Slashdot Mirror
User Created Content is Key for New Games
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that recently Valve Software's Doug Lombardi has stated his strong belief that user created content is a very important part of games in the near future. "'I would argue that it's the biggest component those guys have to get over if they want online to matter.' 'Half-Life 1 was okay as a multiplayer game and Team Fortress Classic was really good, but Counter-Strike kicked both their asses no question. And that came from a kid going to college in Canada and another kid going to high school in New Jersey, who had our code and thought it would be cool to play our game.'"
Don't make a map of your school. Apparently that makes you a threat.
is to give each player their own space and let them custimize it how they want. They can put pictures of their avatar, some fascinating facts about themselves, and maybe have their favorite song playing. They could even link to other players' spaces. I'm not sure what they'd call it, though.
Okay I'm sorry but I'll take TFC over CS any day, that IS in question. Not to mention Science & Industry and Desert Crisis.
How about User Created Weapons. Everyone knows that is why we play the games. It is also important in case some company (cough EA..) decides to buy the rights to real weapons like M16 etc.
U R in amaze of twisty little pasages, all a like
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuoOosTdFiY
Absolutely amazing graphics, still remember the shock other people had when Sony unveiled this game at GDC. There were a hell of a lot of developers who went back home after GDC and realized how far behind their level editing tools and rendering engines were.
Can't wait for this to be released later this year.
And it's not the near future it's already happened. Look at Quake. I played that game for years because of some user created content called Team Fortress.
I am glad that companies are starting to think about this stuff though. It would be nice if more games had good mod kits when they are released.
Between moddable multiplayer games, MMO's with player created structures, areas, and interactables (vendors and such), and any game with comprehensive map editors being around for ages, is this even a question?
I'm pretty sure we've all known that without a massive potential for replayability in the original title, the only thing that keeps a game alive long term is the user created interactions and content (barring companies that keep ongoing updates and patch, like Cavedog did with TA back in the day [although that also had user created content]).
Ice Cream has no bones.
I think games are getting much better about the offerings of their mod(ding) tools. With many of the older games it was simple level editors, now with games like NWN2 you get access to much of the underlying engine allowing mods as simple as maps or as complex as adding whole new graphics, game rules and more. And it's much easier than most non-programmers would think.
Are they just realizing this now? Hell, I remember modding Wolfenstein3D when I was younger. I made a Castlevania mod, if you were wondering (and I know you were).
Point being, user-generated content has always been a big part of all the best PC games; FPS's, Strategy games, you name it. When users can mod the game, they become attached to it and it develops a much more cohesive and less fickle user-base and expands the longevity of the product.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
So obvious. So very very obvious.
:( ..... trash.
The more open a game is to modding, the more tweakable a gadget is, the more freedom you have to alter and personalize a device - the better it is for everyone. (the people that love modding spend their free time releasing new content (usually for free). people that aren't advanced enough to tinker with the software/device can easily obtain modifications and hacks other people created. the companies making said devices or software arguably sell more devices/software because more people see how many neat things it can do, before and aftermarket.)
Cell phones are especially pathetic in terms of personalization.. sure, you can throw some midis mp3s or games on them, but what about customizing the gui? Usually you only get a handful of color schemes, at best, to choose from. I hate seeing hardware limited by software. This was my major disappointment factor with Apple when I was a Mac tech back in the days of 7.x/8/8.5.x. Superior hardware, inferior software. OSX built on BSD changed this, but soonafter, imo, Intel maimed it.
my samsung sgh-e635 is balls... balls + sacks... you cant even upload games to it
What I would like to know:
If Valve wants user input so badly, when why didn't they listen to their users of CS 1.6 then? Valve was retarded and decided to put in-game ads into CS 1.6, and they don't fully support it any longer.
It sounds like they want the users to give them the good ideas to build the game off of so they can sell more copies. I don't think that most users want to give their work away to Valve for nothing. They'd rather give it to the gaming community as a whole for use. Maybe Valve should truly accecpt input from users and have a set price they pay out to those who submit ideas that are actually used. Wait, nevermind... they could change the ideas just enough to claim originality and then not pay.
