The Future of Gaming

nvembar writes: "The International Game Developers Association has the text of the lead designer at ION Storm, Harvey Smith's keynote address. In it he addresses "high fidelity similulations" entering games, making them more flexible and realistic. It's an interesting read on the future of gaming."

Comments

A friend was talking about

[trilucid]

this sort of thing with me the other day... he just quit his job as a programmer with a large accounting software maker to go to work for a gaming company. They're working on new tech for MMRPGs these days.

We had a rather *long* conversation about new stuff coming down the pipe, wherein we discussed different models for the I.T. infrastructure to support this sort of thing. Basically, we ended up going back and forth on the merits of p2p tech when it comes to reducing primary server loads and increasing playability.

The biggest obstacle we could see at the moment is (of course) still the latency on a p2p network. While users with high-bandwidth connections would whiz along fine, those on modems would have a tough go of things. Another point we covered was the continuing advances in PC power we're seeing (Moore is still right ;-] ), and how this relates to the ability to offload a bunch of the world computation to discrete units (each gamer's PC). In this model you'd use spare cycles on your own box to perform calcs for other portions of the environment.

The problem with that, of course, is that gamers will always want to play with the highest detail, color depth, etc setting as possible. This would tend to "max out" most gamers' boxes, reducing that particular advantage of the p2p structure.

What sort of thoughts do others around here have about this stuff? C'mon, I need some ammo to go back to my friend with ;-]. I just *can't* let him keep winning every argument we have about this stuff...

Re:A friend was talking about

[The Cat]

Before approaching publishers, be fully prepared.

..to be turned down. Don't waste your time.

If you want them to hire you to develop games for them, bring several demos of different kind of games your team created. Do not just do PC games - the PC is a minor segment of the overall game business today.

..and the only segment that doesn't require an upfront five-figure investment, in addition to the thousands of man-hours you'll need to invest in order to produce "several" game demos.

You need to make demos for Game Boy and PlayStation as well (NOT Xbox!). It's kind of a chicken-and-egg Catch-22 dilemma - you can't develop games for consoles until you have a contract, and you can't get a contract unless you develop games for consoles - it's not easy but you can find a way.

Don't waste your time. Make a really good PC game and publish it yourself. Forget the Byzantine publisher agreement submission routine. Even if you somehow luck out and manage to get an agreement, you've just signed away all of your value in the product and 85% of the gross.

If you want them to publish your game, you need to finish the game first.

I have a better idea. Walk in with 50,000 unit sales and a pre-written agreement signed off by *your* attorney. If nobody signs it, sell another 50,000 units and retire.

If you're going to invest 30,000 man-hours to develop a game, why would you go sign it over to some other company?

I recommend you bring them several finished games, in different genres and for different hardware formats.

Oh, come on. Do you hear yourself? You're talking about hundreds of thousands of man-hours here. Don't bring them anything. Build the game. Sell it. Use the proceeds to build another. Sell that. Repeat.

The economics of brick and mortar computer game publishing are broken. It isn't possible to make money, because the shelf space is too expensive, the development costs are too high and the market is too small (right now). The publishers will make it your responsibility to solve this problem before they publish your game, and the only way you can solve the problem is to give them a gargantuan percentage of the sales. It is a waste of time.

Do not just bring PC games - the PC is not the #1 gaming platform. And the Xbox is not the #1 console. And also bring several demos of other games you're working on. Maybe nobody will publish your game, but they might hire you to develop a game for them, if they like your work.

Sure. Bring an arcade game while you're at it. Cabinets aren't that expensive. Let's see. $20K for each of three console licenses, 400,000 man-hours to build several completed games, and $10,000 per pitch to each publisher in materials, travel and time. For this investment (several million dollars, in all likelihood), the publisher will *think about* giving you 15%, but you'll probably get turned down.

When you have prepared your finished games and demos, and you have the contact information at the game companies, call and find out who is in charge of receiving submissions (if you are looking for publishing) or who is in charge of hiring developers.

Also known as the "Search for the Appropriate Wastebasket"

At my last job, there was no one person in charge of hiring developers. Each producer was in charge of hiring developers - which means you might need to pitch your services to 10-20 guys at a large publishing company. It might be best to do a mass mailing, followed up by selective visits.

After an unbelievable amount of effort and time invested (while your demo gets more and more dated and no money is coming in), you might have a game that makes back the royalty advance on bargain-bin sales or a $40K/year job testing setup programs.

If you want to make games, just make games. If you want to negotiate publishing deals, get a law degree and a phone headset. Before submitting to a publisher, have a nice large number of unit sales. At the end of the day, there are few cynical publisher responses to solid unit sales. The statement "50,000 units sold in six months" tends to shut the "yeah but" crowd up.

As always, YMMV.

Simulationism vs. Gameplay

[Bud Dwyer]

The bottom line: Is a better world model and more detailed graphics going to make the game better to play? I know plenty of people who still play the original Doom, despite the fact that it's graphics are blown away by its antecedents, such as Quake III. Why? Gameplay. Quake III is an awful game, despite the graphics. Quake III could be photorealistic and get 600 fps on my P3, but that wouldn't make it a good game. If you want a photorealistic, simulationist game, take a step outside. You could probably use some sun, anyway.

Is that a problem, or a benefit though?

[mindstrm]

Is a proximity mine with a strong magnet not cabable of such a feat in real life? is it not at least somewhat realistic.

I witness Urban Terror - Rommel.. this map has a number of interesting locations that possibly the designer did not intend for people to reach.. but through, say, standing on another player's shoulders, you can reach them. This is not unrealistic.. it simply requires teamwork.
Now.. using the shotgun to 'launch' someone really high... that's not realistic.. but still.

It's exactly this mix of things that can make a good game GREAT. Witness Streetfighter 2... yes, it was well designed... but was everything in it intended? Some of the combinations? The timing that made certain combinations of movements unbeatable? I know in later games they were intentional.... There were also a few 'elite' tricks with a few characters.. essentially bugs in the game, but they simply made it that much more interesting.

I think a realistic game engine MUST allow for things the game designer didn't intend.