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.

Crap

[Red Moose]

No, the future of gaming is when people like Romero, Carmack and the rest of the talentless (regarding GAMEPLAY) cesspool-of-patch-release inhabitants quit the crap and stop making games like Quake 3, etc., . It's a real cop-out to say "it's multiplayer only" and therefore they don't need to bother making a half-decent game but just make a fancy 3D engine to sell.

Deus Ex was a GREAT game, and has a lot of factors that you won't find in big name releases; how about the incessant crap from Romero and Daikatana? and it turned out the less hyped game whupped it and most other games of 2000 collective asses.

End the tyranny of arcade shoot-em-ups! Death to the FPS and bring back a decent PLOT structured game to the PC!

How about C&C Renegade or whatever it is. It's another FPS, just like ANY other standard fare shootemup, but woohoo you can blow up a stealth tank or an obelisk of Nod because it's in C&C land so that obviously makes it the "biggest" game of the year.............fucking cretins. And Peter Molyneux and that 15 year old bloke from Theme Park have gone nuts. Black & White was a big tamagotchi, and this Republic just stinks of utter un-gameness.

Fuck this, I'm off to play Speedball 2. Wake me when Speedball Arena comes out - now THAT will be the way future games will go.

This is believable

[Jucius Maximus]

This is a report that I am willing to believe. The idea of "entering games, making them more flexible and realistic" seems plausable because WARREN SPECTOR is working at ION Storm.

For those unaware, Spector is the genius behind the Ultima Underworld games as well as System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex. If anyone can bring true entertainment and flexibility into next generation computer games, Spector is the man.

This is also ironic because Spector's previous development house, Looking Glass Entertainment, had to fold because Eidos couldn't prop them up with necessary short term cash ... probably because they gave all their money to ION Storm for Daikatana development. And now Spector is a leading figure there. This is an interesting turn of events indeed.

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.

Re:Is that a problem, or a benefit though?

[Alien54]

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

Precisely the point. In that case, I would have made the mines sufficiently small or narrow or rounded that they would have been a precarious ledge at best.

but a very large world with lot of possibilities would allow the flexibility that you had with the old paper and pencil games, where you at least had a referee to judge to the long term consequences. Or to take advantadge of the possibilities that were opened up.

To some extent, some of the problems you have with games like everquest comes when you have people running around looting stuff from other people, without an easy place of safety at hand.

I wonder what would happen if social stations were handed out more at random instead of having to come up just through the levels. The equivalent of "You are 13 years old, and have reached Manhood. You are a member of the Royal House of Saud, one of 5,000 plus people running the Kingdom." In this case, you are rich, but you have political responsibilities as well. Don't mess up!

The advantadge of a world of truly huge size, as mentioned above, is that you could have a thousand such kingdoms to be affiliated with, and yet you could travel elsewhere if someone really messed up the kingdom or the war went badly.

but now we are getting into the specifics of a game design

Re:The future of gaming...

[Jubedgy]

Well, not the corner of game developers I watch...Bliizard Entertainment certainly seems to be doing well...every single title since warcraft 2 (maybe even warcraft) has been a wild success, and sold an amazing amount for its time period...Diablo2, for instance, had something like 2 million units pretty close to the release date (it had some huge number of pre orders). What's 2*10^6 * 50? one hundred MILLION dollars...and a significant number of people also bought the $35 expansion...

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:gPH2eeM6r70:w ww.diabloii.net/+diablo+2+sales+figures&hl=en

"Guinness, Anyone? - Gaile [20:38:PST]

The 2002 Edition of the Guinness Book of World Records includes two pretty remarkable entries:

Battle.net is listed as the World's Largest Free On-Line Gaming Service. The entry features a lovely image of the Sorceress, and states that since opening in 1997, more than 8.2 million active accounts log more than six million games daily. Peak concurrent usage tops more than 210,000 players per day.

Diablo II is listed as the Fastest Selling Computer Game, having sold more than one million copies within the first two weeks of being released in June 2000, and with 2.75 million sold worldwide. (Yes, both figures are lower then the true sales figures, but hey, even then it made the book!) Additionally, they cite Diablo as having sold in excess of 2.3 million copies since its release in 1997.
Thanks to Prysym for the note."