Sounds like the user-created aftermarket is still the best alternative.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that engaging, high-quality content is key for new video games.
If that content comes from users, great. If it comes from paid professionals, great.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Screw Quake; I grew out of FPS before that even hit the market. In my day, user-created content was huge in Doom, Doom II and Warcraft II too.
Yes I agree with this visionary. Why we could create a text-based interface, and let users
experience the content first, perhaps gaining "levels" or "experience" (stay with me
here, I know it's crazy) and when just for instance the users gain the topmost
level they could extend the game for others. I'd call it the Multiple User Dimension.
It would be awesome.
If you really want to go crazy, you could let people have a graphical interface and exchange
in-game goods for user created content on standard templates. You know, shirts, pants, vehicles,
that sort of thing. Heck that's such an innovative idea I think just everyone would join and
so we should just call it "there". That's it "there", I mean there's only one because it
would effectively be everyone's second life!
Wow that guy's crystal ball is working overtime.
...to customize Dance Dance Revolution to include Britney Spears or Fall Out Boy? Oh... wait... (bad Konami. bad.)
Every day I am amazed at how well console system do especially now that they cost as much as a decent laptop. When I was a kid they were great but as I got older I wanted more involved games especially MMO's. Consoles did not offer this and even now it is only sub-par. The controls are preset barely customizable and the lack of hotkeys drives me nuts. I did not own my first PC until 95 (Was actually a PPC) which I used for playing MUDS/Mtrek mainly which were significantly more complex than any console I had played before. Actually learning how to write scripts in TinTin++ was a blast.
As the cost of computers came down more and more people have bought computers and we constantly see quotes concerning the increase of households that have 1+ computers I have no idea if the original Nintendo had more market penetration than lets say Play Station 2. Has the console market grown or shrunk over the last 20 years? I assume it has grown but is its rate exponentially larger than the PC market, about the same or far smaller? Are the amount of game titles being released increasing or decreasing? Basically there has really been nothing in the console market to hold my interest in its welfare with the exception of "God of War" but I am not going to pay hundreds of dollars to play just one title.
The customization available in PC games IMHO makes them a much better and barely more expensive platform. In addition you can actually use your computer for other important stuff "Like surfing Porn".
Tell that to Carmack and all the people who STILL play Doom, Doug. Not to mention that Half-life technically is Quake 1 engine on steroids, so in a way, without him earning his ferrari you wouldn't own yours. (And it doesn't matter if you own one :P)
User created content means more new content (which the developers don't have to spend time/money on) for the userbase to play. How can it not be a good thing to have?
And then there's games like the in-development Pirates of the Burning Sea which actually has an entire system set up for the creation of user created content, run mostly by the users themselves. There's a whole bunch of ships that the users have made that have been put in the official game. The whole idea of the playerbase being connected and involved with multiple aspects of the game is, in my opinion, an awesome idea.
Disclaimer: I am a self-admitted PotBS fan. This post may be slightly biased.
If each player modifies a multiplayer game so much who else will be able to play with them? Or would want to?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I've said for years that the feature that made the original Doom so popular wasn't the 3d graphics or deathmatch, but rather the fact that people could easily make their own levels.
The industry focused on the graphics (which were remarkable for the day), and the format (FPS) thinking that those were the keys to popularity, and neglected customizability.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
They're out of ideas.
I perfer TFC to CS, it's much faster paced and has more strategy than CS. The fact that everyone is even (give or take gun options) makes for an interesting game but the rock/paper/scissors feel of TFC is just more interesting long term for myself.
Maybe I just perfer capture the flag than 3 minutes of creeping around. But I don't think CS and TFC are ccomparable on equal terms as they are like chalk and cheese.
I like muppets.
This is why Starcraft is so awesome. The last time I played an official Blizzard map while not on a mod was ages ago.
