Game Geek Speak

Wow. People are going crazy with prognostications of the death of every sector of the games industry (downloadable, social games, mobile games, retail) and how unless you are Zynga, it is impossible to make a game and survive.

This is just pure hogwash. (And, please note, I’m going to use some sarcasm and exaggeration in this post because I can’t help it.)

First of all, saying something like, “If you make a Facebook game, you can get rich because Zynga is projected to earn $700 million this year” is totally irrational. Zynga is the #1 game developer on Facebook. Never, ever compare your company with that, unless you have nine-figure venture capital funding–in which case, you are not indie, and you have different problems entirely.

The other half of that is, “If you are not Zynga or making at least $100 million per year, you can’t be successful with a social game.” This is equally as ridiculous.

Now this leads to the “If I can just make 1% of what Zynga makes, I’ll still make $7 million per year!” But that’s the wrong end of the stick when you are doing financial planning. (And that’s another post itself.)

My beef is with setting up very false expectations. This is what makes a “gold rush” insane (read The Madness of Crowds sometime), even when there’s not nearly as much gold as you think because the only company ever being talked about is the #1 company. Pandemonium ensues.

There’s a huge gap between Zynga’s revenue and the #2 company. And that’s the #2 fricken company on all of Facebook! There’s only room for one #1 and one #2. Unless you have the VC funding, why are you even thinking about what they are doing, much less talking about it as if it matters to anyone with less than $100 million in the war chest? Does. Not. Apply.

Hey, I’m just asking for some common sense when talking about the realities of commercial success on Facebook.

The fact is that there are a lot of small and mid-sized game developers making some sweet money on Facebook (and elsewhere). You don’t need a team of 700, like Zynga. Try a team of 30 or 10 or 3. You might find that you can cover costs with a much smaller player base. You won’t have 80 million monthly players, but–like Neo in The Matrix–you won’t need to. (Sorry, possibly obscure reference there in the service of “humor.”)

All I’m saying is that there is more than one way to skin this cat, so everyone stop talking in absolutes about how if you are not Zynga, you can’t be successful, and, therefore, the fad is over, Facebook sucks now, and let’s all go eat worms. If you’re indie, you’re probably small. There’s a big chance you can succeed on Facebook (and elsewhere) because you are nimble and your overhead is low. Yes, you might need to spend money on ads. So does everyone who sells anything. It’s called marketing.

Second of all, no, virality is not dead on Facebook. Spamming is dead, but not virality (aka “word of mouth”). Make a game people want to talk about, and you won’t be impacted by these “draconian” changes. On top of that, Facebook isn’t the only fricken social networking site out there, people! Diversify or die.

Thirdly, you don’t need to host your game on a fricken social networking site at all. There are plenty of games “in the wild” (that big, scary place!) that have millions of monthly active users and rake in money. No, you won’t be able to spam a million people and get 7 figure MAU numbers in a week. Most people, at this point, say, “Oh no! Then you can’t survive! Just quit instead. I’m not Zynga–” *sound of self-inflicted gunshot to the head*

Cheer up. You can survive–and thrive. Just ignore the news about companies that are nothing like yours, and you might find your way.

Lastly, this kind of alarmist hyperbole is just feeding back on itself and creating more hysteria. Please stop, and think!

The economy sucks, and will get worse, but you don’t have to make $700 million a year to be commercially successful. What are your costs of living? Now double that, and make that your goal instead. Gee, that seems to change all the parameters.

Interesting.

There is a really interesting article on Inside Social Games that cautions against using Facebook Credits as a payment method. This is something that I’m trying to reason through in regards to my game.

An example is Amazon gift certificates — you could buy them but there’s always a large amount of remnant value on the card that isn’t used. In an economy like [the Facebook] platform, that will lead to developers never seeing the value even though they created it.

…we all know at this point that Facebook is not that straightforward for distribution — we all have to spend money on distribution. So you’re not just paying 30 percent for payments, you have to spend on top of that for advertising.

Apart from some of the things mentioned in the article, there is one big issue that bothers me: I don’t want to be controlled by outside forces. That’s the reason I don’t work at a company, and I don’t want outside funding. I’m freakin’ independent, ya know?! I want to reap the full benefits of my potential, not give it away after all this hard work.

If I exclusively use Credits for my game and Facebook makes policy changes to either pricing, their fees, or how Credits can be used within an app, my business and livelihood becomes subject to their whims. In my game, the currency is integral to the game design, not just a slapped-on form of payment like a PayPal button. Can I risk that being controlled by a third party who doesn’t have my best interests in mind?

