own little subculture rather than realize all the existing knowledge and experience we can recruit in (from all those other little subcultures).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Danc will see this and decide to write a whole post based on it...<BR/><BR/>- JebAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132194690346729672005-11-16T18:31:00.000-08:002005-11-16T18:31:00.000-08:00I agree with a previous post saying that improving...I agree with a previous post saying that improving working conditions is a must if we want the industry to change. No one in their right mind would want to work in the game industry if they didn't have a passion for gaming. Imagine working with someone who doesn't like what they're doing. That person would not have the necessary "drive" to produce something great. They'd just be watching the clock to see when 5PM rolls around.<BR/>Furthermore, one of the main reasons why a developer works such insane hours at such low pay is because they absolutely LOVE what they're doing.<BR/>But now the question would be, "How do we improve working conditions?" We could hire more workers and enfore the 9-5 rule. Well, unless you're EA, I don't think anyone has the money to do that. OK, so we can just enforce the 9-5 rule and not hire anyone else. Hah, then the development time for a typical game will shoot through the roof and no developer can afford to work on a single game for very long (unless they have a serious cash reserve). Overall, improving working conditions in this industry is a very hard and expensive thing to do. The only way we can stay afloat is by hiring people who have a passion for what they do. Those are the types of individuals who are willing to work 12 hour days, six days a week, for six months straight in order to get a game shipped on time.<BR/>If someone finds an economical solution for improving working conditions in the gaming industry, hats off to you - you have provided the first step in pushing the game industry away from "gamers making games for gamers".<BR/>OK, I may have pushed this discussion in a new direction and I apologize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132148482170880532005-11-16T05:41:00.000-08:002005-11-16T05:41:00.000-08:00Two words, Thomas Schelling.Second, "What about th...Two words, Thomas Schelling.<BR/><BR/>Second, "What about the money?" - if I'm not mistaken you are confusing households and individuals in one sentence to make a point. 35 million households that have consoles is not comparable to 200 million who have cable TV - why? There are only 110 million households in the US. Those 35 million console households are more like 100 million people. And no, there aren't 200 million cellphones used worldwide, it is way higher than that, that is the number that was shipped for sale (suggest you re-read your own link to this info).<BR/><BR/>Point being - get your facts straight if you are going to write articles like this. You actually have a sizeable potential US audience growing at a good rate (it even says so in another or your links - again, re-read).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132134814887180342005-11-16T01:53:00.000-08:002005-11-16T01:53:00.000-08:00I agree with the poster above to a large extent. H...I agree with the poster above to a large extent. He also nails it on the head about having someone that believes in the product. One only has to look at the converse of that, the reality of publisher driven titles. Generic FPS? check, MMO with elf ripoffs? check. <BR/><BR/>It would behoove anyone who is active in game development, regardless of speciality to at least broaden their horizons. Grow up a bit. Learn more about non gamers and also integrate their viewpoints, things they already understand into your own. <BR/><BR/>You also see people in other businesses and industries taking in people from all sorts of backgrounds i.e. anthropology. Our industry also lacks a real, accessible entry level. QA isn't cutting it, you have a system where the only people that make it are the ones that regurgitate what's been done who are willing to repeat the status quo that publishers love to see. In order to succeed in our little cottage industry, ideas and ideals must be compromised and usually forgotten along the way.Fathamburgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13644698968735944110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132127803683659152005-11-15T23:56:00.000-08:002005-11-15T23:56:00.000-08:00Product Design sounds eerily like the process that...Product Design sounds eerily like the process that has brought us countless crappy movies, toys and games (video or otherwise) throughout the years. If you don't have someone with a passion for the product spearheading its production you'll end up with a soulless flop. I know, I've seen a bunch of guys who worked on RPGs make a hunting game. It didn't work out, in case you're wondering.<BR/><BR/>Product Design is a tool. A person who is passionate about making an RPG should use it's principles to make that RPG more appealing to other RPG lovers - not to make a game based on a romance novel.<BR/><BR/>You can't just analyze and focus-group your product to death and sell to a market you don't fundamentally understand. Someone at the core of the project has to "get" what the market the project is going for, and beyond that, actually enjoy the same things that the rest of that market enjoys. Oh, and they have to be good at not only design, but also motivation, management and countless other skills that make a good game happen. The only way this is going to happen for new markets is with new blood - and that's where we run into a catch-22.