Jeez, if there was one thing that could make up for missing Will Wright's talk earlier, it's sitting at his feet while this session was delivered! So my mood is slightly improved, although we have to wait between 2-6 weeks before GDC posts the recording (if they do so at all). Anyone find a transcript or a recording out there yet?
So, my notes on the last session of the day. Hosted by Eric "Stage Presence" Zimmerman, the panel was feisty, passionate and speed-talking. I got most of it, bar the detail (who needs it?).
IGDA Session: Burning Down The House - Game Developers Rant
Warren Spector, Brenda Laurel, Jason Della Rocca, Chris Hecker.
Eric: We do not live in a perfect world and this is not a perfect industry. I’m moderating this panel of illustrious curmudgeons who have a lot to say about what’s right and what’s wrong with this industry today. Every GDC and in the corridors of the companies where we work, there are complaints. Grumblings. This year it’s quality of life and working conditions in the industry. The idea of this panel is to bring out those rumblings, bring them to light. So without further ado:
Warren Spector:
First of all I don’t hate you, Will Wright. I just had one of those "I’m not worthy" moments in the elevator. YOU ARE the 800lb gorilla.
OK. I don’t feel very ranty actually. I tried to bail on this panel. But I have to say something so I want to say how this business is hopelessly broken. Haha. We’re doing pretty much everything wrong. This is at the root of much of what you’re gonna hear today. Games cost too much. They take too long to make. The whole concept of word of mouth, remember that? Holy cow it was nice.
Wal-Mart drives development decisions now. When publishers minimise risk by kow-towing to the retailers, you have a serious problem. When every game has to either be a blockbuster or a student film, we got a real problem. For my end of the game business all of our efforts are going into reaching a mainstream audience who may well even not be interested in what we do! My first game cost me 273,000 dollars. My next one is BLAH millions. How many of you work on games that make money? 4 out of 5 games lose money, according to one pundit who may be lying, admittedly. Can we do any worse if we just trusted the creative folks entirely instead of the publishers?
My point is coming. We’re the only medium that lacks an alternate distribution system. All we have is boxed games sold at retail. This is changing a little. But think about our competition for your entertainment dollar. First run, broadcast, reruns, DVDs.. you name it. hardback, paperback, e-book. Theatre release, pay-per-view, video, DVD. We put our thing on the shelf at Wal-Mart, it sells or it doesn’t, and OMG you just blew 10m dollars. The publishers not respecting developers, this is not the problem. We have a flawed distribution model. There are very few ways of getting a game done these days. Developers.. why should we get a huge return? We’re taking some of the risk, but the $10m, the marketing space, the retail space all belong to someone else. We have winner-take-all business that carries a lot of risk. So .. we have to find alternative sources of funding. Chris Crawford used to rant about how we need patrons.. I don’t care if it’s wealthy patrons, I don’t care what it IS, but it’s critical that we divorce funding from distribution.
We need alternative forms of distribution too. I’m not saying publishers suck, although I do believe that in many cases. [laughter] If the plane went down who would care about the marketing guys? We need another way of getting games out there and in players' hands. If any of you bought Half Life 2 at Wal-Mart, please just leave the room. Has everyone bought Bioware’s online modules? JUST BUY THEM, OK, even if you don’t have the original games! We HAVE to get games into gamers’ hands. So I’m not saying publishers are evil.. if we do all this and go direct to our consumers with games funded some OTHER way than EA or whoever.. we’ll keep more of the money.. we have to find someone to pay for it and find a buyer after. We need Sundances. Independent Film Channel. Equivalents of those. Just try to find some way of funding your stuff that doesn’t come from a publisher.
The movies have this now: the studios don’t fund everything that happens out there. I’m not holding the movie business up as a model of great business practice, but you can get $ from a wide variety of sources. You know what, when the studio system was in place, that didn’t exist. Every creative person was owned by a studio. Cinemas were owned by studios. Content was limited. As soon as the supreme court stepped in and said no you can’t have development, distribution and retailing, everything changed. Now we have Bruckheimer, and Sideways. Sundance. Indies. At the very worst we need publishers to ask more than that one question: is this going to generate max profit. For most games this is NOT THE RIGHT QUESTION. Volkswagen owns rolls Royce, they understand the need for – oh the music’s running, I’m outta here. Thank you.
Jason Della Rocca:
My first rant is related to my work with the IGDA. Meta-level issues. When we’re talking diversity, quality of life, censorship. This are big infinite problems that will never really be solved . These big pictures issues affect developers daily lives. One day your publisher will walk in and cut a game because the government says you can’t make X types of games. That could happen, it's unlikely but possible. But developers are apathetic, head in the sand. But I’m going to cross that off the list cos the room is full here. We need bigger rooms! I don’t want to be negative about GDC, but .. the sessions that have been most packed .. the game design challenge or Will Wright’s talk, seem to be the thing we’re most interested in, and it’s really important that we’re here and talking and I don’t know why they don’t allocate larger rooms to this issue. (Hallelujah -Alice). So apathy is a serious issue. For every one of you in this room there are a thousand out there who don’t care.
Xenophobia. We don’t’ care about anything outside of the game industry. There is so much knowledge, research, business models, management practices out there. We don’t pay attention to anything else outside, and that hurts us in many ways! Software development pros tells us we’re fools – there are tons of systems, processes and tools out there that you could use. This pro, he doesn’t make games.. and you all shake your head and say he doesn’t make games, what does he know, but you know – medical applications are pretty unique! If your machine crashes, someone might die. So yeah, we’re unique, but so are they – and there is decades of research and knowledge that proves that these processes have return, this management stuff is in my brain right now, it’s one of millions of examples of how we as an industry don’t pay attention to other stuff just because it’s not called games. This fear of formal processes. We’re creative cowboys - well it holds back the industry. We had several panels throughout the weeks, the academics, the brainiacs are willing to do this stuff for free. Give them a challenge! Give them a problem – some PhD students could research shipping practices or something.
Journalists and the media side is also broken. I don’t want to point a finger, but they perpetuate a lot of myths about what gamers want, and want counts in the industry. So to sum – open up. Don’t be closed minded to all this stuff out there. Maybe we’re all working too hard to take notice, but I guess that’s an issue we’re working on too.
Greg Costikyan:
I don't know about you but I could have been a lawyer, or a carpenter. or a sous-chef. How many of you are here because you’re after a paycheck? [One bloke raises his hand, audience laughs and crows]. Ahuh. And how many of you are here because you love games? [all hands go up]. Right. So we’re being told that everything’s going to get bigger. Paychecks. Budgets. Consoles. But is it going to get better? I’ve been researching old board games and I’ve spotted a pattern. A new genre: it’s called One Hit Game And Its Imitators. One fishing game appears in mid-19C and dozens follow. Games grow through innovations. Creations of new game styles that spawn imitators and whole new markets. The story of the past few decades is not about graphics and processing power, but startling innovation and industry. That’s why we love games. BUT IT’S OVER NOW!
As recently as 1992: games cost 200K. Next generation games will cost 20m. Publishers are becoming increasingly risk averse. Today you cannot get an innovative title published unless your last name is Wright or Miyamoto. Who was at the Microsoft keynote? I don’t know about you but it made my flesh crawl. [laughter] The HD era? Bigger, louder? Big bucks to be made! Well not by you and me of course. Those budgets and teams ensure the death of innovation. Was your allegiance bought at the price of a television? Then there was the Nintendo keynote. This was the company who established the business model that has crucified the industry today.. Iwata-san has the heart of a gamer, and my question is what poor bastard’s chest did he carve it from? [audience falls about]
How often DO they perform human sacrifices at Nintendo?? My friends, we are FUCKED [laughter]. We are well and truly fucked. The bar in terms of graphics and glitz has been raised and raised until we can’t afford to do anything at all. 80 hour weeks until our jobs are all outsourced to Asia. but it’s ok because the HD era is here right? I say, enough. The time has come for revolution! It may seem to you that what I describe is inevitable forces of history, but no, we have free will! EA could have chosen to focus on innovation, but they did not. Nintendo could make development kits cheaply available to small firms, but they prefer to rely on the creativity on one aging designer. You have choices too: work in a massive sweatshop publisher-run studio with thousands of others making the next racing game with the same gameplay as Pole Position. Or you can riot in the streets of Redwood City! Choose another business model, development path, and you can choose to remember why you love games and make sure in a generation’s time there are still games to love. You can start today.