There is a counterpoint article which supports the idea of Facebook Credits as a universal app currency, and the main gist is that, overall, this will increase the market size by way more than the 30% fee. I see the logic there, and that sounds great. But my biggest beef is that I lose so much control over my own product by using Credits.

This feels a lot like the argument in the downloadable games world between relying on portals for profit versus staking out your own chunk of territory on your own website for the long term. I’m really tempted to host my game off of Facebook but use Connect for logins and social features to get the benefits of Facebook’s reach.

One solution might be to accept Credits in exchange for hard currency in-game (a separate currency from Credits). Essentially, this would abstract Credits away and still allow me to control the in-game economy. Then, players would not spend Credits directly in the game, but would only use Credits to fund their in-game account. Would that work? I don’t know.

But it’s a tough call. What would you do?

Update: Tangential, perhaps, but with features such as the new behaviors of the Like button that can be used off of Facebook, it seems more and more compelling to host a game on its own site, because you can still leverage a lot of what makes Facebook such a “viral” platform without being hosted on Facebook.

Trip Hawkins made some great observations about the evolution of technology as it relates to the user experience. His conclusion is that simple and easy will win, and of course nobody can disagree with that.

YouTube simplified the online video world by keeping everything in the browser and not requiring anyone to install or remember anything. Everything users needed was already online waiting for them. When they emailed a video clip, their friend only had to click on it to play and bookmarks made it a snap to use the service again and again.

Simple: check. Convenient: check. Viral: check. Cha-ching: check and check.

Replace “YouTube” with your company and “video” with “games.”

The fact is that the number of people that choose to play games in their browsers will be far greater than the number of people who are willing to download, install, and then fiddle with configurations for an equivalent experience. Maybe this is deployment Darwinism at work?

This won’t happen right away, but the path is clear and things like Google’s Native Client will make the rate of moving everything to the browser even faster.

For you nit-pickers, I do acknowledge that even browser games “download” data, but it’s not the same for the user experience, and that’s what I am referring to here. The user doesn’t need to download, find, and then install the game. There are always exceptions, but that process is a huge barrier for a lot of people.

Here’s a peek into my current game (Spirits of Gaia is on hold).

I put together this title screen from art I commissioned for an old project that never got started, but the game world is similar, so I used it here. I designed the logo. Probably a keeper.

I’m using RedDwarf (Java) for the server and Flex 3 for the client.

The game is sort of playable, which is such a nice feeling. I haven’t had a playable project to work on for at least two years. Must… finish… or… die…!

I’ll pester anyone who will listen/read with more details later.

This question comes up a lot.

No, a lot!

The problem is, it’s not important.

Not important?! you exclaim. Then why do people ask it all the time?

Ok, actually this is a variation on another question: “What programming language should I use to make my game?” Once you’ve made some games, you come to know that it doesn’t matter. Any language will do. What does matter is the end product! Is it fun? Does it run on enough machines to meet your goals? Does it do what you wanted it to do? That’s all that matters.

Technology is a tool, so use whatever language you’d like.

As true as that is, it’s not always true.

The one way that choosing a language does matter is in the context of what you want to accomplish. Is your game downloadable? Or is it meant to be played in a browser? Those are big considerations, and they will have a material effect on what language (and tool set) you choose.

Narrowing things to Flash versus Java (where I have the most experience if you don’t count 10 years of C++), though, the answer is still, “It depends.”

Java and Flash both do downloadable and browser deployment, so let’s assume those factors are equal and are, thus, non-factors.

Do you want to reach the broadest audience or are you more interested in fast rendering and processing?

We all want fast rendering, but I mean does your project need lots of rendering muscle to succeed? Not just, “Oh it looks so cool.” but “Oh, this is not playable!” It’s got to really matter to the end product (because, ultimately, the end product is all that matters).

Java can render using hardware and is way faster than ActionScript, so it will have more power than Flash. A great browser library for Java is PulpCore. The feel of Flash with the speed of Java (although, it doesn’t do hardware rendering that I know of–but it is very close to a Flash experience without Flash, if that suits your persuasion).

Flash will ensure that your users have a more hassle-free experience since it’s installed on 99% of computers, whereas Java has quite a few old versions that are common. Relying on hardware rendering can give rise to technical incompatibilities, though Java doesn’t have to use hardware, so that can be mitigated.

Java is getting better about updates and penetration, but Flash still wins when you want to be compatible with the most computers (especially older or quirky hardware). That’s not to mention Flash is more web-enabled (ie, has strong support for integration with many sites and game portal APIs like Kongregate and Facebook), so for online games it makes lots of sense.

So, again, your answer has to derive from the question of how it affects the end product and what your goals are for it.