<BR/><BR/>Very few people who aren't gamers get into the industry - and those who do soon leave. Why? Not just because everyone else is zonkers about the current crops of games. It's also because it's an industry that no sane person would work in, except that they love games. The pay is lousy, the hours are extra lousy, and the management is super-mega-mega-lousy. I tell people not to get into the industry if they don't love games, and that's because if you don't, you're quite frankly going to be happier working in a fertilizer plant. And things are getting worse, not better, to the point where even a love of games is only keeping a small fraction of the workforce from burning out.<BR/><BR/>So if I had to think of some steps to expand the market, I'd say:<BR/><BR/>1. Improve working conditions (and let people have a family life, social life, or a life at all) so you can...<BR/>2. Recruit people (artists, programmers, writers, sound guys, interns, etc.) who are not "gamers" and KEEP THEM AROUND because it's a good job. Then you can...<BR/>3. Identify people (who may or may not be gamers) who have the "stuff" to come up with a great idea and see it through. Now...<BR/>4. Nurture them, mentor them, then set them loose on the product that's going to sell you a zillion units.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, you gotta be somewhere above the level of working stiff to make this happen - which means there's a snowball's chance in hell of it happening. Right now it happens by accident. Wil Wright is a great example - he didn't cook up The Sims to cash in, he made it because he wanted to play it just like the rest of us. Same with Keita Takahashi, creator of Katamari Damacy (who's already run far far away from the industry). Somehow these non-gamers ended up in the industry and made non-games that non-gamers couldn't get enough of. More of that would happen if the industry weren't so soul-sucking. <BR/><BR/>So to sum up:<BR/><BR/>Using Product Design to cynically create a game you would never play: bad idea. <BR/><BR/>Using it to enhance the game you WANT to make: great idea. <BR/><BR/>Changing the workplace so we can bring in new blood: only way we'll change things.<BR/><BR/>Things you the average non-owner developer can do to achieve that: ???<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the post, although I disagree with the premise it got me thinking...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132093208083108472005-11-15T14:20:00.000-08:002005-11-15T14:20:00.000-08:00reasons why i love nintendo...the controller is aw...reasons why i love nintendo...the controller is awsome (and different, sony's and microsoft's controllers look too alike, to past generations and present generations)<BR/>the only problem i argue is that it may be too early for the rest of the world to accept, at least not right away<BR/><BR/>ima classical gamer!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132039267401095392005-11-14T23:21:00.000-08:002005-11-14T23:21:00.000-08:00For the record, I agree completely with your asser...For the record, I agree completely with your assertions on the market and the state of the industry. I think we're going to see a big shakeout in the next few years, because the supply of games is increasing drastically but the demand - the potential market - remains static.<BR/><BR/>However, I suspect that there's a fairly big gotcha here, viz:<BR/><BR/>- Games tend to be about conflict. Character vs. character, character vs. environment, and so on. If you take the conflict out of a game, you've pulled its teeth. Even Nintendogs and the Sims have an element of conflict, although that is mainly about balancing your sim's time or your dog's needs, and other extenuating constraints.<BR/><BR/>- Computers are best at simulating physical conflict (fighting) rather than social conflict (<I>Survivor</I>!). <BR/><BR/>- The variety of conflict which appeals to a typical gamer is physical.<BR/><BR/>- The variety of conflict which appeals to a typical non-gamer is social or otherwise non-physical.<BR/><BR/>So the cycle of culture is only half the picture, although I cannot deny its significance (nor would I want to). The other half is to look at it and say, well, simulating conflict in society is hard. Let's look at some ways that some games have done this:<BR/><BR/><I>Civilization</I> - You have culture and civil disorder. Both of these are essentially numbers on a spreadsheet; they aren't going to speak to a non-gamer in a meaningful way.<BR/><BR/><I>Tokimeki Memorial</I> - If one of the female characters dislikes you enough, a little ticking time bomb appears by her portrait. If you let the time run down without doing something nice for her (which can be difficult given that 'something nice' has to fit into both your schedule and hers), she can't stand it any more and complains to all her friends about how callous, unfeeling, etc. you are, and all her friends won't like you either. (This is a rather "brutal" take on the whole notion of social violence.)<BR/><BR/><I>Facade</I> - It's great for what it is, but the thing is that social conflict is a long-term thing which involves great change, and the "short, sharp" evening of Facade simply has too short a "window" to represent that. (Although the player can make interesting changes happen even in that span of time.)