[standing ovation]
Brenda Laurel:
I want to talk about the spectacle. The meanings created by images that hold us in webs. My thesis is that we are contributing to the damage that the spectacle does to human beings by suggesting the interactivity of a joystick is real agency. We entrain people to understand that imitation has personal power. The spectacle trains us to be consumers. We are urged to keep the economy healthy, pay our bills. Did you ever notice there’s not place for the earth on the bottom line? We cancelled the Voyager mission for less than the cost of a video game! The dream of space appropriated by George W Bush? How can we stand for this?
Games keep essential social myths in place. So we have tropes in our business. Criminals are cool. The commercial game business is a non-consensual relationship between middle aged men and young boys. It’s worse than the catholic church. These are guys who have really big tyres on their trucks … and we all know why! [laughter] So the fantasies of these guys position these boys as tiny little clones: so they force you to take your genius to create this .. this .. we can’t have that fellas. Oh by the way there was a crowd in the ladies bathroom today. w00t!
GTA. I talked to 22 little boys in LA, all of them wanted to see that game. With only one exception, the thing that they wanted to see was to be able to drive by their house. They weren’t interested in stealing cars. Or the criminals. Or the back-story. They weren’t interested in that, they wanted the simulation of driving by the house.
We model male ethos in the games we design: soldier, super athlete, criminal. Anyone who was born with internet and computers are prosocial. Skaters are mainstream. We have two models of alpha maleness: skaters and ballers [I have no idea what this is referring to - A]. … we need heroes, but what kind of heroes are we making? Where’s Malcolm X, or Chavez? There hasn’t been a game about geopolitics that was worth a shit since Hidden Agenda! We should be giving people rehearsals for citizenship and change. I have to tell you, Microsoft is the walking dead. DRM is a wet dream. It’s not gonna work! Cat’s out the bag! When this happens, you have to let the cards fly in the air and fall where they may. GIVE IT UP ABOUT DRM. GIVE IT UP ABOUT OWNERSHIP. Cleave to open source! A NEW ECONOMY IS COMING. As we become further connected we will find new economies emerging. We are the wellspring of popular culture. We have a responsibility.
Chris Hecker:
It pains me to say this but I recently just took a job at EA. However, I worked for Will on the game you just saw, so.. [laughter] I’m going to rant about How Sony And Microsoft Are About To Screw Your Game Design. Look, how are we going to get where gameplay, graphics and physics are all evenly well balanced? At the moment we’re the 120lb weakling, except nowadays his right arm here, graphics, is enormous.
So, as you know, graphics and physics grind on large homogenous floating point data structures in a very straight-line structured way. Then we have AI and gameplay code. Lots of exceptions, tunable parameters, indirections and often messy. We hate this code, it’s a mess, but this is the code that makes the game DIFFERENT. Here is the terrifying realization about the next generation consoles: I’m about to break a ton of NDAs here, oh well, haha, I never signed them anyway.
Gameplay code will get slower and harder to write on the next generation of consoles. Modern CPUs use out-of-order execution, which is there to make crappy code run fast. This was really good for the industry when it happened, although it annoyed many assembly language wizards in Sweden. Xenon and Cell are both in-order chips. What does this mean? It’s cheaper for them to do this. They can drop a lot of cores. One out-of-order core is about four times [did I catch that right? Alice] the size of an in-order core. What does this do to our code? It’s great for grinding on floating point, but for anything else it totally sucks. Rumours from people actually working on these chips – straight-line runs 1/3 to 1/10th the performance at the same clock speed. This sucks.
We hope Nintendo doesn’t follow Sony and Microsoft on this, although they totally flailed this generation so anything could happen. Think about batchable designs and simulationy systems. You wanna just write the gameplay. You could just do PC games. Luckily due to the power of Will Wright, our game is a PC game! [laughter]
...
Eric: I had no idea what I was going to get when I put this panel. What an incredible panel I got. Questions?
Q: Retail developers, get out of your death march! Do you guys think it’s possible for a young student who wants to get in to be an independent developer? Is this possible? Artists these days are getting a 30K dollar degree to work in a 40K job for 80 hours a week. It’s disgusting.
Jason: not an easy path. IGDA are trying to help. All the time when .. we see a lot of students and schools, and when they work on game projects in schools, every one of those projects is a clone of an existing game. NOW is your time to make something innovative or wacky. When you’re working on a student project, use your opportunity to do some crazy stuff!www.experimentalgameplay.com
Brenda: we work with our students so that they have a chance to do interactive media that isn’t just game design.
Q: (Justin) I have a friend called Ben who has this idea for zines that can be passed around.. you think the consoles will ever be platforms for this sort of stuff?
Brenda: I think mobile’s the platform for that.
Warren: we’re developing for multiple platforms. Hah. We still have to figure out what our final deal is. I dunno if I expressed it very well, but all of the problems come back to the fact that you are under the control of the one person who gives you money.Brenda: why don’t you say fuck?
Warren: my mother doesn’t approve.
Jason: Warren wears cardigan sweaters.
Eric: You are a very good Jewish son.
Warren: thank you
Q: I am one of the bad guys: I’m working on a big budget next generation console game. I want to ask about totally legalised piracy? Not Russia and grey market – I’m talking Blockbuster. 20 dollars a year you can borrow whatever you like then give it back. People are going to rent my game for 4 dollars. I won’t see any of that. They’re robbing me!
Chris: I’m pro-piracy. I want people to play the games I make. I do it because it’s art. I think DRM is a total fucking stupid mess. If the game industry collapses and can be reborn, I’m all for it. Pirate on!Greg: they’re not pirating the game! Someone bought a legal copy! The world is not designed in such a way that money inherently funnels its way into your wallet!?
Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!
[the session was brought to an end by the GDC organisers who were timekeeping, to huge booing and catcalling.]
So that's that. Fucking fantastic. Nothing could top that, so I'm off to the pub.
I really am going to have to make a GDC one year, I love just soaking up and thinking over the ideas and opinions of designers, even though I'm not one myself. Thanks for the frequent lengthy updates Alice, it's been great following the GDC from across the pond. Hope you can still hold a pint glass down the pub after all that typing! ;)
Posted by: Pete C | March 12, 2005 at 01:33
That last questioner was so lame. I wonder if he's ever been to a library?
Hey, that would mean that librarians are pirates! "Quiet, or you'll feel the point o' me cutlass, ye scurvy dog!"
Hmm, time for bed....
Posted by: NelC | March 12, 2005 at 03:18
That panel ROCKED! Wish I coulda been there, but being 9000 miles from San Francisco is a bit of a problem. So here it is: DIY, give it away, do it for art's sake, and fuck big media. Perfect, perfect, perfect. THANK YOU ALICE!
Posted by: mpesce | March 12, 2005 at 05:54
Hehe my pleasure, glad you got to get a bit of it :)
And as for that last bloke and his terrible question, he left the room with his tail between his legs...
x
Posted by: Alice | March 12, 2005 at 08:14
Some links for hints of what new business models will look like for the games industry:
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html
http://www.digitalartauction.com/history/bcbm.htm
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | March 12, 2005 at 13:18
Interesting stuff.... I'm not a game designer, but the comments here give me hope that maybe I could do something interesting and make an impact.