I’m doing online games, so I don’t want players to have to download and install anything. That’s a huge concern to me, so Flash wins almost right away because it’s the most hassle free. My second concern is penetration, and again–for my goals–Flash wins. I design for lower quality visuals but it’s made up for by the fact that I can reach more potential players. For commercial reasons, reaching more players is more important than having the best rendering sizzle.

For my backend (a.k.a. game servers), I use Java. Java is plenty fast, works on the platform I care about (Linux for servers), and was easy to learn with my backlog of C++ experience.

To summarize: the language you use is only relevant in context of the goals of your end product.

If you’re a hobbyist and don’t have any real goals, pick anything you like. If you have commercial goals, pick something that directly supports those goals.

It’s very project-specific, and it might even change from one project to the next.

Whatever the case, just make sure you’re having fun and don’t get all serious and uptight about languages and tools. It’s about the games!

I’ve been playing Lord of the Rings Online for a couple weeks (ok, only a few hours a week, but still…). It’s tons of fun, and moreso because my awesome wife likes it and plays with me!

I’ve only played a human so far, and at first I found the game environments a little bland. I guess having just finished the World of Warcraft trial, I was used to the bright colors and dense designs. I found LotRO to be much more sparse and less colorful. By sparse, I mean the designs are not cram-packed with tons of over the top details like giant weapons, huge armor, and fantastic creatures. (That’s a key point here.)

So the first good bit of the game, you are among humans and fight mostly normal animals and a few slightly fantasy creatures (though still in the realm of “realistic”). Playing this, while fun, was a little like quitting the Twinkies and eating raw veggies instead. It was kind of a shock, but it was still compelling, and I wanted more.

But then we progressed farther and started to see the first fantasy creatures: goblins. I found myself really excited by them because they were very different from everything I had experienced before. Not wolves or spiders or huge flying insects, but real monsters! They had some camps in a marsh with bonfires at night, and it was really exciting.

This made me realize that most games, like WoW, give you such a constant and intense stream of eye candy and fantasy visuals that it all becomes kind of bland after a while. You meet another boss that looks incredibly cool, but your reaction is, “Meh.”

LotRO has used contrast to build up the fantasy elements simply by using them sparingly. I can’t imagine my excitement when I see something like a Black Rider or a Dragon! This is a powerful technique, and it won’t cost you more money or time to implement (other than planning how to pull it off with aplomb).

Because my wife and I started in a “normal” area without these elements, seeing them within that “realism” made them feel that much more fantastic. I’ve seen these kinds of things in games so many times before. Yet, here I was all giddy about it this time because I hadn’t been hit over the head with it to the point of being numb. I hope the rest of the game does this and uses the fantasy elements sparingly throughout.

I think this is a valuable observation for game developers. We should work to heighten contrast for maximum effect whenever possible. Less is more.

Every now and then I allow myself to play some MMOs. In between breathless marathons of developing my own game, I need to decompress and go somewhere else for a while.

So I played the WoW (World of Warcraft) 10 day trial first. It’s a fun game. I like the cartoony style of it. The shininess of it is amazing. That’s what I noticed the most: all the polish and details that make it such a pleasure to navigate. Well, I didn’t realize this until I started playing another MMO.

Now I’m playing the LotRO (Lord of the Rings Online) 10 day trial. I’ve wanted to try this ever since it came out. The detailed intro quests were a great change from the lame quests of WoW, and I’m enjoying all the little game design details (eat food for temporary stat boosts–great idea!) not found in WoW.

But I have to say, WoW really kicks LotRO’s butt in the polish department. LotRO feels like a rickety free to play MMO from Korea (hey, I love a couple of those, but they almost uniformly lack polish).

There are three major aspects that I’m noticing: interface art, fonts, and audio.

LotRO’s music is, to be blunt, bad. Sound effects are competent, but not thumping. Audio is at least 50% of the experience! Don’t freakin’ skimp on the sound and music, people.

In WoW, music is great, sound is great quality and there’s a lot of it. If you gather in WoW, you hear some nice “shuffly” sounds and interface feedback. In LotRO, it’s totally silent which makes it feel anemic and thin. Again, this kind of subtle feedback is the very definition of polish.

The fonts, while meant to be elegant, perhaps, are not good choices for an interface. The glyphs are too thin and read poorly at lower resolutions. And some of them are chigger-small.

The interface art, like the fonts and the audio, seems wiry and meager. WoW’s interface has a heft and weight to it that makes it very pleasing to use. LotRO’s interface makes me think the game is about to crash from poor workmanship. That’s my perception, and, though that perception may be far from the truth, I dare say perception trumps truth in an experiential product like a game when it comes to matters of enjoyment.

I think also, overall, there’s a lot less color in LotRO’s visual design. WoW is maybe too fruity/intensely colored, but LotRO is too drab and monochrome for my tastes.