<BR/><BR/><I>Dead Or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball</I> - Social contact with other characters consists primarily of (1) giving gifts and (2) playing volleyball. Gifts are rated based upon the recipient's likes and dislikes, as well as her opinion of the giver, and will affect her opinion of the giver accordingly. A game of volleyball will tend to raise the winners' opinion of each other and lower the losers' opinion of each other. In this fashion the player may 'convince' another character to become their volleyball partner (by establishing a relationship with her, and breaking down her relationship with her partner).<BR/><BR/>Any MMORPG: The players create their own social conflict. (See: any MMORPG discussion forum.) In essence, the designers get a freebie here.<BR/><BR/>I'm not counting Sims here because the player isn't usually personally involved in the social conflicts in the game (I think), but tends to manage them from a third-person POV.<BR/><BR/>In any case, it's interesting, if a little ironic, that one of the better games w.r.t. this aspect of conflict is also one of those which "serious designers" are afraid to talk about. But this is the crux of the matter: to appeal to a significant untapped market, designers need to introduce the element of social conflict, in a tangible, interesting way, to supplant physical conflict, and that is technically difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1132021184629324192005-11-14T18:19:00.000-08:002005-11-14T18:19:00.000-08:00I think there's one more component here which does...I think there's one more component here which does damn the publishers a bit: advertising. The publishers spend money supporting titles, and they tend to support the titles which they think, from historical data, will do better. This is what closes the self-reinforcing cycle and keeps the same types of games being made. Worse, it also pushes us into an even tighter corner in order to meet expectations.<BR/><BR/>I think an excellent example of this is 3D graphics. While I'm not a technophobe that hates 3D, I think that some games simply don't benefit from 3D; yet, you see games fixating on 3D. Consider the recent <I>Civilization 4</I>, where they "upgraded" to 3D models. It serves little purpose in improving gameplay, yet it frustrates people. Consider <A HREF="http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2005/QBlog141105A.html" REL="nofollow">the experiences</A> of Dr. Richard Bartle, co-creator of the first text MUD. One assumes he knows a thing or two about computers, but Civ4 is frustrating him to no end. Now imagine what one of your hundreds of millions of "potential gamers" would feel in a similar situation! Yes, consoles fix this but they're expensive "toys" that most of these "potential" gamers see as a waste of time; on the other hand, there's lots of PCs out there.<BR/><BR/>You can lay part of the blame for this sorry state of affairs on advertising. Sony needed a selling point to set their shiny new PlayStation apart from the other game systems at the time. The PlayStation could do better 3D graphics than the Super Nintendo or Genesis, so they focused on that. "2D is old, 3D is cool!" was the message, and it's stuck with us even today.<BR/><BR/>This also brings up another big problem: there's almost no "in between" spaces for games that can satisfy both the gamer and the "potential" player simultaneously. Take 3D for example. If I make my game near the cutting-edge then it will potentially frustrate the potential gamer. If I make my game 2D in order to simplify things and try to attract new gamers, then I'll alienate the hard-core who will consider my little 2D game old, ugly, and unworthy of their time. This applies to a lot more areas in game development as well: complexity of gameplay, availability in stores (including non-gaming ones), etc.<BR/><BR/>Sure, you can say, "damn the hard-core! Make the game 2D (and simpler, and available in non-gaming outlets, and so on) and reap the rewards!" But, advertising (there's that damned word again) to a new market is expensive and hard; well beyond the means of my little company. "So, let's look to the bigger companies," you might say. But, as soon as you get large enough where you have the money and ability to reach a larger market, you start seeing other opposing forces: ossified management, traditional thinking, CYA attitudes, the works.<BR/><BR/>In the end, what you are talking about is a lot harder than you think. If it were easier, then more people would be doing it. As another poster points out, we've had some success with this in other fields: niche online RPGs like Puzzle Pirates, casual games from PopCap and gameLab, etc., but none of them are challenging EA on any terms that I'm aware of besides perhaps "least developers per title".<BR/><BR/>My perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131995801884308982005-11-14T11:16:00.000-08:002005-11-14T11:16:00.000-08:00I disagree with the premise.There are tons of peop...I disagree with the premise.<BR/><BR/>There are tons of people making non-gamer games. The Sims. The Movies. Everything at Popcap. Zillions more here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/15<BR/><BR/>Your article's proposals are so good, hundreds of entrepreneurs are already doing them, and have been for years. :Pstiillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10490048230661699628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131932988265441512005-11-13T17:49:00.000-08:002005-11-13T17:49:00.000-08:00Instead of assuming that everyone misunderstood yo...Instead of assuming that everyone misunderstood your article, you should consider the possibility that your first article really was lambasting programmer-designers. Maybe you didn't intend that, but that's irrelevant: we don't see your intentions, we see what you put on the page. Don't blame others for your failure to properly express yourself.