Reality Panic

Hung out a bit with Harvey Smith, who was in town recently with his lovely wife. We got into talking about some of the game industry issues that the IGDA is takling, such as quality of life, credits and business problems. While admitting to the challenges of work/life balance for developers, Harvey put forth the argument that we willingly submit ourselves to these extreme conditions - in part because we are passionate, but also in part because deep down we hope that we’ll make it big (ie, fame and fortune).

True. This is certainly one of the aspects explored in the Quality of Life white paper.

However, I put forth that only a small handful of developers on a project actually have the potential to be rewarded in this manner (eg, lead designer, studio head, lead programmer, etc (if they’re lucky)). Much like in Hollywood, it is really only the “above the line” talent that reap fame and fortune (ie, lead actor/actress, director, writer, etc). All the “below the line” crew do their work and get paid accordingly. And, for the most part, they don’t make crazy sacrifices or jeopardize their home life. They are not in a position to benefit from the big upside.

The same is not true in games. Everyone dives in, full of passion, regardless of their potential to reap success. Managers bank on this enthusiasm and build it into the production schedule and cost estimates. It is the rank and file developers that pave the way for the suits to reap the spoils of their accomplishments.

We also talked a bit about Farenheit 9/11 and the significance of Moore’s statement on how the cost (in terms of sacrifices) of war is disproportionately paid for by lower class citizens, who are first in line to fight for their country (which arguably has done jack to help them)…

A major part of the whole quality of life debate is the fact that “below the line” developers are ready and willing to take a bullet for management… Not that I want to compare games development to the travesty of war, but the analogy works.

Update: Harvey pointed out that it is important to clarify that this is not true of all game studios, nor film productions. For some, making those sacrifices means that they build their street cred and the ability to make more games (ie, attract funding or a publishing deal, etc). But, I’d contend that the same rule applies. Those making such sacrifices are still seeking, and able to reap, the upside of their sacrifices. The tools programmer at big studio x, working 80+ hours a week, not being paid overtime, working weekends, etc, etc, is not likely ever to see this type of upside (other than a gold star on their resume, as Mark notes below)…

Just read the news on EA’s montrous revenues and profits. They cleared $24million of profit just in Q1 (on $432 of total sales for the quarter)! They expect to haul in $3billion+ for the year. Wow, that’s big business - congrats to them.

Yet, despite EA’s meteoric success, can we say that the overall game industry ecosystem is healthy? I don’t think so.

The “starving artists” that make up the majority of the indie game dev scene must pain to see this kind of news. Never mind that fact that EA has gone on the record as saying the small guys won’t survive…

It is ironic timing that there’s a big feature article at Gamasutra talking about the plight of indies (and how GarageGames is here to help). Certainly, a lot has been said about the indie sector, and its viability. Even news on those bucking the trend and companies specifically supporting the independent sector.

Yet, you’d think that EA would be willing to “donate” some of those massive profits into the indie scene. Perhaps they could fund an indie festival or contest (like the IGF). Perhaps offer grants to indie developers working on wacky, far out there projects. Maybe invest into a company like GarageGames, with no strings attached. Maybe fund a group of veteran developers for a year just to mess around with stuff, with no actual demand to produce something shippable. Or, fund stuff like the IndieGameJam or Experimental Gameplay Workshop. Hell, why not start an Experimental Gameplay Fund, or foundation!

(To be fair, EA’s $8million funding of USC is very commendable. And, in all honesty, I don’t know if they are doing any of the stuff (or similar) I mention above.)

Anyway, other media/entertainment industries have realized long ago that they need the indie/underground/fringe scene to keep things fresh, to inspire and to reinvigorate the mainstream. As game design guru Eric Zimmerman often says, “the game industry is all center and no margins”. Other industries have found ways to support the margins and make it viable to avoid the starving artist syndrome (eg, think indie record labels or movie studios that are funded by the mainstream guys, etc). What was margin in the music industry a few years back is now part of the mainstream (Moby style electronica comes to mind)… The cycle continues.

The current condition of the game ecosystem is such that the margins are not (yet) viable and as such the center continues to become ever more narrow (witnessed by the usual complaints of risk aversion and games that suck).

(As a counter point to indies being the font of innovation, some would question the commonly held belief that innovation can only come from the indie scene…)

So, what can be done to save the ecosystem?

Last week saw a huge victory for the games industry. Once again, the courts have upheld the notion that games are indeed a form of expression and should receive the same free speech protections as other forms of art and entertainment. I am proud to say that the IGDA in general, our members in Washington state, and myself personally, were all a part of the victory.

One of the points ofen raised in the whole media effects debate is the notion that games are murder simulators (ie, they train kids to shoot, kill, etc). A big part of this argument is how the military uses games/simulations for training purposes. Sadly, what the headlines always leave out is that the games are primarily used for communications training (ie, squad interaction) and strategy simulations.