BTW, just for future reference, a baller is someone who plays basketball, probably in the same way that a hacker is someone who uses a computer.
Posted by: JW | March 12, 2005 at 13:32
Great session. Thanks for transcribing it.
I think baller in this context is referring to a gang member.
http://www.gang-busters.com/terms/html/..%5Chtml%5Cletter_b.aspx
Posted by: Joe | March 12, 2005 at 15:26
thank you very much for this coverage. elightening and educating for those of us too poor to attend. again, thank you.
Posted by: art after next | March 12, 2005 at 16:28
Hi. Thanks for the article. But let me ask you something: ARE YOU BLIND? Your line spacing makes your articles almost impossible to read. I think you have interesting things to say, it's just too painful to read them.
Posted by: zeke | March 12, 2005 at 20:13
I can't wait for all these idoits to go their own way and bankrupt themselves. Then when development does get outsourced to the Guptas in India we might actually get some real innovation, rather than the fifth rehash of some urban myths.
Of all these whiners, only Brenda had anything remotely resembling a cogent thought, but her rant ends as foolishly as any of the others.
Sorry, guys, but Saddam is gone, and unless you can get Kim Il Jong to be your patron, you are out of luck.
Posted by: anonymous | March 12, 2005 at 21:49
For another model of how to make money making games without selling one's soul, check out our site
http://www.piecorp.org/
In addition to learing about our particular efforts, the MMOG called "Mars First!", you can read the (Creative Commons licensed) article "A Lever Long Enough: Value driven enterprise in the networked information economy", posted on our site at
http://piecorp.org/aleverlongenough.html
about the emergence of a new alternative to the traditional capitalist model of corporations and markets (which Yochai Benkler calls "commons-based peer-production", of which open source is but one example), and how to leverage that production model for socially-constructive ends.
We have developed a business plan (for massively multiplayer gaming development, distribution and support, in this case) that doesn't rely on proprietary tech, content or distribution.
Besides being self-supporting (after an initial development phase that would be funded by donations), the model actually generates significant net revenue that is then rolled over into the creation of other, similar, public interest projects in a "virtuous circle".
As an offshoot of the development process, open-source tools for design, development, support and content-creation are publicly released.
P.S.: PIECORP, Public Interest Entertainment Corporation, is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, dedicated to using the technology of games to make a difference, and to developing open source/open development/open publishing/open distribution tools for others to do the same. Everything we create is available for the common good.
(Disclaimer: Brenda Laurel is on our board, but doesn't know I'm posting this and she did not speak on our behalf at the GDC, which I did not attend this year. Nothing I post here should be construed as representing her POV or opinion, nor anyone else's but my own as founder and executive director of the organization.)
Anyone interested in talking about this model or our project (or interested in funding some of it) is welcome to contact me through the website.
Posted by: galiel | March 12, 2005 at 22:46
"Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!"
Heh.
Posted by: Ben | March 12, 2005 at 23:03
>(Disclaimer: Brenda Laurel is on our board, but
>doesn't know I'm posting this and she did not speak on
>our behalf at the GDC, which I did not attend this
>year. Nothing I post here should be construed as
>representing her POV or opinion, nor anyone else's but
>my own as founder and executive director of the
>organization.)
Nevertheless, Brenda's comments turned my stomach. She not only bashed Bush, she called all public corporations inherently evil. She was so far left in her views that if she isn't at least a Green, she's a freakin' Communist. I won't be supporting your organization in any way, shape, or form so long as she is on your board.
Bruce
Posted by: SirBruce | March 13, 2005 at 04:15
It's sad to see smart people say things like this. If they hate the non-indie game market so much, why don't they leave it? And in some cases, how can they hate the non-indie game market when they're not even a part of it?
If all you want is to innovate, and everything in your current job makes it hard for you to innovate, then why don't you move to the section of the game industry that doesn't have any of these problems? I'm not sure if it's a mental disconnect or if they're just being disingenuous. Either way I respect these people a little less.
If Warren Spector actually thinks that people who pirate your game weren't going to buy it anyway, then I *know* there's a mental disconnect in there somewhere.
Posted by: bobstevens | March 13, 2005 at 04:21
I'd like for you to explain how someone living in Russia who makes a few dollars a day is going to buy your game legally for what is the equivilent of 200 dollars in Russia when he can easily get the same game pirated for a few dollars.
The people who commit piracy the most are often those who can't afford to buy the legal copies anyhow. Piracy in America is rather pointless considering that you can get the games for the same cost as a pirated copy by borrowing it from Blockbuster anyhow.
Posted by: Exitium | March 13, 2005 at 10:26
Sir Bruce -
It is useful to know that you evaluate the merits of a thing based exclusively on the personal ideology of all associated with it. It is unfortunate that you rush to throw out all babies with every drop of bathwater.
At the very least, now we know not to take your mmog stats at face value, but to wonder instead how your ideology has led you to skew the results to favor those games whose creators and distributors meet your ideological litmus test. Silly me, I assumed you were a reputable source, and referred many to your stats.
Or do you feel it is unfair, and even silly for people to discount your stats based on your ideology?
Personally, I have found it useful to evaluate the merits of a thing based on its actual merits. To reject things a priori on the basis of your superficial perception of the ideology of all associated with a project, is an act of precisely the kind of dogmatic, unthinking ideology to which you seem to object.
Incidentally, it is rather ignorant to dismiss a person with a body of work and a record of contribution to the industry such as Brenda's, based on a hasty and superficial interpretation of a transcript of a single comment of hers at a rant session. Brenda is not only a game entrepreneur herself (founder and CEO of Purple Moon), but has and does consulting for many of the leading corporations in America.
If you intend to oppose all worthwhile activity, capitalist or philanthropic, that happens to have opponents to George W. Bush associated with it in any way, then you are clearly not a fan of American democracy nor of capitalism. More like one who yearns for the clarity and simplicity of the McCarthy era.
I assume you have an enemies list now. If Brenda ends up associated with an mmog that merits inclusion in your stats, will you exclude it based on your Unamerican Activities list? How do we know you haven't already skewed the results to fit your ideology? See how ridiculous this can get?
In which case, I am happy not to have your support - even for a 501(c)3 organization, which, by law, does not involve itself in political activity of any kind, and even though I have been an entrepreneur myself for twenty years. Apparently, my choice to make my creations freely available makes me a Communist, too - as Bill Gates called anyone associated with the open source movement. How amusing.
Posted by: galiel | March 13, 2005 at 17:30
Post deleted for violations of Godwin's Law -- keep it civil or take it somewhere else! -- Alice
Posted by: SirBruce | March 13, 2005 at 19:14
Back to the actual point of the post, someone has to get the ball rolling. Someone has to be the catalyst, and help evolve a self-sustaining alternative system for development and distribution and revenue-collection.
The system will not cure itself, nor will alternatives spontaneously appear. Mere faith in the magic of the "market" will not suffice, any more than the truly insightful rants referenced above will cure the ills.
What is needed is the willingness to devote resources, energy and time to step outside the system and build alternatives that are not only financial sustaining, but professionally and personally satisfying as well. It is not an overnight project, either; Rome was not built in a day (outside the gamer world, that is).
But, there are solutions. There are ideas and plans out there, have been for a long time, that require only the application of a critical mass of money, time, and energy, to make it happen, from funding new creations, to distributing them, to collecting revenue, and perpetuating the cycle entirely outside the current system.
And, the resources exist, too. The money is out there, the manpower is available, the desire is clearly abundant.