The submitter left out a very important word in his summary. This article is about console games. The first sentence in the article is:
He's saying that consoles are way behind general purpose computers in online play. One of the big advantages that computers have always had is customizability and user-generated maps and mods. The online experience of consoles will remain a poor shadow of the computer game ecosystem until they enable and allow the players to share in the extension of their games.
This is a big reason why I haven't bought a full-size console since the Atari 2600. Two years after I got the Atari I also got a Texas Instruments 99/4A. I loved the ability to do wild things like save games, download levels from online bulletin boards, and even program simple games myself. Nowadays I enjoy playing Use Map Settings games in Starcraft and have created several maps of my own. That game is ten years old but still megafun due to the user-generated maps.
AlpineR
If it comes from those who have talent, time, and give it away, no charge. Otherwise it's a no go.
If you want to see some of the incredible things being done with game customization, come check out FPSBanana. There are some truly talented individuals there who do incredible things.
The ability of users to create custom content (in addition to the three-platform releases) was a huge key to Neverwinter Nights's success.
While the official campaigns were great, all the longtime NWN players I know have spent countless hours playing on user-created and -hosted persistent worlds and user-created campaigns from places like The Vault. I can't think of many other games that are still being bought and played this long after their releases, and the ones that are probably fall into this category as well.
Whirled seems to go exactly in that direction, where the content created by its players is the king. Some games have meaning by themselves, but if your game is essentially what you and other players adds to it, possibilities are endless.
And that came from a kid going to college in Canada and another kid going to high school in New Jersey
Haha. He says that as if being from Canada or New Jersey is akin to being in the special olympics or something.
So, game developers are finally getting the memo. When you build a server that allows players to create and upload content like blogs/flikr/whatever in the game setting and affect the game environment, then you will have a successful game. I guess I'm strictly talking about MMO's, not modable non-persistent games like HL or CS.
Something like Second Life, but it is debatable whether they even have a userbase. But, as I understand it, it is just a big 3d scripting VRML demo with all user content.
Compared to something like Ultima Online (which is still going!) where players could place houses on the 2d terrain and populate it with a plethora of decorations.
Of course, the problem with both of these is the abuse. Players scripting Flying Penises in second life. UO house break ins, looting, etc. These are just two examples, and the things that make the games great are also its greatest weaknesses.
So, no matter what dynamic content people can add to a game, it will be exploited.
Not to be a complete cynic, here, but this can be translated as:
"Unpaid labor making product for you to sell can help your bottom line."
I don't think that's entirely revolutionary.
Nor is it a criticism, either of the sentiment or the fact of it. User-generated content is a fantastic way to give a game legs. I've played lots of it, dabbled in making it (not very well), and am all for games including the tools necessary to foster it. Especially on consoles, which are so far behind PCs in this regard they're not even running the same race. No one's getting ripped off, since the people who make the best content enjoy doing what they're doing, and they didn't need to buy some enterprise license of the engine to realize their vision.
But it's still not a terrifically insightful statement.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
One of the reasons SWG was so freakin barren in regards to anything to do is because the expectation was for users to create their own content. Raph Koster wanted to make a sandbox and then have the players create the cities and PVP fight for the rest of the content. I hope to God nobody ever expects that level of user created content to carry a game again.
Designing maps for a FPS, that is good.
Designing mods to extend a game, that is good.
Not providing anything to do except have 'users create their own content' is bad.
-- toolie
There has been a lot of talk about more immersive storylines in games lately. Arguably, it's immersive storylines along with great gameplay that made Blizzards Warcraft and Starcraft series so popular. When you care about the characters and the story, it's easier to tune out the repetative aspects of gameplay. Nobody wants to go through the motions of building yet another base, but if it's the last hope of your little group, it might not be such a bother.
The problem is that stories are a *re-telling* of past events. You can't tell a story beforehand. Read up on narrative theory if you want to understand this. I began to understand it when I took a screenwriting class. Any really good story, whether it's a fish story, an anecdote about your day, a classic novel, a cutscene, or a good movie, has a good narrative structure.
