Monthly Archives: February 2006

Articles of Interest

  • A measure of the problems facing Star Wars Galaxies (and Sony’s determination to overcome them): John Smedley, President of SOE, has taken the time to repeatedly post (i.e. more than 10 times) on a thread in an SWG fan forum. He comes across as just another guy. Unusual, and commendable. And probably too little, too late.
  • Cell-phone game developers increasingly shift towards “flexible” pricing — i.e. X cents per play, or $Y to rent a game for Z days (or months).
  • Midway posts $113M loss for fiscal ’05
  • Sony follows Nintendo’s lead; announces PSP kiosks for Japan that will provide game demo downloads to visitors.
  • Indian animation and gaming forum established, just one month after the Indian Games Industry and Trade Association (iGITA). Cell phone gaming in this market is going to be so huge…
  • Sony admits possible PS3 delays. The company cites Blu-Ray as the culprit, but this recent Arstechnica piece places blame squarely on the complexity of the Cell processor.
  • In-game advertising expected to remain low this year, but dramatically increase soon thereafter.
  • U2 Concert faithfully recreated in Second Life.

The Benefit of User-Testing a Prototype

I’ve been wondering if it’s possible to quantify how “useful” it is to user-test a game’s playable prototype before full-scale development begins in earnest. I’m defining a “user-test” as “spending a few weeks observing and interviewing a group of twenty or thirty diverse consumers as they play your game prototype.” Unfortunately, a really good analysis requires data that I doubt anyone has access to: the success rates of roughly equivalent games, that were and were not tested at the formal prototype stage, and were released into approximately equivalent market environments. Among other figures.

Given that I’m unlikely to see such numbers anytime soon, I had to settle for a simple experiment. I created a very basic excel model that calculates the average return for a game project that has been carefully tested (and potentially killed outright) at the end of prototyping, versus the average return for a game that semi-automatically proceeds from prototype to full development…

Read the full editorial!

Questioning the Value of Game Design Degrees

Gamesblog has posted an editorial questioning the value of a video game design degree. Part of me really wants to take this seriously (since at least some of the many design programs springing up worldwide must undoubtedly be half-baked). Unfortunately, this editorial doesn’t do the question justice at all.

Let’s start with the first argument (paraphrased): innovative designers come from different disciplines, and therefore have a fresh perspective. That’s certainly true in many cases. But wait: last I checked, a college degree was useful for expanding one’s horizons. Does a game design degree prevent students from concurrently taking courses in philosophy, art, psychology, or computer science? More to the point, couldn’t a good design course encourage interdisciplinary study? Ours certainly does. Many MIT CMS undergrads double major in computer science, and/or sprinkle film and TV studies, creative writing, and marketing courses into their schedules. Our design courses often require students to explore a range of design considerations, including business, engineering, social, and cultural issues. The idea that a game design degree precludes a broad perspective is simply laughable.

The author also notes that none of his long-term game designer pals have game-related degrees. Really? Maybe that’s because game design degrees didn’t exist until just a few years ago. Maybe we should eliminate all biochemistry degrees, since early biochemists enjoyed more “fundamental” educations.

Lastly, the author claims that “in most creative industries, people from the outside have the brightest ideas…” I don’t know what to make of this. Are creative writing majors automatically less likely to write a good book than other people? Are film studies majors less likely to produce an innovative movie? The author commends the value of these programs with one hand, but effectively denigrates them (and all programs like them) with the other. You’d be hard pressed to find many people who think that film studies programs have somehow sucked the creativity out of Hollywood, so I’m not sure why game design programs should be any different.

A better editorial might have questioned design programs that fail to incorporate computer science, film studies, creative writing, etc. It might have explored the importance of practical design experience (I feel that any program worth its salt strongly encourages students to take summer internships with game companies, and builds practical, long-term game development projects into the design curriculum.) It might have raised questions about game design theory, which is still a rather nascent thing, and therefore somewhat difficult to teach. These would have been interesting things to discuss.

Articles of Interest

Snoop Dogg Launches Hip-Hop Gaming League

The always-entertaining Snoop Dogg has formally announced the “Hip-Hop Gaming League” (HHGL), an invitation-only organization comprised of “A-list” musicians, athletes, producers, etc. These individuals, characterized primarily by their level of fame, will follow rules set and enforced entirely by Snoop, at least for now.

Celebrity interest in video games is nothing new. Many famous actors and sports figures now treat video games as an important legitimizing force, and some even choose to exert creative influence over the game design process. This despite the fact that games (via mods and hacks) could be used to play with a celebrity’s image in ways that they (and their handlers) would normally be horrified by. Since celebrities are surely aware of this risk, their estimation of the rewards must indeed be significant.