All that stands in the way is a set of fictions about the way things "must" be done, chief among them the idea that nothing worthwhile can be ventured unless it happens within the confines of our proprietary, antagonistic, hyper-corporate culture, where not only the product of our labors but even the product of our minds is converted to "intellectual property", something to be hoarded and secreted and rationed and owned by others, where "war" is waged to "beat" the competition, where workers are exploited, customers (barely) tolerated and only money talks. We have been hypnotized to believe that we are enemies of one another. It is a divide and conquer strategy that has deprived the world of much creativity and art and benefit, and, like all dogmas, it can and should be questioned, and alternatives sought. Commons-based peer production, aka open source/open development/open publishing, is one part of the answer.
There are, by the nature of our profession, a lot of big egos around, and a lot of self-interest behind many of the complaints. That won't be enough to make the difference. It takes generosity of spirit and a willingness to get down in the trenches rather than be up on the podium. I, for one, am delighted to hear folks finally speaking out. There can be no change until there is acknowledgement of the problem.
However, I have heard these grumbles for years, behind the scenes, and often the loudest grumblers, the most rabble-rousing ranters, end up being the ones who, at the end of the day, go back and make yet another empty special-effects spectacular for The Man.
Nothing will change until we change it.
Together.
Posted by: galiel | March 14, 2005 at 01:57
Post re-made to avoid "Godwin's Law" -- don't allow others to attack me without allowing me to defend myself.
>It is useful to know that you evaluate the merits of a
>thing based exclusively on the personal ideology of
>all associated with it. It is unfortunate that you
>rush to throw out all babies with every drop of
>bathwater.
Wow, nice to see you're mastered hyperbole and demagoguery; now lets see if you can handle logic.
>At the very least, now we know not to take your mmog
>stats at face value, but to wonder instead how your
>ideology has led you to skew the results to favor
>those games whose creators and distributors meet your
>ideological litmus test. Silly me, I assumed you were
>a reputable source, and referred many to your stats.
I've always told people not to take my stats at face value. You're not going to wound me by accusing me of bias; I've heard that many times before.
>Or do you feel it is unfair, and even silly for people
>to discount your stats based on your ideology?
It's simply a matter of judgement, and you're also conflating factual reporting with organization. If Stalin was a reporter, I would not discount his articles simply because he was Stalin; I would evaluate them on their own, self-contained content and merit. I would keep in mind his potential for bias, of course.
Now instead, if Stalin was on the board of an organization, then I would certainly be inherently suspicious of the goals of that organization. Even if his influence from his position is limited, I worry about the judgement of the organization wanting to associate with such a person.
Now of course I'm not saying Brenda is Stalin. But Brenda strikes me as the person who is not simply expressing her opinions, but is advocating them, and would be an advocate of those political opinions even on the board of your organization. Now perhaps her voice doesn't hold much sway over the board, but I still have to question the judgement of the organization to have her on the board in the first place.
>Incidentally, it is rather ignorant to dismiss a
>person with a body of work and a record of
>contribution to the industry such as Brenda's, based
>on a hasty and superficial interpretation of a
>transcript of a single comment of hers at a rant
>session. Brenda is not only a game entrepreneur
>herself (founder and CEO of Purple Moon), but has and
>does consulting for many of the leading corporations
>in America.
Ummm, I was THERE, okay? I'm not interpreting the transcript. It goes way beyond the swipe at Bush. She accused the majority of corporate CEOs as being corrupt middle-aged men indulging in power-trip fantasies trying to turn little boys into either corporate cogs or trained killers -- you know, Republicans and the evil soldiers/police they use to oppress the hippies. She said all public corporations were evil.
I make no judgement about her past work, especially that which I don't know about. I'm sure some of it was good and some of it was bad. But your organization is supposed to promote not only a "civil society", but a set of values that go along with teaching people to get along in virtual worlds. If that philosophy has no room for Capitalism, I want no part of it.
>If you intend to oppose all worthwhile activity,
>capitalist or philanthropic, that happens to have
>opponents to George W. Bush associated with it in any
>way, then you are clearly not a fan of American
>democracy nor of capitalism. More like one who yearns
>for the clarity and simplicity of the McCarthy era.
This coming from someone who, if they think like Brenda, opposes all worthwhile activity, capitalist or philanthropic, because it happens to be associated with George W. Bush in any way. Oh, who am I kidding? If it's capitalist or associated with Bush, it can't be worthwhile, right?
Let's be clear -- the reactionary and polar nature of our dispute here originated with Brenda, not me. Clearly you think this is not proper and I agree, but if you want to move to a constructive dialog, you need to do something about her, not me.
>I assume you have an enemies list now. If Brenda ends
>up associated with an mmog that merits inclusion in
>your stats, will you exclude it based on your
>Unamerican Activities list? How do we know you haven't
>already skewed the results to fit your ideology? See
>how ridiculous this can get?
The key thing is I *know* I'm not going to do that, because I hold myself to a higher standard as a journalist. Naturally, I have to convince my readers that I'm not going to be biased, and that can only come by building up trust over time.
But I have no reason to believe Brenda isn't applying her bias inside your organization, nor do I have any reason to believe, despite your disclaimer, that you actually think differently, because frankly you haven't expressed your opinions beyond what you've posted above, which could very well include a lot of Devil's Advocacy. But if Brenda's opinions are so rabidly anti-capitalism, anti-Republican, anti-white male as they appear, then why should I believe that her games, which will focus on "the rules, regulations, laws, political and economic systems and social conventions and principles" will not reflect those biases? Why should I doubt her rules systems will reward behave that is closer to Karl Marx than Milton Friedman?
>In which case, I am happy not to have your support -
>even for a 501(c)3 organization, which, by law, does
>not involve itself in political activity of any kind,
>and even though I have been an entrepreneur myself for
>twenty years. Apparently, my choice to make my
>creations freely available makes me a Communist, too -
>as Bill Gates called anyone associated with the open
>source movement. How amusing.
I have nothing against open source or someone choosing to make open source software. I do have a problem with someone claiming anything made via the profit motive is inherently evil and exploitative.
Bruce
Posted by: SirBruce | March 14, 2005 at 02:53
It is always distressing when people are irrationally determined to cause damage, because of some wild ideological hair up their ass, to people they don't even know, working on projects they haven't bothered to learn about, attempting to do worthwhile work in the world.
It is so easy to carelessly and thoughtlessly destroy the efforts of others, even their life's work, from the comfort of an armchair, and so difficult to actually do something constructive. Hate is a lazy emotion, and this medium is easy prey for the lazy.
I have plenty of life experience with people more committed to argumentation than action. I used to be like that myself. Then I grew up. Life is simply too short, and too precious, to bother with such self-indulgent nonsense when there is important work to be done.
So, I treat Sir Bruce as damage and route around him. Life, and work, will go on, with or without his sanction, approval or acclaim. Clearly, he has nothing constructive to offer in this discussion.
One final note, just to be clear and unapologetic: Brenda Laurel isn't just "on our board," she chairs it, at my invitation. She also happens to be a dear personal friend of mine, which is why I take great acception to Sir Bruce's ignorant, McCarthyesque smear of a wonderful, individual with a generous and genuine heart---who, incidentally, has contributed far more to this industry than he probably ever will. Among other things, she co-founded the GDC.
The demons you fight are clearly your own, Sir Bruce, and you are projecting bizarre caricatures on real people with real lives that bear no relationship to your simplistic black-or-white fantasy-world. You should think twice about the real consequences of your thoughtless words. It is far easier to tear down that to build, but just because it is easy, doesn't make it right. Life isn't a video game, and it's not all about beating the "enemy".
Posted by: galiel | March 14, 2005 at 04:16
"That panel ROCKED! Wish I coulda been there, but being 9000 miles from San Francisco is a bit of a problem. So here it is: DIY, give it away, do it for art's sake, and fuck big media. Perfect, perfect, perfect. THANK YOU ALICE!"
Quoted for emphasis.