I was pleased to see the judge specifically address the absurd notion of murder training in one of the footnotes from the ruling:

“Even if one accepts the basic premise that interactive games involving repetitive actions “teach” the player certain skills, the evidence as it currently exists suggests only that players are taught improved reaction time, eye/hand coordination, and how to score points in the game. Dr. Provenzo’s concern that a person playing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City will learn how to shoot a police officer is little more than conjecture: a proven ability to manipulate a controller and push buttons will not teach a person to load, aim, or fire a gun.”

Very well said :)

Ironically, an editorial at Tech Central Station suggests that limiting consumer access to violent/war games would make the USA a “weaker” nation. Hmm, it’s an interesting point of view… Also, a recent MSNBC editorial explores the appeal and different uses of military based games… Tom Loftus deftly points out how games can be used by gamers as a means to deal with their fears and anxiety over war and violence - themes echoed in Gerard Jones’ must read book, Killing Monsters.

Anyway, those interesting in the WA-state case and ruling should out the recap and commentarty at Corante.

I’ve always been slightly envious of Warren Spector, Harvey Smith, Marc LeBlanc and the other game design gurus who would play hardcore board games at GDC. They’d basically bail on all the parties/events, and go up and play games like The Settlers of Catan. I could just never bring myself to break into their circle of board gaming geekness… Oh well.

Well, I just picked up a somewhat less hardcore board game called Reiner Knizia’s Samurai!. There was a post on the Gizmodo gadget blog about online casual games that were fun/quick to play. They pointed to Klear Game’s digital interpretation of Samurai (which interestingly enough was an IGF winner a few years back).

Anyway, I downloaded the trial version of the game and played for a while (never really knowing it was based on a physical board game). As it had a multiplayer option, I convinced my wife to play a few rounds (this was quite a coup as she never plays video games). When we finished playing, she commented that it was “fun, but would be better if there was a board game version”. So, some quick googling led to me the online store Rainy Day Games, where I bought the board game version.

(Big sorry to Klear Games for missing out on a sale of their digital version.)

Anyway, I’ll probably never have the confidence to challenge Warren, but at least I’m winning against my wife ;)

I just finished reading the oddly titled book “The Frog and Prince“. Peculiar metaphor aside, the book is about how to network - the real life kind, not computer net stuff.

As someone who spends a great deal of time in networking environments (ie, industry conferences, IGDA chapter meetings, etc), effective and efficient networking - or rather, schmoozing - is a key skill. When I saw a very positive review of the book in the local newspaper, I decided to pick it up.

So, what are some of the simple keys to networking success? Stuff like:

• Always carry business cards
• Don’t always hang out with your buddies at events
• Have the attitude of trying to help people out (rather than being in “pitch” mode)
• Treat everyone as equals
• Be there (rather than behind your desk)

What’s interesting about the book is that it goes beyond just telling you some of the tricks for successful schmoozing and goes into the power of social networks. Referred to as the small world effect: knowing a people who in turn know people, etc, is a very powerful thing. This practical thinking plays very nicely into other recent books I’ve read such “Smart Mobs“, “The Cluetrain Manifesto” and “The Tipping Point” - which were all very theoretical in nature.

As someone leading an organization pushing game developers to network and connect, these books provide a nice back drop and reinforce the thinking behind the IGDA’s mission. It is sad, however, to see so many developers who have no clue how to network or have the attitude that it is a slimy activity only the suits partake in.

I am sure we all have our own networking horror stories…

Oh man, it just never stops. Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed an especially high level of “attacks” on the game industry and games in general. Some examples:

• usual concern over violence and government censorship, along with specific concern over non-realistic and violent sports games
• actual government censorship and consumer’s demands for freedom of choice in Australia
• blaming games for fat kids
• scare over MMO game “addiction” and stories of personal despair at the hands of EQ
• moral panic over the rise in adult themed games (ie, sex and nudity)
• inability of parents to keep violent media away from children and monitor their consumption
• regulating cybercafes in LA as places that promote truancy and misconduct (because there was a scuffle outside of one over two years ago)

Goodness, that’s a lot of negative and depressing stuff. Good thing I don’t buy into the hype of any of it ;-)

(In fairness there were a few good points like Chris Morris questioning the “science” of the obesity research, the fact that the new FTC report gives the game industry a mostly positive assessment, and this article on divisive violence research.)

All that said, no one can deny that a computer game and a gracious volunteer from the game industry made a sick boy’s wish come true. There’s something really powerful of that. At least it got covered by the BBC.

Cynical Aside: Perhaps this proclaimed incurable psychopath has a point when blaming the news media… Hmm…