<BR/><BR/>You complained about "programmer-designers" when you meant to talk about a broader concept: the problem with gamers designing games for gamers. I'm glad you've covered the topic you meant to cover in this much clearer essay, but it's unfortunate that you felt the need to insult your audience and pretend that this essay is a mere restatement of the first one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131782814147931032005-11-12T00:06:00.000-08:002005-11-12T00:06:00.000-08:00about $$. My point earlier was not that games sho...about $$. My point earlier was not that games shouldn't be expensive, but that new markets should be broken into with cheaper products. An extreme sports biker would easily spend $2,000 and upwards on his (or her) bike, but I only spent $100 or so on mine. I'll spend $50 for a game, but not everyone will. A range of prices is the key thing. Nowadays there isn't much diversity in that area.<BR/>-eAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131665483051434542005-11-10T15:31:00.000-08:002005-11-10T15:31:00.000-08:00Hey Danc,Weird thought just buzzed me... Have you ...Hey Danc,<BR/><BR/>Weird thought just buzzed me... <BR/><BR/>Have you ever thought that getting more people to play games (for your own profit) is an ethically questionable thing to do? <BR/><BR/>Just curious... <BR/><BR/>--RayRaymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035842500415940617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131649193425148452005-11-10T10:59:00.000-08:002005-11-10T10:59:00.000-08:00I think a big problem, Danc, is not merely that a ...I think a big problem, Danc, is not merely that a lot of people do not want to be identified as "gamers," but that the fundamental concepts that seem to be universal in modern games - things that are so deeply believed to be necessary by developers and published that very few people who are familiar with video games can even conceive of something that works differently (I don't have the time right now to think of an example) - represent a barrier to the non-gamer. They are not an assumed or enjoyed part of the process for the non-gamer, they are a liability. They cause the game to require a significant investment in time or interest just to get started. Games, to the non-gamer, are an arcane and incomprehensible field - a foreign country with bizarre customs and a vastly different language - and they worry that the effort they expend to learn this language will not be worth the enjoyment they derive from the literature written with it. Merely <I>understanding</I> games is seen as an imposing task with dubious rewards.<BR/><BR/>The stigma must be overcome, yes, but that is secondary to actually identifying the ways in which gaming <I>can</I> become friendlier. These are certainly there - something that more closely resembles, say, Solitaire would do well - but the problem is finding them without actually being a person who appreciates the new type of game that we're looking for rather than the type of game that we've already got.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15243016271951485772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131641862687272762005-11-10T08:57:00.000-08:002005-11-10T08:57:00.000-08:00Actually Dan, now that Ive made it home and had ti...Actually Dan, now that Ive made it home and had time to think about it on the drive back, perhaps I was sounding a bit harsh there, plus I left out another part of the puzzle here.<BR/><BR/>I forgot to identify the effect that other media has on the perception of games. That has a HUGE negative impact on the potential of developers and publishers to create games outside the current niches.<BR/><BR/>I do think that publishers are at fault a great deal here, because they work only on sales evidence, which by its very nature is historically based.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, if the mainstream media decided to actually portray the games industry as its reality rather than some misconcieved ideal, they would actually have a very different picture of our industry.<BR/><BR/>For an example, imagine if column inches on games was based purely on sales. Imagine how much more coverage the sims would have gotten over Quake 3?<BR/><BR/>What we have, is a cultural and media bias that strives to belittle and marginalise games and games players because they are scared that games as a media are far more compelling and rich than they are.<BR/><BR/>The fact that a lot of women play games, but would be appalled if someone called them game players points to an imbalance of the cultural perception of games that has hampered a lot of the diversity that we all seem to agree would be a good thing.<BR/><BR/>So sorry if that came across a bit strangely Dan, we broadly agree on things anyway, because its actually sensible argument. I just think that my experience is perhaps a little bit more positive in the regions you identify as problems than yours is.