Posted by: Ross Mansfield | March 14, 2005 at 14:01
Maybe we should all get back into side-scrollers big time...
Posted by: bottleHeD | March 14, 2005 at 14:57
If SirBruce's original post mentioned Nazis, then it was a proof of Godwin's Law, not a violation of it. (It's a law as in 'Natural Laws of Physics,' not as in 'speed limit.')
Posted by: fluffy | March 14, 2005 at 16:02
What are they ranting about really? The things they complain about have existed since the dawn of video gaming!
Pong appeared - Dozens of Pong clones followed suit
Space Invaders - Dozens of clones followed
PacMan - dozens of clones and maze games
>>Fast Forward to the days of Consoles... Same deal. Mario Bros 3 was a mega hit - EVERY company had to follow suit with a side-scroller.
It never ends folks. And it's not just in the video game industry. So stop complaining and just make fun games.
Posted by: RayB | March 14, 2005 at 20:27
Just a note, I couldn't read your page without having Firefox change the page style to "no style". Otherwise it was rendered with each line overlapping the ones before it. Dunno if it's a firefox problem or a stylesheet issue. Anyhow, thought you should know.
Posted by: Merc | March 14, 2005 at 20:37
Well you learn something new every day. I'd never heard of Godwin's law 'till now. Wikipedia says that it's bad form to mention it explictly, probably like the rules of "Mornington Crescent" or something :) Nice work Alice, many thanks for your exertions on our behalf.
Posted by: praxis22 | March 14, 2005 at 21:04
"Maybe we should all get back into side-scrollers big time..."
Yeah. Let's go back to one of the most tired and exhausted genres around. You DO know that by the mid-90's the industry at large was suffering due to the poor sales of games. The typical side-scroller sold 10,000 copies, if that.
Posted by: RayB | March 14, 2005 at 22:53
Notes? Seriously? Or an audio recording to portable HDD?
Posted by: notes | March 15, 2005 at 20:06
Naw. Fast typer. Like I said, it's not a transcript, just long notes...
Too much time on IRC, see.
Posted by: Alice | March 15, 2005 at 20:28
Same thing in Safari -- line spacing way too narrow. Otherwise, great stuff.
Posted by: Kathy | March 16, 2005 at 14:21
You'll have to forgive me if I don't quite understand why people are getting so excited about this. Did anyone pay attention to what these people are saying?
First they attack the business model, which is by no means perfect, but which got them all where they are today. Then they have the temerity to insist that games piracy is okay and should be accepted.
Of course it's okay for them. They're rich. They have no worries. If they want to spend a few years roughing out a concept and don't are whether it sells, they have that right. Most people don't. And it's pretty rude and presumptive of them to claim that if you're working on games and earning a living that you're helping to destroy the system which made them rich.
I also don't understand how these people are qualified to talk about innovation. Will Wright has made the same game for 20 years. Spore is just the same game all over again. Sure lots of people find his games fun - but lots of people found GTA fun, or Halo, or Half-Life. Warren Spector has pretty much just done Deus Ex. Cool game, but not exactly original (think Japanese RPG meets Western shooter, with lots of stuff 'borrowed' from Gibson).
Again, they've made some good games. But they hardly seem qualified to deliver some holier-than-thou rant about innovative gameplay. And any rich person telling the rest of us that how we earn a living is wrong just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Posted by: Rob | March 16, 2005 at 17:07
> We have two models of alpha maleness: skaters and ballers [I have no idea what this is referring to - A]
I would assume that "skaters" means skateboarders/X games-type athletes.
"Ballers" means basketball players, such paragons of male-ness like Kobe, Steve Christie, and the Portland Trail Blazers.
Posted by: anonymous | March 16, 2005 at 20:52
Yay for indie developers! Costikyan is a bit OTT when he carries on about HD though. PC developers have been working in HD resolutions for years now without exploding or otherwise coming to a tragic end. There are lots of successful indie game devs and pubs out there now, look at Live For Speed, Matrix Games to name a few... Just blow off the big biz and focus on what you want to do. All the bleating about M$ and Nintendong is pointless.
Posted by: george 'the animal' copperart | March 16, 2005 at 21:31
Blah blah more Microsoft and Sony are the devil bullshit.
Some of the folks think they are so creative and love to criticize the current releases, yet where is their stuff that's so much better?
Who cares how creative your ideas are when they never see the light of day? Enter Microsoft and Sony who are product release powerhouses. They get the job done. Expect that some creatively is going to be lost.
Besides, many ideas look so innovative, original, and great until you try to put that stuff down in specs and build demos and then you find out it sucks. Additionally, some ideas just don't translate into a workable release schedule. But no matter what, somewhere along the line you have to transition the great ideas out of your head and into the code in some sustainable way. In that case, you're dealing with the same problems that Microsoft and Sony solve all day long.
Damn, everybody's a fucking critic. Try to do better and then teach us all how we were all wrong. I'd love to see it happen.
Posted by: Adam | March 17, 2005 at 03:33
What a load of pathetic drivel, I had no idea the game industry was full of such idiocy. It saddens me greatly to know that I've put money in some of these people's pockets by buying their products.
In all honesty, if these are the kinds of people the gaming industry considers leaders, it's seriously time I reconsider my hobbies. Very sad.
Posted by: Myria | March 17, 2005 at 16:07
<>
<>
<>
While it's true to say that these were not the most eloquent of speakers, it's unfair to dismiss their points outright. While the details are lacking, what they say is true; the cost of games, combined with the usual distribution model, can easily stifle innovation, a quality that is essential in any artform. You simply have to look at the games released today to notice how depressingly repetitive and uninspired the industry has become.
However, my main issue with the critical posts quoted above is that they miss the point of the talk entirely. The developers never claimed to be creating wonderfully innovative games, and never claimed that they were going to reinvent the industry overnight. Their point is that there are serious problems which should not be ignored. This is not hippocracy, it is common sense.
Posted by: MumbleFuzz | March 17, 2005 at 19:56
Quotes above didn't come out. Here they are:
"Again, they've made some good games. But they hardly seem qualified to deliver some holier-than-thou rant about innovative gameplay."
"Damn, everybody's a fucking critic. Try to do better and then teach us all how we were all wrong. I'd love to see it happen."
"What a load of pathetic drivel, I had no idea the game industry was full of such idiocy."
Posted by: MumbleFuzz | March 17, 2005 at 19:58
That may be the case. But the problem is that this type of discussion never leads to any form of change. Actually doing something leads to change.
I liken this to a bunch of people meeting in a room, and somebody saying "2+2 is 4". Everybody nods in agreement because, damn it, 2+2 IS 4. And everyone feels good about themselves.
But what is the end result? Anyone can say that they wish things were different. That doesn't bring about any different approach, or even mean that a different approach is necessarily any better. The bottom line is that innovative games do get made in the current environment, and there isn't much reason to believe any other approach would offer more chance for innovation - particularly when one always has to consider how the people making the games are going to put food on the table.
Analogizing to the film industry: people complain about the emptiness of the studio model, but at the end of the day there just aren't a million innovative screenplays lying around waiting for someone to make them.
Anyone who is truly driven to get their idea out there will find a way to do so. Gettng a bunch of fanboys to give you a standing ovation because you say "I wish everyone was more creative" doesn't change anything. Praising rampant piracy because you don't need any more money doesn't change anything.
There are real issues to be addressed and this type of event doesn't even begin to address them. It's just good for emotional catharsis - for making the speakers feel important and the listeners feel privileged. It's a stroke session.
Posted by: Rob | March 17, 2005 at 20:19
Thanks for transcribing this. I am kind of annoyed by the panelists comments on piracy. I'm a small developer and if I sell anywhere close to 10,000 copies of my game I will be laughing all the way to the bank. It's true that, well, if people are pirating your game then at least they are playing it but IMHO piracy has the potential to hurt the small guys way more than the big guys.