That's just diablo 2! Then you can factor in starcraft, the starcraft expansion, diablo 1, even the warcraft series. Warcraft 3 is going to sell extremely well too it looks like, and the new game, World of Warcraft, will probably provide an assured source of monthly income for the company (assuming these sales figures continue).

"Your game is going to be late, overbudget, buggy and outdated, or really, really short." Late, sure, but that's np...later and better is better than never. Overbudget? Maybe, depends how realistic you planned it. Buggy? there may be a few bugs...Starcraft was extremely late but also 1. hardly buggy at all and 2. very VERY well balanced. Was it outdated? sure a few RTS's used 3d engines (Total Annihilation for ex.), but it's still wildly popular even today, years after its release. It may even out do quake 1 for longevity (depends when starcraft 2 is released, hehe). As for shortness, well...depends on the game type...Quake 3 single player is extremely short...but it's not supposed to be played for that. Max Payne is also short (it took me ~15 hours to beat the first difficulty level...didn't bother doing New York Minute or the other ones after I finished) but it's single player only so that's less acceptable (but it was so fun to play I didn't really care).

So...what? imho the future of gaming is rosy for the companies that 'get it'...electronic darwinism or something...As for consoles well, I don't follow consoles at all so I don't really care what happens to 'em...

--Jubedgy

Re:Ion Storm.

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Haven't all their games flopped miserably despite all the hype?

No. Dominion3 failed utterly and completely, but then again it was just a failed game which ION bought the rights to when the previous developers went bankrupt. Diakatana failed miserably despite all the hype, time, and expense. Deux Ex did quite well and was critically hailed, earning many many "game of the year" honors, despite being not-so-hyped. Anachronox was apparently pretty run-of-the-mill, but it barely got any hype at all.

You, like many people, are unfairly painting all of ION Storm with the brush of Diakatana. Of course, John Romero--project leader for Diakatana (which was actually really called John Romero's Diakatana)--was the founder of ION Storm, and the reason ION got so much hype and publicity and money in the first place. And Diakatana was not just a flop but an apocalyptic fiasco: they plowed something like $50 million and 4 years (after promising it would only take 8 months) into a shockingly mediocre game, all whilst buying the top floors of a lavish skyscraper to serve as their development house, and even once causing their entire programming teams to resign en masse.

But Deus Ex was probably the best game of 2000. One reason for the diparity is that ION Storm actually had three completely seperate teams in seperate cities, so Deux Ex and Diakatana were really developed by the same company in name only.

Make 16-Bit games again!?

[Maul]

Seriously, all these 3D games are great and all, but nothing beats pulling out the Super Nintendo and playing the 16-Bit Final Fantasy games, or pulling out the Genesis and playing some Sonic.

People forget what made these games great when they start focusing on making the next 3D Engine.
It ultimately wasn't the graphics.

Re:future is free gaming

[Spankophile]

Yeah right - and in a similar light, the low cost and high quality of digital video cameras everywhere will have people producing free movies that rival Hollywood quality.

Gets me to thinking though. Is it a parallel scenario that game-designers seem to just wanna push the eye-candy envelope ignoring aspects of gameplay, as Hollywoord has abandoned thoughtful movies to cranking out dick-flicks, chic-flicks and teen/highschool/first-lay movies?

If so - god help us.

Due Credit

[AlexxKay]

Waren Spector is a very smart man, with many fine accomplishments to his credit. I'm not sure I'd go so far as "genius", but I'll grant that he has a good eye for successful games. I'm looking forward to his next projects quite eagerly.

That said, his involvement with the first Ultima Underworld game was quite small (Origin's liaison with Looking Glass), and his involvement with Thief, while not actually nil, was extremely close to it. And, of course, there were a lot of other people who helped make all these projects happen.

Warren's job includes talking to the press, so his name gets out there a lot, but if you actually pay attention to what he *says*, he's always trying to spread the credit around, because he *knows* that he tends to get way more than he deserves. To call Warren "THE genius behind" [emphasis mine] the games he worked on is both inaccurate, and an insult to the dozens of other brilliant people who contributed to those games.

Warren is certainly due a lot of credit. But you do him (and other readers) a disservice if you try and give him so much more credit than he is due.