<BR/><BR/>Phil.Phil Carlislehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05262518177977960604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131638175386067082005-11-10T07:56:00.000-08:002005-11-10T07:56:00.000-08:00Woah...slow down for second and reread the first c...Woah...slow down for second and reread the first couple of sections of the article. At no point was I blaming developers. What I'm describing is a self reenforcing system. Everyone is doing their job based off the incentives that are present in the system. <BR/><BR/>Publishers are no more evil than developers are evil. They are applying sound business practices to optimize a portfolio of products. Seems pretty reasonable to me. <BR/><BR/>What I'm hearing you say is that "We are doing the best job we could possibly do, given the circumstances" and I'm saying the same thing. Everyone is doing the best job possible within the current system. Frustrating all around, perhaps. But if you take an 'us vs. them' perspective, you can't really solve the systematic issues. <BR/><BR/>Change is occuring. Current developers are certainly targeting targeting different market niches right now. I gave several example in the essay. The casual games market is another great example of people listening to customers and tapping into a new market. <BR/><BR/>The five step process is intended to publicly describe powerful techniques for attacking and winning in new markets. These can be adopted by either developer or publishers, but are most powerful when both are on board. <BR/><BR/>Some smaller folks can do that right out of the gate. Casual games is a good example. Larger companies need to go through a more difficult transformation. <BR/><BR/>take care<BR/>Danc.Daniel Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10437870541630835660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131635760618819302005-11-10T07:16:00.000-08:002005-11-10T07:16:00.000-08:00I don't think that anybody who sat and thought abo...I don't think that anybody who sat and thought about the current game market would suggest that it is representative of the population of the earth, or that developers are even representative of thier local population. Hell, they wouldnt even be representative of games players (most game developers are in fact, pretty hard working which is NOT that common in the normal populace).<BR/><BR/>The fact is, that the one percent of the population capable of actually developing games is doing the best it can to cater for the percieved audience.<BR/><BR/>Now of course the publishers would suggest that they much much prefer a mainstream audience because they make more money. But you simply have to realise that the "mainstream" simply doesnt give a crap about games.<BR/><BR/>The closest a lot of british males get to a game is going to a footie match before going down the pub and getting soused then returning home with a kebab and sitting in front of the telly.<BR/><BR/>These people probably WOULD play games, but in a very conventional fashion, preferring games like burnout of halo to something like the sims.<BR/><BR/>The ethnographic and demographics of the potential games audience on the surface seems to encompass the whole population of the earth. And yet, are we *really* saying that is our potential audience?<BR/><BR/>Thats like saying the whole earth would potentially be interested in playing football.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, as a whole earth population, we LIKE to form niche's. Admittedly some niches are bigger than others, but they are niches never the less. These could be geographically based, socially based, language based or whatever. But we obviously like to identify ourselves as a "type" of person.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that the modern industry is under-serving a whole slice of the potential marketplace, but it is definitely a gross oversimplification to suggest that this is because of some bias within the industry itself.<BR/><BR/>The strange thing is, that from my contact with other developers recently, I've seen almost exactly the opposite. Almost everyone I talk to is unhappy about the current situation because they would prefer to have a different audience and experience.<BR/><BR/>I guess that is partly because I lie at the fringes of "indie" games and "real" games. I have often heard the most hardcore of hardcore developers talking about the requirements of their audience though.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, that the developers produce products based on the needs of thier publishers. The publishers produce products based on their perception of the marketplace.<BR/><BR/>And thats where I get to my point...<BR/><BR/>I think its because the publisher perception of the marketplace has been skewed by the reliance on historical sales data and not on potential market requirements that has driven us to this imbalance.<BR/><BR/>I think you are placing the blame at the feet of developers when in fact the blame should be laid at the feet of the bean-counters at the publishers who are only interested in short term return on investment and not long term market size and share.<BR/><BR/>I have enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that in fact publishers have almost NO grasp of the concepts youre espousing here and actually developers (as you can see in most of the positive reaction to your post) are largely aware and in favour of change in this regard.