So what is the narrative structure? It's the three part act. First of all, you have a protagonist, the character that we identify with. He's living in his normal, everyday world. That's act one. We get enough background to understand who he is and the world as he sees it. Imagine Luke as an adopted son of moisture farmers. Then, some event happens where the hero can't get back to his normal, everyday life. This is the beginning of the second act. Luke's Aunt and Uncle are killed, so he can't continue living under their house. He either has to take over the family business, or hook up with weird old Ben Kenobi and whatever madness he's chasing. Either way, it's a big change, and tomorrow is going to be totally different from this morning.
So in the second act, the hero starts to confront some of the challenges he faces in his new life. Eventually, there is a 'showdown', where the hero encounters the antagonist, the final, major obstacle preventing him from obtaining a new status quo. In Luke's case it was hooking up with the rebel alliance and beginning his Jedi path. His new 'everyday life' was becoming a pilot for the rebellion and a serious Jedi student.
Star wars is a little cosmic in scope, so let me relate it to an everyday anecdote. You call your buddy at 6 PM and tell him what happened to you that day. You got up to drive to work. Everyday, normal situation. On the way, you get in an accident which wrecks your car. Suddenly, you're in the second act. This isn't a normal day, and you can't just go back to driving to work. You have to figure out a new status quo. You face various obstacles -- dealing with the other jerk who hit you, dealing with your insurance, getting a rental call, dealing with your arsehole boss who might fire you. You overcome these various obstacles, get your rental car, and then it's a new status quo -- driving your rental car to work, shopping for a new car in the evenings.
Now, what does this have to do with video games? Well, if you want to have a really good story, an immersive story, one that makes the players care about "what happens next", you have to *know in advance* the rest of the story. As a video game designer, you have to plan out a really good story, and implement it in gameplay and cutscenes. Obviously, this takes money and development time. Also, this limits the open-endedness of the game, since you have to build the story into the game *in advance*. Storytelling is a strong AI problem, so we aren't likely to get computer-generated stories in the near future.
The way to solve this is to make a totally player-controllable world. I don't mean where you are an all-powerful wizard and can do anything; but where you have much more freedom to build and invest in your world, over and above killing monsters and collecting treasures. You have to have time invested in the world. I'm talking about building a castle, controlling tax-paying towns, forging alliances with other players for protection, backstabbing them, negotiating with others, launching campaigns against more powerful threats. Introducing human relationships with investment in the virtual world into the game creates storytelling opportuni
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
It'll never happen. Allowing users to create their own content and distribute it to other players would completely destroy the ability of game companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft to overcharge for half-assed map packs, expansion modules, downloadable songs, etc.
If companies want to have more user generated content for their games, particularly when they themselves release "for sale" expansion modules ala the Neverwinter Nights series, then they must allow the copyrights to remain with the creators AND they have to give the creators a piece of the action when their content is featured in the "for sale" download area. The problem with Neverwinter Nights and other games is that they state in the license agreement that any content that you produce for their game becomes their property when you distribute it and they can re-distribute it as much as they want and even charge for it without giving you any royalties. If the companies want good user generated content then they must allow users to earn money off of their content and maintain rights to the content that they (the users) create.
We asked the three top consoles, what's the key for new games:
:(
XBOX360: Well, hot detailed graphics are definitely a key.
PS3 [looks in question list]: Hey! That's my line, you jerk! Anyway.. Blue Ray's a key too. You can make bigger games on Blue Ray to fit all the hot graphics, so I can have hotter graphics than any of you guys.
Wii and XBOX360: Yea.. Sure.. [chuckling].
XBOX360: Micro-transactions are a key as well. We sell gamers crippled games, and make them pay to buy assets. It's kinda like Scientology: by the time you understand it's all a bunch of bull, you've already paid, so you gotta keep playing and paying. Aaa.. and... and.. it also makes gaming more engaging, and bitter, just like real life is.
PS3: User content is also key. You allow the gamers to create anything they want in a game, guns, cars, roads... Wait.. this kinda doesn't fly with transactions...
XBOX360: Shhhh... damn it! Another key is online gameplay. I integrate all games with consistent online experience, which builds a great community of gamers.