The last question wasn't a bad one either. Developers see, what, 0.00$ from game rentals right? And yet, reviewers are likely going to say about your game, "not worth a purchase but definitely a solid rental." How can that not annoy you?
It's interesting to see the hate for Nintendo. How does one reconcile saying, "we are screwed by glitz" with the recent statements from Nintendo that say they are trying not to do that with their next gen. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy it at least seems like Nintendo is doing some things right, according to the panelists.
I do find the whole XNA and HD stuff pretty horrifying but please recognize that MS is great at intimidating developers, ala: "sign on to our business model or you are going to be out of business in 5 years, because we define the future." This is what XNA is and it's mostly a lie.
What we developers might still be lacking is old fashioned business savvy and pragmatism. See your leverage and use it. Beethoven and Mozart wrote really popular music in their day and died with lots of money. All this self-glorifying nonsense about games being high art and blah blah blah is probably part of the problem.
Posted by: psysal | March 17, 2005 at 21:08
You missed the one quote at the end in regard to the piracy comment. I can't remember who said it, but the statement was roughly in a mocking tone, "Yeah, I've written 3 novels in the past, and I hate it how people can just go to the library and read them whenever they want! I don't see a dime of that!"
All in all a great panel.
Posted by: Russ | March 18, 2005 at 01:26
There were three sessions I had circled on my schedule that I wasn't able to make it to. The QoL Summit, Will Wright's talk, and this one. Thanks for the transcript, so that I could at least get a taste for it. But damn, I obviously had bad missed sessions luck :)
For the last few years I have been toiling with some of these issues and have yet to come up with a grand solution, except that I have -- in my spare time -- bought a Mac and started getting my hands directly back into development again (why a Mac? they have changed a lot since I last touched one and it allows a fresh perspective -- not to mention the XNA platform gives me the willies).
Whether or not I ever release anything I make on my own, or make a dime off of it even if I do, I at least feel like I am able to rekindle what got me excited about this industry in the first place. Making games can be fun, but I imagine I am not alone when I say it is more than fun for me, it is nearly as essential as breathing. The way the industry has been going, has made it hard to breathe.
Posted by: Aaron Pulkka | March 18, 2005 at 01:32
I am glad to see there are so many insightful developers still left in the industry. The game industry is about to repeat the early 80's and crash beyond belief with the current big blockbuster game only crap they've been shovelling down our throats lately. I do not understand those of you who are so quick to attack them, and so quick to defend the media giants. Are you really so blind that you can't see that they may be making a few quick bucks right now, but they are going to be committing suicide in the long term? And shame on Bruce for saying anyone against Giant Coporations and Mr. W are left-wing hippies and whatnot! Any moderate with half a brain will tell you the same...these guys are too big, and abusing their power. It's sad to see such a large portion of America just willing to believe what they are told. And with that, I'd just like to say that those who want to hold on to the current way the video game industry is going will be begging these people to give them jobs in about 10 years, so laugh it up, and enjoy your crappy all flash and no substance games while it lasts...
Posted by: Derick Eisenhardt | March 19, 2005 at 00:12
Psysal,
I understand your concern about piracy as a small developer, but these guys know what they're talking about. I have known many people who pirate games, music, and whatnot over the years...and they almost always fall into one of two categories:
1. People who want to try it before they buy it.
2. People who never would have bought it in the first place.
I tend to fall into the first category when it comes to music, as the music industry has gone to complete crap along with radio, so the only way I can find out if I'm getting my money's worth is to download it first, and then buy it once I've listened to it a few times and decided I like it.
In the game industry we already have a business model for this, it's called Shareware. If you give people a decent chunk of your game, and they like it....they'll buy the whole game. ID software wouldn't have released one of the biggest name games this past year if it wasn't for this... Yet, it seems they didn't retain that knowlege as Doom3 was probably the most pirated games ever, just because of the simple fact that they did not release a demo prior to it's release. Most of those people just wanted to know if their system could handle it, and if it was any good.
As for the second group, these are the people who either can't afford your product, or were never interested enough to buy it in the first place...you can only hope that if they like your game enough, then they will buy it and want to support you in future products.
The only other factor when it comes to piracy is price. If people feel like you're ripping them off, they will rip you off instead. If games go up to $60 in the next generation, as many are predicting, you can expect piracy to probably double along with it. I would advice not to charge over $30 for a game, you'll sell a lot more copies and make more money in the end...
Posted by: Derick Eisenhardt | March 19, 2005 at 00:40
Chris: I’m pro-piracy. I want people to play the games I make. I do it because it’s art. I think DRM is a total fucking stupid mess. If the game industry collapses and can be reborn, I’m all for it. Pirate on!
Greg: they’re not pirating the game! Someone bought a legal copy! The world is not designed in such a way that money inherently funnels its way into your wallet!?
Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!
[the session was brought to an end by the GDC organisers who were timekeeping, to huge booing and catcalling.]
So that's that. Fucking fantastic. Nothing could top that, so I'm off to the pub.
=========================================
All this talk of change, yet this ignorant attitude persist among developers. I say no pay, no play. Fuck em.
Posted by: jerome_horwitz | March 19, 2005 at 02:43
%%% OOOrder chips? %%%
Hello.
I own a copy of Solner. That looks like a good game, has the correct features. Its a freeform world where everything its destructible. Cool!.
But Its lotsa slow. Unplayable.
We have also Star Wars Battlefront. This game looks fantastic, but its a ripoff of BF1942. And the maps are tiny, and the interactivity its ZERO. Other than killing bots.
I have notice that that "cells" chips will make Soldners games slower and Battlefront games faster.
Conclusion:
/me cry
Posted by: Tei | March 19, 2005 at 08:49
On Wal-Mart's attacks on other industries, PBS's expose video is online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
Even musicians are dissenting with the music industry. Chuck D of Public Enemy debates Metallica's Lars Ulrich:
http://www.rapstation.com/promo/lars_vs_chuckd.html
In fact, Chuck D explained that "accountant and lawyer driven" corporate music leads to boring, destructive stereotypes, just as panelist Brenda Laurel explained:
http://www.uaf.edu/sunstar/archives/20050301/chuckd.htm
Anyone interested in these issues would probably enjoy this new movie:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
Posted by: Tayssir John Gabbour | March 19, 2005 at 09:47
Uhm this sites neat, but i buy games or rent them. And i have to say... ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING FAULT. Im tired of these shitty games simply because you guys wont stop bitching. Shut up, sit down and make a GOOD game and for god sakes stop the short form info speach. Ive never seen somthing so stupid. Do good, you sell, do shitty you fail. So stop fucking up!
Posted by: Tom sutton | March 19, 2005 at 18:03
To all the folks who seem pissed off, SirBruce et al. I have to say that I am a little disappointed that you seem so ready to dismiess people who were, first and foremost, RANTING, which is what the session was supposed to be. This, by definition, was not a forum designed to be about PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE or RETHINKING THE GAME INDUSTRY.
It was pure, old-fashioned, American RANTING. It's release from the pressures of everyday life in the company of sometimes like-minded peers. But it's precisely these kinds of sessions that can lead to new forms of either social action or new forms of game development or distribution, because people realize that others feel the same way and so maybe there's an audience there, or market for those like Sir Bruce who feel that capitalism, and its terminology, must trump all.
It's also the case that this kind of free-wheeling exchange in which people can be angry, and perhaps represent themselves in a lopsided fashion, as perhaps Brenda did, can lead to interesting new ideas.
