Reality Panic

Damn, it is hot in Arizona! Ya, ya, dry heat - but still…

Intel invited an elite list of game industry insiders down to Phoenix for a three day “strategy summit”. Rather than the usual chip/tech roadmap presentations they give during their developer conferences, this summit was all about listening to the attendees. In fact, they didn’t just have game industry folks down, but invited several other sectors down as well (eg, mobility, digital home, etc). All to get input and food for thought.

As Intel’s special guests we were treated very well. Lots of food (dare I say way too much food (unlike the usual marathons that industry events become (ie, chocolate bar lunches during E3))), a Hummer excursion in the desert, entertainment, etc. But, they made us work for it.

Locked in a roundtable room for the duration of the summit, reps from Intel’s various game-related groups drilled us with questions, framed discussion periods (eg, business issues in the game industry), and had us prioritize actions we wanted Intel to take.

The goal, of course, was to help grow and support game development, and game playing on PCs. Certainly feeling the heat from the rise in consoles over the years, the decline and homogenization of big budget releases (ie, usually only games falling into FPS, RTS, RPG genres), and the burgeoning “casual” games market (which don’t exactly demand intensive processing power), Intel is trying to ensure they don’t fall behind.

The discussions were far ranging: from the idea of Intel becoming the platform “owner” for the PC and all the responsibilities that that would entail, to my personal push to embrace the chaos/openness of the PC by providing support mechanisms for fringe and true indie games to prosper (ie, think mods, academic/experimental stuff, artsy games, etc).

While the group did create a list of action items for Intel to “go work on”, it was difficult to get a true sense of what Intel actually gleaned from the very wide ranging discussions - at least to the extent they could do something about it all in time for the next summit. Regardless, it was extremely refreshing to have such a huge corporate machine ask, “What can we do to help?”

Note: This event was under NDA, hence the somewhat vagueness of this summary report. I got specific permission from the Intel devrel folks to do this more overview style post.

I am sure that Dean Takahashi’s offshore outsourcing article in the June/July issue of Game Developer magazine is going to generate some interesting discussion. It already has in the IGDA’s own forums… The article is similar to the pre-GDC piece he did for the San Jose Mercury News.

A few posts back, I commented on Wired’s coverage on IT outsourcing, pointing to it as an opportunity to focus on innovation (rather than the boring parts). An even more important aspect of all this is the fact that games are cultural products/artefacts, and no amount of outsourcing will change that. An great editorial at MSNBC explores the cultural differences among games/gamers…

I must say it is a bit funny (in a sad kinda way), when I get asked of the IGDA is going to take a stance to protect American developers from outsourcing. While I realize the suffering many “victims” of outsourcing go through, I can’t help but point to the fact that the “I” in IGDA stands for “international”… The forum thread is an interesting read in this regard.

If we focus on the innovative and cultural bits, all should be fine. Yes?

UPDATE June 28th: Just read another article on outsourcing in Wired (their July issues). It tells of a funny story where an American programmer outsourced his own job to India, paying $12k and pocketing the remaining $55k of his salary… Seriously, the piece talks about some the economics behind outsourcing and how it allows positive flows back into the local economy, etc… Once again, showing that a panicked and emotional approach to such issues is usually unwarranted…

…and go work for Firaxis. Looks like they are lined up to be on the top of the “best game studios to work for” list*.

Given the recent depressing findings of the IGDA’s Quality of Life white paper, it is refreshing/inspiring to see a studio go to such lengths to keep their people happy. No kidding they don’t have much turn over…

I know that there are several other really smart studios taking a more humane approach to game development. Team17, in the UK, adopted a no-crunch policy a few years back and has not missed a milestone since…

I was recently chatting with some HR folks at a large Montreal-based studio. They were so moved by the QoL white paper that they formed an internal committee to address their own issues. Cool!

So, who else is out there making a real effort?

* Ya, this is kinda something we’re working on ;)

I had recently posted a question regarding research into games and immersion (or lack thereof) to an academic mailing list. I was doing some thinking on how to approach the violence in games debate from a slightly different angle. In part, critics cite games as being so unique in that they are interactive forms of media and “immerse” the player. And, that this immersion is the true cause for concern.

Anyway, recent academic talks on games and play (in general, not just digital) have put forth the notion of a “magic circle”. That is, we knowingly step “inside” the circle when we are at play, immersing ourselves in the rules/norms of the game, etc. But, that in so doing, it is a knowing/concentual entry into the circle - that is, we don’t just suddenly enter this circle in a zombie-like state… This notion of the magic circle breaks some of the conventional wisdom coming from politicians and critics…

Long story short, Dr. Barry Atkins was one of the kind academics who replied. Barry is a professor of English at the Manchester Metropolitan University. He had written a book, titled “More than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form“, which covered many of these points. It isn�t a research report with masses of statistics, but it does try to state the obvious in a fairly straightforward way, touching on issues of (non) immersion in first-person shooters and on the chimera of “realism” across a range of titles (mainly Tomb Raider, Half-Life, SimCity and Close Combat). The point he returns to again and again is that games are only understandable as games - a material experience that involves physical manipulation of the interface and a fictional experience that demands an awareness of genre conventions that would seem to contradict the more simplistic understandings of immersion.

It is a fairly academic read, but interesting to witness such a thorough analysis of games as a fictional form. And, refreshing to have an academic with such deep first-hand knowledge of games (ie, he plays a lot of games - for research, of course)…