PS3: Me too!
XBOX360: You too what?
PS3: I build a clone of your service by integrating a clone of Second Life in my clone exp.. I mean core experience.
XBOX360: Oh.. right...
Wii: A key in new games, and old games, is fun an inventive gameplay, you guys. You shouldn't forget that.
XBOX360 and PS3: Hahahaha. Idiot...
Wii: And new fun ways to interface with game with innovative sensor controller!
XBOX360: Hahahaha, you're making our day, Wii.
PS3: [hides the 6-axis controller behind his back] Hu-hu-hu
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.
In the near future? User created content has been important for quite some time. Maybe before big-name games first started linking to mod sites from their homepages, and bundling some of the best user-created content in expansion packs, this could qualify as a bold prediction. But now? Come on.
Mods have always been important for at least the FPS scene. Quake wouldn't have been the game that it was if ten-thousand little crappy mods hadn't been made by ten-thousand little neophyte programmers cutting their teeth on it. Counterstrike's first incarnation, as far as I can tell, was the "Navy Seals" mod for Quake; Counterstrike itself originated as a HL mod, of course.
But the phrase "user-created content" for some reason doesn't make me picture in my mind mods. It makes me think of "games" like Second Life. Only the highest-order mods--separate games--ever significantly change the fundamental engine upon which a game is built. Would all the Quake skins that every Quake clan made be considered "user-generated content"? The maps they made? What about the mods for mods? The models and sounds for those mods?
I think, frankly, that user-generated content has _always_ been key for FPSes, at least.
I'm curious.....why, oh why did valve take a big "steaming" dump all over CS by integrating steam?
The game SUCKED HARD after that......
(and no, I didn't bunnyhop)
Actually, as far as my memories of Doom go, it was the fact that you could play multiplayer at all. Other prior FPS games didn't have this ability to my knowledge.
It seems to me as tho some developers such as eGenesis already support user designed content. Take a look at Atitd (www.atitd.com) as an example.
I worked on a HL2 mod. It was terribly frustrating.
...Right? While I was active at least (I've since uninstalled HL2, will be waiting for TF2) not only was there no way to download mods via Steam (which simply would have been nice) but there was no way to even know a mod existed unless someone told you or you specifically when to read about them. User created games existed completely separately.
On one hand you had things like the SDK, all this great code laying right there for you to learn with and make your mod happen. On the other-hand you have all this code in C++ and on the mod forums you'd find 'conceptual' and artistic types begging for a programmer. A lot of modders are much more hobbyist then programmer and things like C++ scare the hell out of them. A lot of mods can be scripted, and while you can undoubtedly do a lot more with raw code, you'll lose a lot of potentially talented tinkers (I've played some of their games, they can be good too).
While Valve was busy shooting itself in the feet they rolled out this really great thing: Steam. What an awesome why for people to read about and install new mods.
Valve did try to support the mod community. The Valve team played a public match against the mod team and even mentioned the mod on their website. You knew they wanted the mod community to succeed.
I think in the end I'd guess Valves team thought too much like programmers. HL2MP was built as an example, as such it immediately turned serious players away from HL2 MP. I'd imagine Valve thought opening the SDK would be enough to encourage the community to build high-quality mods that would attract the players, kind of a chicken before the egg thing.
Quack, quack.
You sir, are an idiot. TFC > CS anyday. But you're right about the user generated content. So I'm torn.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
When I think of user-created content, my first thought is the Sims. Our whole household kept fiddling with it, ignoring the game itself, but fascinated at the custom-designed objects we could use. I even learned the scripting language to create items custom in behavior, not just appearance.
Custom items for the Sims is still a cottage industry. Check out Homeslice: http://www.simslice.com/thesims2/ts2objects.htm
just for a starter example.
Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer single player games. I have the impression that today all that is important to a game is the graphics and FPS rate. Where is the next Grim Fandango? I want a new rpg-like game that is not Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, with a good story.