Judging people, organizations, or an industry on the basis of a rant session just strikes me as silly, or someone looking to be pissed off -- rather like extremists on either side of what patheically small space we have left for public discourse and political dialogue -- which too often leads folks to say, "Oh, you believe X, then you must also believe in Y and Z and therefore are a (a) communist or (b) racist or (c) some other form of dismissive pejorative." Well, bullshit, life is a lot more complex than that, as are people.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for folks to have made decent, if not good, livings within an industry that is now dominated by far too few channels for distribution and to be brave enough to rant about it. What would you prefer? They could always stay silent and just keep raking it in and be happy that your options are few and that you have to buy their games. Instead, they are looking for ways for more people to get involved in the process, for more people to create.
I saw nothing in the transcript that said that all creative people must give it away and that no one should be interested in profit. What I saw was creative people pushing against the force that has come to dominate their lives and casting about for other models so as to WIDEN the realm of possibilities.
Posted by: Laudunum | March 20, 2005 at 15:04
I was talking to someone in the industry about this transcript and he said something pretty funny.
If these people believe in what they say so much, why dont they put there life savings on it and try to make the changes themselves instead of leaning on big publishers and other peoples money.
And who cares about piracy? rofl thats the stupidest thing ive heard in years.
If anyone is full of shit, its these guys, they really should find a new industry to work in.
Posted by: Jeremy Easoz | March 20, 2005 at 23:24
What? These people are the some of the biggest names in the games industry. If they ain't right, no one is.
I pirate songs, and on the same model that Warren said - almost every one the albums I've got, I wouldn't pay for even at half price. Same with games - I always buy them second hand, or get them for birthday or christmas.
They're something that unless I see the demo and really like it (which is hard to find in this day and age) I won't buy it. Pool paridise was a good game (got the demo), so I bought it. But Firestarter, Megarace 3, etc - these games were purchased for me as presents. Sure I'll play them if they're there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy them (unless people are really raving, then I usually get the demo and prehaps buy the game). Admittantly, it's not good moral fibre. But I know plenty of people just like me who have the same attitudes towards things.
"Uhm this sites neat, but i buy games or rent them. And i have to say... ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING FAULT. Im tired of these shitty games simply because you guys wont stop bitching. Shut up, sit down and make a GOOD game and for god sakes stop the short form info speach. Ive never seen somthing so stupid. Do good, you sell, do shitty you fail. So stop fucking up!"
Clearly you didn't read all of the article. [b]PROGRAMMERS CANNOT FOCUS ON GAMEPLAY OR INNOVATION BECAUSE COMPANIES DO NOT LET THEM[/b], as stated here:
"Next generation games will cost 20m. Publishers are becoming increasingly risk averse. Today you cannot get an innovative title published unless your last name is Wright or Miyamoto. Who was at the Microsoft keynote? I don’t know about you but it made my flesh crawl. [laughter] The HD era? Bigger, louder? Big bucks to be made! Well not by you and me of course. Those budgets and teams ensure the death of innovation."
Companies who are simply in it for the money do not want to focus on innovation or gameplay when they can just buy gamers off with good graphics.
Posted by: Dan | March 21, 2005 at 19:47
Sorry about the bbtags, thought they'd work here.
Of course the above is just my opinion, but I agreed with the experts and was ranting about some of the things Warren said well before I read this.
Posted by: Dan | March 21, 2005 at 20:11
Psyal wrote:
"Beethoven and Mozart wrote really popular music in their day and died with lots of money. All this self-glorifying nonsense about games being high art and blah blah blah is probably part of the problem."
Uh, Mozart was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave because he had no money. Can't recall how well Beethoven was doing at the end of life, but I don't think he had "lots" of money. He was at least smart enough to convince people that they should pay him to write his music, which is one of the methods that Warren is suggesting. I think games *can* be entertainment and high art all at once in the same way that an interesting piece of "art" music or innovative film can be.
Posted by: ddf | March 24, 2005 at 04:52
Bill Harris tears this panel apart.
http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2005/03/house-cant-burn-down-when-all-you.html
Money quote:
"And here's a theme that's going to wind through this entire transcript: these people are going to whine about everything related to them, but is anyone going to mention that many of these people aren't actually FINISHING the games? Is anyone going to mention that developers are responsible for delivering finished products to consumers? Are any of them going to say that many of them are failing the consumer?
Don't hold your breath."
Posted by: Al | March 24, 2005 at 20:22
Innovation would be more common if graphics cards couldn't get as advanced as they are now. EA do not want to bother with thinking up innovative ideas when they've got good graphics, because they know it will look nice. There. Simple, and shallow as sellophane.
Posted by: Dan | March 25, 2005 at 02:40
Those who are moaning saying that none of the inovative games are any good. stop and think. These ideas, may or may not be popular on the release, but you can garentee a few years down the line they arive in big game company games miss applied, and several years after that they become standard.
It's stupidly inefficient and increadably frustrating for those who play games who would just like to buy the first game which was excelent, what then for developers?
As a gamer rather than waiting after the release of an underesourced game;
which is increadabley inovative;
thinking would it have been nice if they had just than 1 extra mamber of staff that would have allowed the game flurish into the master piece it nearly was;
tollerate a steam of medioca, mass produced games ripping off small parts of it without the vision of the original;
several years later for these things to become standard and lost any impact they might have had.
I would give up playing a 100 ok games for the chance to play one which is truely great.
At the moment the current industry structure is designed to make ok games, that's ok but nothing great was ever made that way. You are unlikely to make as much money from one great one as 100 ok ones.
Quote:
Do good, you sell, do shitty you fail. So stop fucking up!
Let's see... not really, just look at some of the best and popular films of recent times:
Fight club, box office sales were so bad bankrupsy was necessary for yet I have rarely met anyone who doesn't own it and never met anyone who dislikes it.
Shawshank Redemption: pitiful at the cinema; yet one of, maybe the biggest selling dvd ever.
Or music, while usher is no1 in singles charts, U2 is outselling them in the download chart.
Think of the differing standard of fps on the pc and there clear higher standard, eg HL2 yet they will never out sell a ps2 game or halo, simply because of the abundance of consoles and the ignorance of the general public about pc's.
Marketing distribution style and advertising effect sales in a very large way. A person may think they make informed decisions but people are swayed by advertising; brand acociation and fashion.
How many of the big comertial release are going to be remembered in 2 or 3 years? What was the last game which left you breathless with amazement?
Posted by: gimonaballandchain | March 27, 2005 at 00:29
You can always spot the academics a mile off. Brenda Laurel is so fucking pretentious.
"My thesis is that we are contributing to the damage that the spectacle does to human beings by suggesting the interactivity of a joystick is real agency."
Is she suggesting games are bad for you. Get off the fucking panel if you don't like games. Make a positive change if you don't like what you see instead of writing a wanky thesis. Oh wait, I forgot - those who can't, teach.
Posted by: snapDragon | March 29, 2005 at 15:42
Can I just point out that discussion is an essential part of making a positive change; it helps to order your thoughts how would other people who might have similar thoughts know who they could collaberate with otherwise?
Writing a thesis might help someone else to find a better approuch to somthing just as much as it would to do something practicle.
Posted by: gimponaballandchain | April 05, 2005 at 00:45
Well, I'm following several discussions on Gamer's boards and they are basically the same : Even gamers begin to notice that publishers don't want innovation, they want money. Franchise, because it sells. An Action game can be made with much lesser effort than an non-action game (in this case : A non-action game needs to contain much more detailed work to "feed" the gamer, but an action game is nothing but - action. No matter how well-designed.)
To me, that's an overall theme in media : TV, music industry etc. : Things are evaluated by the economical income ("how much can we gain from that ?") instead of the real contents. No wonder that sophisticated TV programmes and games are dying out. It's the "economization of life". Which eventually results in terms like "human resources". Individuals seen as a mass of resources easy to fire & hire.