<BR/><BR/>I hold out hope though, if we see companies like nintendo coming out with what some consider an insane product, just when many of us are waking up to the fact that chasing the historical markets is a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>As Jason so clearly points out, it is far easier for a company like nintendo to champion this kind of mainstream activity than it is an individual developer. As nintendo grow the marketplace for innovative titles, if they succeed in making a healthy profit, I'm sure others will join in.<BR/><BR/>Just as the "casual" marketplace has matured and seen a boom in recent years to the point where companies like microsoft are tracking that "soccer mom" demographic as a growth area for game sales, I can see that other areas will grow.<BR/><BR/>But please, stop blaming us devs for being who we are. We cannot change the fact that we are white, male and develop games to the best of our ability. I'm not unable to empathise with other markets, I certainly dont discount them and I often target niches that arent clearly served by others (ok, dont throw Air Ace back at me :))<BR/><BR/>We make games because if we dont, they will cease to exist.Phil Carlislehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05262518177977960604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131600289779797342005-11-09T21:24:00.000-08:002005-11-09T21:24:00.000-08:00danc; there's a point to be made that the crazy gr...danc; there's a point to be made that the crazy graphics race will soon start paying off for all in one device/game/whatever systems. While these systems are still displaying sub-par graphics/sound today, they won't be for long. It won't be long until we can produce something as poweful as a ps2 for very little money, and for a game like Guitar Hero, ps3 level graphics won't add that much to the experience. <BR/><BR/>Now, you could argue that you could apply that back to ps1 graphics; but I do believe that there is an acceptable bar of quality which needs to be hit for the average consumer. Different experiences require a different bar. Tetris, for instance, doesn't require much of one. Guitar Hero would be somewhere in the lower middle of the scale, while a realistic FPS is at the top of the scale.<BR/><BR/>So in some ways I do see the posibility space for alternate and inclusive systems increasing. We've actually seen quite an explosion in the space recently with all of the dancing/atari 2600/Nintendo/etc all in one devices.Jason Boothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03832373920590563761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131588047289824812005-11-09T18:00:00.000-08:002005-11-09T18:00:00.000-08:00Danc wrote: "The caliber of the folks on this site...Danc wrote: <I>"The caliber of the folks on this site seems to be increasing daily. :-)"</I><BR/><BR/>Hey!!<BR/><BR/>I like the suggestions you're giving. I think in Japan they get this idea a bit more than we do here... we've kind of relegated games to mindless unproductive entertainment. It's probably a work-ethic thing... like work can't be fun, or something. Dunno... anyhow... I would love some device I could attach to my vacuum that would entertain the kids while they pushed it around my living room floor... maybe made sure they did a good job of vacuuming at the same time. ;) A lot of your ideas, Danc, to me, suggest additional hardware as well as software... which is something that petrifies most programmers. :) <BR/><BR/>--RayRaymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035842500415940617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131580791797823762005-11-09T15:59:00.000-08:002005-11-09T15:59:00.000-08:00Hi Jeb,Very happy to see you stop by. The caliber...Hi Jeb,<BR/><BR/>Very happy to see you stop by. The caliber of the folks on this site seems to be increasing daily. :-) <BR/><BR/>I'd agree with the pleasure of designing for the broader audience of board games. I periodically set up little design challenges for myself. Many years ago, my challenge was to make a video game that wasn't violent. I was honestly shocked at how difficult it was. The design building blocks I had available to me in many of the popular games weren't there. The narrow population of both developers and gamers had barely explored that side of video games. <BR/><BR/>With board games, on the other hand, you can't turn around without spotting a non-violent title. That is what you get when you have generations of designers targeting a market that doesn't make violence a primary value. <BR/><BR/>The games that exist reflect the current culture and needs of the market, not what *could* exist.<BR/><BR/>To amathar point about the difficulty of making social games, I'd have to say that it is only hard because we've got a very limited definition of games. <BR/>- If I don't talk to anyone (because I really don't like talking all that much) <BR/>- If I have to making something involving trajectories and shooting<BR/>- If I have have challenges where you die over and over again<BR/>- If I have to keep score<BR/>...then social games are really difficult to design. I'm exaggerating, but these are all remarkably powerful assumptions that most 'gamer' game designers carry around with them. <BR/><BR/>However, if SMS can addict millions of customers, someone can turn that into a social game. Just rethink what a game is and it all becomes rather enjoyable. <BR/><BR/>take care<BR/>Danc.Daniel Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10437870541630835660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131578495369400992005-11-09T15:21:00.000-08:002005-11-09T15:21:00.000-08:00First off, great article, Danc. Long-time reader, ...First off, great article, Danc. Long-time reader, first-time poster.