I worked on the HL2CTF team and began coding a CSS based mod that would have been CTF. I'd have stuck with the project if I didn't see first hand what an uphill battle ANY HL2 mod would be.
..possibly.. interesting looking mods do: experience.
The core team for HL2CTF had a good deal of experience, they didn't pull the long wait and I can explain to you *why* so many
The lead programmer for the HL2CTF mod was experienced, in fact last time we spoke he was working for SOE programming for console based games on the then upcoming PS3. This and the fact that the art assets they required where based on the existing assets (even the additions were intended to fit into the HL2 world) really helped them get out the door much earlier then many others.
But a moderately high-level programming language is a HUGE barrier to entry for many amateur or would-be amateur mod developers. I spent a good deal of time working on my own fork of the mod, programming CSS weapon behavior and including triggers for brass animation and what-not. Mods essentially exist based on 3 frameworks: 1) SDK (everything starts there and even silly things subvert the resource files and get programmed directly here) 2) the aforementioned Resource files and the resource forks, technically you should be able to manipulate a lot of the look and feel of the game here, I pulled my first full conversion from HL2MP to CSS resources solely using the right fork and reworking the resource files (which is how I got involved) 3) graphics assets/modeling.
That understanding becomes increasingly important when you choose to begin a mod for HL2. Learning each becomes somewhat beyond the scope of most, making the development of an amateur mod pretty challenging.
It's easy to put it all on the mod teams, but look around: some games they thrive, some they don't. The difference here was Valve actually had a pretty interesting idea and the ability to make it even more interesting. But they didn't. The mods mostly failed. HL2 MP arrived DOA.
Garry's Mod is somewhat of an anomaly. An interesting and admirable mod, but not quite where I was going. I'd like to see Valve learn from this. I think user generated modding is very powerful. Their approach was so close, but in the end it fell short.
And when I say HL2 MP arrived DOA I mean it was panned. I'd call it a bad game and it was the road-map unfortunately for most mod attempts that followed it. But amateur modders really shouldn't be blamed for their creativity out-reaching they abilities. At the very least make sure your SDK rocks so that every mod built on that will have a strong place to start, not a weak MP with a high learning curve.
Quack, quack.
In high school not only did I create my own levels and enemies for Wolfenstein 3D but I modeled my high school, recreating the tiles, lockers, classrooms and everything. And we played it in school. Later on I recreated my home and the neighboring homes in Quake. Those were the good old days, however, when administrators and teachers wouldn't freak out over nonsense.
As much as I think mods are a great thing for games I tend to have a problem with developers relying on player-created content. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete game as opposed to a shell of a game and then waiting on people to create that content. I don't have the time or inclination to create anything myself. I just don't see it as productive, for me personally. And, unfortunately, the vast majority, upwards of 95% of player created content just isn't very polished. Some of it is passable, but much of it is quite bad, poorly balance, haphazard and quite lacking visually. In some cases I've had the game outright crash or not even start.
Morrowind and Neverwinter Nights had a few decent ones. Some of the Blizzard RTS's had good maps too, but map creation was fairly restricted. Red Orchestra for UT2004 is one of the very few mods I've ever seen that looked truly professional.
In the end I can't help but think that any potential content-creators who are truly skilled and have good game design sense are either developing their own games or are already working in the game industry. They're less likely to be developing mods.
I've found the more freedom there is in mod creation the harder to produce something truly polished. So if a developer is looking to allow player created content I think templates should be part of the package to better ensure that higher standards of quality are maintained.
What exactly are we paying for?
The big problems with games today are development times and costs. The largest chunk of those is in creation of the assets: levels, models, textures, and the like. With ever increasing levels of realism, the problems will only get worse. This is the main reason why Valve is pushing user made content as well as episodic content. That way they can get smaller, cheaper, games out more often. It'll be interesting to see how Episode 2 will turn out (and how long it'll take them to release it). It's three small games (TF2 will have five maps, Portal about 20, and EP2 is about eight hours), for about the price of one, with Valve promising to release more content later. Add in user created content and it's not a bad deal, and certainly better than micro payments, but it I can't help but feel a little cheated when they act like they're counting on it.