From my point of view, the WHOLE media industry - film, music, gaming - is controlled by accountants (see above) and lawyers. Accountants who want to bring more money into the company (I mean the publisher here) and lawysers to defend anything. Like EA's motto : "Challenge everything".
For whom is the publisher working ? For the money / shareholder or for the human person ?
By the way, I found Brenda Laurel's panel (as I read it here; wasn't there) highly interesting. This has to do about psychology. Sadly few of the developers and publishers ponder about psychology. For example I suspect the unconsciousness (part of our selves) not to be able to determine between shooting a person in an FPS game or in Reality ...
I can only stress what Brenda Laurel had said there.
Alrik.
Posted by: Alrik Fassbauer | April 08, 2005 at 13:26
You missed the one quote at the end in regard to the piracy comment. I can't remember who said it, but the statement was roughly in a mocking tone, "Yeah, I've written 3 novels in the past, and I hate it how people can just go to the library and read them whenever they want! I don't see a dime of that!"
All in all a great panel.
Posted by: Robert | April 26, 2005 at 13:39
thease games are gonna bomb because of the ai thats freaking scary what if nintendo wins the prize dvd burning isnt fun dont worry about piracy jack be nimble jack be quick investigate nintendos counsole so you can jump over the candle stick
Posted by: magicmaster2121 | June 05, 2005 at 07:42
Most of the responses in this thread are idiotic at best, and deliberate trolling at worst.
I'm an interested observer of the games industry for the last 10+ years and a game design afficionado. I agree with everything the panelists were ranting about (which was after all the purpose of the session).
Bigger budgets and more control from the huge media corporations = less innovation, less risk-taking, more shiny sequels with gameplay that still sucks.
Current distribution channels are controlled completely by large retail interests (WalMart) and large, evil publishers (Microsoft/Sony/EA), who stifle innovation in favor of churning out sequel after sequel. Alternative channels are needed (WWW, Steam, whatever)
If we want to see real innovation we have to reverse the trend of blockbusterness, and get back to sub-million-dollar budgets, so that developers can take back artistic control and get back to pushing the frontiers, and can afford to take the risk (gasp!) of trying something actually new!
Funding and distribution really do need to get a divorce! Games publishers are assholes to developers for the same reason venture-capitalists are assholes to startup companies: every deal involves too much money.
The "professional" games industry is careening towards "HD-ism" and is headed for a fall. I don't believe it can save itself. Right now it looks like within 5 years, all the significant innovation will be coming from the indie games movement.
Remember what it was like 20 years ago? 3 people could make a decent game in two months in their garage. Classic games like "The Legend of Zelda" and "Metroid" and "Eye of the Beholder" were created, and whole genres were born. Nowadays it takes a 40-person team 2-3 years and $5m-$15m to make a game with shiny graphics and gameplay that is only incrementally different from Half Life 1 (or Quake or Starcraft or Diablo or whatever). The games industry is suffocating itself.
Posted by: | August 10, 2005 at 05:32
f u biaiach!
Posted by: | August 15, 2005 at 19:34
hi no comment
Posted by: Sara | August 30, 2005 at 06:43
Yea burn it!! burn it!! lol
Posted by: Jessica | November 03, 2005 at 15:00
Chris, if you are doing it because it's art what do you make money on? You should at leat eat smth.
Posted by: Elf | November 15, 2005 at 14:18
Brenda's comment was a bit obscure but the best of the lot IMO.
The Spectacle is a concept created by a bunch of (mainly) French Libertarian Marxists* called the Situationist International. ( http://www.nothingness.org/SI/ ).
I don't entirely agree with the broader theory around it, but the Spectacle is a useful concept describing how capitalism causes our everyday experiences and interactions to become more and more dependant on commodities, reducing us to spectators instead of participants. I've often wondered myself if games might be worsening the situation.
As a side note, I don't know Brenda, and have never read anything else by her, but calling her a communist in the pejorative is clearly out of line. No Stalinist or Maoist would be agreeing with the SI and talking about the spectacle- the SI described those regimes as "concentrated spectacles" and opposed them as much as they opposed the spectacle of capitalism and representative democracy.
Regardless, feel free to shout nonsense about the goddam commies without understanding any of the theory she's referencing. It's the net tradition and all that.
* A note for Americans reading this: prior to the existence of the ideology that you know as libertarianism, the term meant, broadly, socialists in favour of direct democracy, like anarchists or council communists.
Posted by: Alistair | March 13, 2006 at 10:36
plzzz make mw a member right now
Posted by: walter | August 08, 2006 at 18:07
HI last year i was 62 kgs and now i have increased to 83 kgs now iam feeling uncomfort. Body pain, Chest pain pls give me solution
Posted by: John Pitt | October 06, 2006 at 08:47
I Love you girls
Buy
Posted by: LeOgAhEr | June 01, 2007 at 11:24
keep up the good work!!
Posted by: Bush | October 12, 2007 at 12:33
Sounds like your finances are becoming a problem consumer debt settlement is the solution. ... 2007 USA Debt Consolidation.
Real debt help is not quick or easy ...
Posted by: brulleylier | November 16, 2007 at 12:56
I browse and saw you website and I found it very interesting.Thank you for the good work, greetings
Posted by: sveta | December 15, 2007 at 21:03
very well made
it .All information on this site is represented
Best Links
Posted by: slultlazy | December 29, 2007 at 10:52
Lucky to find you, keep on the good workk guys! Best of luck.s
Posted by: Bush | January 31, 2008 at 12:29
Consoles, PCs, Macs, Online Distribution, Phones, the list continues to grow. One of the Garage Games guys listed like 20 or something venues for people to publish games to. We aren't very restricted to retail these days.
Posted by: danny@dog costumes | April 11, 2010 at 00:42
They are the best on the market due to the performance.List of the Best Household Toilet Cleaners of All Time:PreviewProductPriceInstant Power 1806 Toilet Tank Cleaner, 16 oz$6.78$7.99 (15% off)Buy on Amazon(3 sponge pieces replacement) T-557-3HC Sumitomo (3M) Scotch Brite (TM) with detergent toilet cleaner replacement formula (japan import)$15.12Buy on AmazonLysol Complete Clean Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach Value Pack, 2 Count$10.99Buy on AmazonGreen Works Toilet Bowl Cleaner, Toilet Gel Cleaner - 96 Ounces (PACK of 4)$11.96Buy on AmazonScrubbing Bubbles Toilet Cleaning Gel Fresh, 2Count, 2.68 oz$6.84$10.73 (36% off)Buy on AmazonClorox ToiletWand Disinfecting Refills, Disposable Wand Heads - 20 Count$5.59Buy on AmazonClorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner Tablets with Bleach - 4 Count (Pack of 2)$21.37Buy on AmazonClorox ToiletWand Disinfecting Refills, Disposable Wand Heads - 30 Count$14.23Buy on AmazonClorox ToiletWand Disinfecting Refills, Disposable Wand Heads - Rainforest Rush - 30 Count$13.25Buy on AmazonLysol Power & Fresh Toilet Bowl Cleaner, Country Scent, 48oz (2X24oz)$3.72$4.89 (24% off)Buy on Amazon10. Scotch Corporation 1806 Instant Power Toilet Tank Cleaner Check PriceThe cleaner comes in the form of a powder that works instantly after application. It is recommended for use when dealing with calcium build up, hard water deposit, and rust. It helps in keeping your toilet in great shape for a long time since it can prolong toilet components. The scent left after use is refreshing and long lasting. The user should be careful not to leave it longer than the time set on the guidelines given.9. T-557-3HC Sumitomo (3M) Scotch Brite (TM) with detergent toilet cleaner replacement formula Check PriceThey are made to be disposable after each use. This avoids coming to contact with the collected dirt and germs that might be on the scrubber.
Posted by: toilet bowl cleaner factory | September 20, 2019 at 03:07