<BR/><BR/>I support your optimism. Games and play behavior have been fundamental to pretty much every human (and animal) culture ever. The introduction of computers into games only represents the most recent 1% or so of the history of games, so making any assumptions about who could potentially enjoy games based on that 1% is missing a lot of the picture. Games are safe microcosms of what our brains do every day in an attempt to understand and navigate the world around us. There is nothing inherently “male” or “L33T” or “Western” about that.<BR/><BR/>That’s one reason why I often enjoy board game design over video game design – I want anyone and everyone to feel welcome to play and enjoy it (parents, kids, college students, gamers, grandmas, etc.). The established markets are much broader, so I’m free to target all those markets (and not get laughed at by a publisher). The video game industry needs to do some serious social branding to get to that point.<BR/><BR/>Also, just to add an example to your post, I got hired as a video game designer after getting my degree in Cognitive Science, and I can attest that I’ve used a surprisingly huge amount of that background so far as a designer.<BR/><BR/>- JebAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131564504242923222005-11-09T11:28:00.000-08:002005-11-09T11:28:00.000-08:00As always, well-thought-out writing, Danc.I admire...As always, well-thought-out writing, Danc.<BR/><BR/>I admire your optimism, but I wonder just how big is this untapped market you speak of? Is it like movies, where anyone with a little disposable income should be able to find <I>something</I> that they like, or is it more like candy, where there are a distinct (and significant) portion of the community that just doesn't go for the sweet stuff?<BR/><BR/>I also think you hit it right on the head when you labeled the current gaming market as being like a fraternity or tribe. The gamers I know, for the most part, <I>like</I> being the only ones who understand the trade. It adds to the "too geek for you" mystique. As you've said, you're suggesting there is potential to make lots of money by ignoring these self-serving independents and tapping the larger market.<BR/><BR/>...which gets back to my first point: how big is that market? Would everyone with a cell phone pay for a game if we could just find the right title? I somehow doubt this available market group is as large as you imply. Disposable income is available to a remarkably small percentage of the world's population.<BR/><BR/>I also wonder if the passtime of gaming is something that appeals to all cultures? For example, it's been determined many times that (massively over-simplified) men desire accomplishment and women desire relationships. Thus it seems men are more like to enjoy games where risk/reward patterns are easy to design. Designing a meaningful relationship simulator -- without involving other actual human beings -- drifts inevitably toward The Uncanny Valley (visually) and The Turing Test (mentally). Tough nut, that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719805.post-1131552952045096312005-11-09T08:15:00.000-08:002005-11-09T08:15:00.000-08:00I'm going to disagree with the comment about price...I'm going to disagree with the comment about prices being too high to make a point. :-) <BR/><BR/>- Is a $150 dress purchased for single evening too expensive?<BR/><BR/>- Is a mountain bike that costs $1000 too expensive?<BR/><BR/>- Is an exercise bike that costs $500 too expensive?<BR/><BR/>- Are new guitar lessons that costs $50 a month for 6 months too expensive?<BR/><BR/>Thinking about games as disposable mass media our problem. We compare our goods to other commodity. We define our product as a commodity that is valued like corn or wheat futures...'entertainment per hour' is always in the back of our head. <BR/><BR/>What if instead, we think of games like products similar to the bike, the dress, or the guitar lessons? At that point we can start assigning value to our products based off benefit, not 'what is expected'<BR/><BR/>Not all software sells as the same price. Photoshop has a different price point than Word. Different audiences value products at different levels. <BR/><BR/>When you sell a game to gamers, they have set pricing expectations. So don't sell to gamers. Instead, build your strategy around putting a box with a console, a game and instructions in home depot. Don't call it a game. Call it a high end gardening simulator. Whatever...offer a product that is priced to reflect the value that the customer gets from it. <BR/><BR/>Use two generation old hardware if you need to. Use portable systems. Focus on the customer value and optimize out everything else. Don't be fixated on what a 'game' should be. <BR/><BR/>At a certain point, being a game developer is not enough. When you build a market, you can't just build a great game and toss it into the existing channel. You need also to be a marketing and sales expert. This is why real cross functional teams are so important...the product and the sales strategy evolve simultaneously. <BR/><BR/>This is crazy talk. It means eradicating or rethinking many of the economies of scale that we gain from our current marketing machine. But the upside is that you get to serve a larger market with less competition. <BR/><BR/>take care<BR/>Danc. :-)Daniel Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10437870541630835660noreply@blogger.com