Don't Panic.
What the hell is your problem? I said "I think it's one of the most awesome games I've ever seen" and that it convinced me to shell out 900 CHF for a damn console without games. What more praise could I possibly heap on the game? Now put the fuck up and tell me what developers thought the graphics of the game was so awesome! Links. Thank you.
Just look at steam. It's riddled with DRM, all so they can bypass publishers (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
Does anyone remember they banned 40,000 accounts because people let their buddies borrow their copy of HL2? Valve had instituted a MANDATORY registration system when HL2 first came out, just to play single player. If that system ever goes down, there goes your ability to even start HL2.
What valve wants isn't to profit off of a co-operative understanding of user-created content. They want to OWN user created content, lock stock and barrel, and pay the users pennies on the dollar for software that will make millions. That's what they want.
Unfortunately for them, their users will realize this upfront and will avoid their engine. This is why, nearly 3 years after release, projects like natural selection that were supposed to be released when the engine came out are still in development.
Having millions of users connected to a global network and sharing their 3d creations in a virtual world is not very far (examples: Second Life, Croquet). What if these virtual worlds reach a level of sophistication that the interaction, physics and graphics are on par with "normal" video games? wouldn't that be dangerous for game companies? no one would go out and buy the next version of Half Life, because there already be a much better user-generated Half Life out there.
Carmageddon used to be a great example of user-modification extending the life of a game. While SCi never initially intended for user modifications, the game itself was so ideal for it that users started creating new vehicles, environments and other game elements... all with their own unique properties. Several communities were founded entirely for modifying Carmageddon content, long before you had The Sims.
By the time SCi began development on Carmageddon: The Death Race, those who had worked on mods to the earlier games were invited to create content for TDR. (I believe one of the alien models in the final version of the game was one I had created and submitted.)
While it is unlikely console games will ever be truly open to external modification, due to concerns over malicious code, it doesn't mean those looking to create content for that audience are out of luck. There are things like that new Xbox Live Arcade developers club available to anyone looking to design console games as an independent developer. If it's good enough, it may be taken in as an official title available to any end user.
Another option, is to get a copy of Flash and try creating something addictive. It's much easier than it sounds, once you understand the basics. If it's easy to use, entertaining and customizeable, you'll be well on your way to creating a hit.
8==8 Bones 8==8
That's why PCs will always own consoles.
Just compare Oblivion with mods to its vanilla console version.
There are certainly ways to make money off of a ten-year-old game. For one thing, I've bought Starcraft three times in those ten years: once when it was first released for the PC, again when I got a Mac and realized that my first copy was too old to be a hybrid disc, and a third time to run it on a second computer for testing my multiplayer maps.
Also, online Starcraft is played through Battle.net which has banner ads on the chat and game-forming screens. As long as players keep playing they can keep selling adspace.
Even excitebike had a level editor integrated in it that friends could race on user created levels. One of the greatest things about that game I thought. This is by no means a new concept.
I've searched the comments and haven't seen a single mention of one of the more moddable FPS games out there (that is still one of my personal favorites): Operation Flashpoint. GREAT mission and campaign editor. Tools are also freely available for creating new models and huge new environments. People used the tools for everything from minor changes like dynamic weather to complete conversions like RTSes.
Operation Flashpoint's true successor, Armed Assault, was released in Europe in November or December. The U.S. release, named ArmA by Atari, just came out. If you enjoy playing FPSes that encourage teamwork, strive for a decent level of realism, and provide an incredible toolset for user created mods, Armed Assault is right up your alley.
But... What happens if the game companies start trying to profit off of it? Perhaps forcing modders to turn in their ideas for 'approval' and resell them. Personally, I am only responsible for making a few Warcraft II and CivIV/III maps that all pretty much suck. I cannot be considered a modder. I'm not sure what the future holds, but with MS recently distributing 360 dev kits so people can submit games and the like... Just seems like the publishers are looking for a way to net some profits off this stuff. And that could be bad.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...