The game industry has long debated whether celebrity inclusion in games is actually a good thing. I don’t see it as an either/or issue. The industry should definitely continue to create it’s own personalities… the Marios and Lara Crofts of the future. That’s the best way to generate lasting profit (and experiment with the medium, IMO). However, it is also true that certain games would definitely be less interesting without celebrity inclusion. Not all sports titles need to include professional stars, but some obviously should. P2P fighting games have clearly done well with (mostly) original characters, but that doesn’t mean a Bruce Lee-centric game wouldn’t uniquely scratch a certain itch. We form an emotional connection with celebrities that can and probably should be harnessed by game developers. Sometimes. Occassionally.

Articles of Interest

  • Sony allegedly upset Korean developers by announcing unfavorable publishing terms for PS3 online.
  • Premium EA titles The Godfather and Black to debut at $39.95; decision based on sales performance of titles like Need for Speed Most Wanted.
  • Jeep discusses its product placements in American Wasteland; calls them significantly more effective than comparable TV advertising.
  • Phil Steinmeyer is soliciting feedback on some casual game prototypes. Hopefully, he’ll share his thoughts on whether or not it was “worth it” someday in the future.

Interview with Dorian Richard (Atari)

I had the unexpected opportunity to chat with Dorian Richard, Atari’s external producer for Neverwinter Nights 2, the anticipated RPG from Obsidian Entertainment. We ended up having a long conversation about publisher/developer relations and the pitfalls of production, which I transcribed:

What do you feel distinguishes publisher (external) producers from developer (internal) producers?

As a publisher, you have a broader perspective; you work on a lot more titles than any given developer over a five year time span. The average developer has two teams, and it takes two years to make a game, so you’re looking at approximately five titles over five years. I’ve worked on nine titles over the past five years.

What are the most common challenges you face when interacting with developers?

There’s inexperienced developers, and there’s experienced developers. Inexperienced developers tend to lack staff with sufficient scheduling and managing experience. They might be good at certain development tasks, but they don’t know how to read warning signs and manage people, so they frequently fail to recognize when a big slip is looming. They don’t plan for likely emergencies, like a key team member getting sick or having a family emergency.

Read the rest of the interview…

Articles of Interest

  • Interesting study of the prevalence of profanity in Xbox Live.
  • Via Slashdot, an academic study claims to demonstrate that online games help children transition more successfully from school to work environments. I searched for a while but can’t find details. I’ve always believed that multiplayer games can teach kids teamwork skills; however, I’d like to know if this study actually tracked students (with similar socio-economic backgrounds) who were and were not frequent players of online games, and measured their performance during their transition to work. That would help support a strong claim.
  • Highly-anticipated EA title, Black, leaked onto Internet.
  • Atari lays off 20% of workforce. (Recruiters, start your engines!)
  • Game Eaters has posted a convincing response to the assertion that single player games are “doomed.”
  • United Nations Food Force (free game) hits 3M downloads.

Playing with MMOG Pricing

A couple of days ago, Sony announced a new MMOG bundle. Starting March 14th, you’ll be able to buy EverQuest Evolution, EverQuest II, PlanetSide Aftershock, The Matrix Online, and Star Wars Galaxies for just $39.99. The move (among others: 1, 2) has its fair share of detractors; this Penny Arcade comic sums it up.

While I do believe that the game industry generally over-emphasizes the importance of pricing signals (we desperately need more $30-$40 high-quality games), I have to agree with Sony’s critics on this one. The MMOGs that Sony is pitching are (mostly) “high playtime” games which, when they’re successful, tend to encourage long and frequent gameplay sessions. And they all appeal to a hardcore audience. The problem is, a hardcore gamer who’s going to play an MMOG for ten, twenty, or thirty hours a week isn’t going to care overly much about the initial price of the game. He/she is going to care about who’s playing it, and how it compares to other MMOGs on the market. When you’re going to pay $10 or $15 a month for something, and play it constantly, the first $50 doesn’t mean a whole lot.

On the other hand, I think there is room for experimentation on the recurring fee side of the equation. Significantly reduce the recurring fees, and/or increase the “free” initial play period, and people may choose to try your game (and/or maintain a mostly-inactive account) just because it’s “cheap”. This is different from waiving the fee but capping the player to a newbie area or restricting their level growth; that strategy might work for casual gamers, but not the hardcore gamers who want to level up fast, and who are the most likely audience for a game like EverQuest II. Of course, if you’re battling for the hardcore audience on price, you’ve probably already lost the war…

Long story short, I think this is one case where a negative price/quality signal will be sent. There might very well be an influx of new players when the bundle hits the shelves, but I bet they don’t stick around for long — unless subscription fees go down. And even then, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Articles of Interest