Game Matters

The story with ludology

Greg's recent post, "No Justice, No Peace": No Truce in the Narratology/Ludology War, covers well the ongoing battle between these two camps, a battle I care so little about that I thought I'd never blog about this topic.  But, never say never...

My two cents won't be too enlightening, as I've not given this topic a lot of thought.  Quite simply, I see games as formal, rules-based systems.  So, I guess I'm a ludologist.  But then, I fully recognize the grand importance of context and story in modern games, so I guess I'm a narratologist, too.

To my simplistic way of thinking, it boils down to this:

o  Abstract games do not need a story, like chess, checkers, Sorry, Trivial Pursuit, poker, Go, etc.

o  Games that involve characters are better off with a story to give meaning to the action.

That's it!

The more abstract the game, the less the need for a story to tie it all together.  But once you add actual characters to the game -- especially human characters -- there's something hardwired in us that makes us want a story to give context to the action.  It's not required by the game.  But it's desired by the player.  Stories, when characters are involved, satisfy us in a primal way that Joseph Campbell can explain much better that I (and I'm not referring to The Hero with a Thousand Faces specifically, Campbell wrote other books that covered this topic that are lesser known, like Myths, Dreams, Religions).

Bottom-line, I see this debate as a pointless distraction that has pulled a lot of smart minds into its depths.  In effect, there is no conflict between the two camps.  The ludology camp is perfectly correct, and how this can be argued is beyond comprehension.  However, modern, realistic games with characters absolutely work better as narratives.  We all love good stories, and games may eventually be a great medium for stories.

Am I wrong?  I don't see how I can be.

Digital distribution is on the way, in a big way

I was interviewed last week by Paul Hyman of The Hollywood Reporter, for his weekly column appearing today, delving into the oncoming wave that is digital content distribution, a la Steam, and new contender on the block, Game xStream.

There's a lot of resistance to digital distribution because of the way Valve handled it with Half-Life 2, which even today continues to annoy more than its fair share of paying customers.  Definitely, there are kinks to be worked out, but rather than condemn digital distribution based on Steam alone, I think it has a bright future.  And if anything, it may be one of the most promising ways for independent developers to bootstrap themselves, and bypass the entire publisher/retailer model, which is closed to most indies.

I have a strong belief that digital distribution is about to catch on like Jar-Jar bashing.  Or, more seriously, like CDs did after Myst hit the scene in the early 90's.

Sure, we all hate only authentication, but that's not an inherent feature of online distribution.  Online distribution, at it's core, is merely a way to buy a game without having to go to a store.  That's it.  Steam has given everyone the impression that it also means an online tether used as copy protection.  But that's something else entirely, and has unfortunately given online distribution a bad name.

3D Realms choose to work with Game xStream because their service is not only highly flexible, meaning that a whole list of features can be either used or not, but because it allows what in my opinion is the most important feature of all, and one that Steam does not support:  A player can buy a game, and within minutes start playing it, without needing to download the entire game.  For example, I can start downloading the Doom 3 demo -- one of the most content intense games currently available -- and within six minutes I'm playing it as if I have the full game, racing like a madman through the opening level, while the game continues to download itself in the background.  (You can not catch up to where new content isn't available.)

This single feature makes digital distribution truly viable for the mass gamer market, because it satisfies the desire to play the game right away (or nearly so).  Without this single feature, you'd need to wait an hour to many hours to begin playing, and that sours the impulse desire of buying and playing right away.

I've been on record for saying that I didn't think digital distribution would ever catch on for the triple-A games, because I didn't think people wanted to wait for massive downloads, but Game xStream jumps this hurdle.  And another nice thing is that there's no effort by the developer at all.  No need to order content in a certain way.  The process is completely transparent to developers.  That cannot be underestimated as a selling point in getting Game xStream (or similar systems) accepted by publishers, and developers.

The answer to "Why?"

A good industry friend of mine is trying to start a new studio with some well known developers.  He wrote to me:

Scott, I've been making the rounds, pitching that idea for a new development studio -- where we retain the IP.  Not an easy sell -- but no one has officially passed yet.  Everyone asks -- "Why do you care so much about owning the IP?"  I say, "So I can someday sell it, like 3D Realms!"

I replied back to him with the following:

Heh heh, that's so funny of them to ask that question. Like, duh! Owning an IP...

o Gives a studio clout and leverage.
o The ability to better control their future.
o Much better company value.
o And a way to cash in on that value without having to sell the company.

BTW, it's not just enough to maintain IP ownership. You must also...

o Maintain control over the final game, not allowing the publisher to control the design.
o Maintain approval over marketing, so that the brand is not misrepresented.
o Do not give away anything but game publishing rights (keep rights to other media exploitation, and merchandising rights). If the publisher insists on certain rights of this type, then they must commit to exploiting these rights (i.e. merchandising), and if they do not have something in motion by the release of the game, then the rights revert. Another thing is to only give them rights of this kind directly associated with the released game, and not the IP overall.
o Do not give them the right to more than one sequel, and even then make that a right to match option, not a guaranteed right.

If they ask that dumbass question again, turn it right back at them: "Why do you want to own the IP?" Watch 'em squirm.