So, while there is a lot to like about LotRO (and I might even subscribe if my wife likes it enough–until the new Star Wars MMO comes out), it could be exponentially a more engaging experience with some very minor additions (and a new music soundtrack, maybe with real instruments this time–I mean, for heaven’s sake, listen to the movie soundtrack and at least aim for something in that ballpark).

Lesson: don’t ignore the subtle effects of audio and visuals! This stuff isn’t just eye/ear candy. There’s a very tangible difference in quality of the experience.

Lots of folks are talking about how over-hyped social games are, how they are not at all social, how they’re just a fad, etc. But I think there’s something being missed in these rants.

The interesting thing to me about social games is the distribution platforms (ie, the social networks). Despite what anyone thinks about the hype, social sites as a gaming platform really is something new in that regard. Reach. I once marveled about the reach achievable through Mochi Media and Flash games, but that is dwarfed by the 400 million+ users of Facebook. That’s new, and it’s remarkable.

Never before has it been so easy to invite a friend to check out a game. No need to fire up an email client or even type. Your friend receives the message right on the site where the game will be played. No need to run another app or go to a different site (one you might not trust or that might crash your computer with too much bling).

Never before has the process/interface been so standardized (ie, very low friction) in between the friend getting the invite and getting into or out of the game. Everyone knows how to add or remove a game/app.

Never before have people felt so comfortable “installing” a game/app because they know the platform gives them control (unlike mailing lists, etc) over what communications they receive (or not) and when (if at all).

This converges with the growing power and ubiquity of Flash and other web browser technologies, giving rise to a huge number of highly accessible games (not all of them “casual”). These have existed before, but not on a platform like Facebook that brings so many other crucial factors into play, like reduced interface friction, user comfort, and low barriers to entry.

It’s still an uphill battle to get attention (and revenues), but it’s easier than out in the frontiers of the web, alone.

“Social games” seems to be the new black these days. And, yet, the social mechanics seem to boil down to nothing more than “collecting” as many “friends” as you can in order to unlock content. (Please imagine me using quote fingers dramatically when you see those quotes.)

For instance, some games have “quests” (in most games, that means one click).

These jobs sometimes require you to have a certain amount of friends in your “crew” or group or neighbors before you can access it. That really just means inviting players into the game and forgetting about them since they become a number.

Interestingly, this gives rise to “add me trains,” where a huge comment thread consists of players asking other players to add them as friends to increase their in-game friend count.

Or, you give a friend a gift to entice him or her to play the game. Gifting can be very fulfilling, but in this case it’s entirely in the service of marketing the game with sleight of hand. It’s not actually “social” in the way you expect when you say the word.

But…

…is this fun?! The answer depends on who you ask, but it’s not much fun to me. These games are certainly engaging because of the behavioral psychology behind their design, but I’m not sure that is the same as being fun.

There’s no meaningful interaction in most current “social” games. Your social graph is nothing but a marketing data mine for the developers. I don’t have a big problem with that on its own, because you do opt in. You don’t have to invite your friends. But the motivating factor is not the quality of the game, and I would wager that you won’t need to force your players to tell friends if the game is good enough.

I love the idea of shared worlds.

As I define it, a shared world game is where the gameplay alters the world state, and the world state alters the gameplay in a fun feedback loop. It’s really fascinating to think about the potential when players’ actions can change the world in which they play, and then that, in turn, can affect what players do next. It sounds like a blast to me.

It also happens to dovetail nicely with social games. I mean, here’s a chance to make them actually social! I don’t mean like “talky ha-ha” social. I mean like “negotiating with each other” or “participating in simple forms of governance within a game world” social. You know, the kind of social where you interact with other people and fun things happen as a result.

To be clear, these things don’t have to happen in synchronous, full-on MMO style. But it also doesn’t have to be a game as vacuous as most of what we see on Facebook today.

The time is ripe for a new kind of social game that is more than hollow mouse clicks on a plastic harvest. And I hope to make one soon.

Whoa. Unity really is going to be omni-platform!

I can’t wait to have a chance to make a web game that I then port to iPhone, Android, and XBox Live Arcade. This kind of thing can’t really be understated for small developers because the best way to maximize your revenue per game is to release it on as many platforms as possible.

Some highlights from the press release:

…major updates to Unity’s rendering capabilities, its physics features and significant optimizations to its core systems… [I hope this means PhysX and Mono upgrades!! Confirmed! Mono 2.6.x!]

Illuminate Lab’s Beast lighting software provides Unity developers with a complete global illumination solution for photorealistic scene lighting.

[Unity iPhone has] a very fast 2D sprite engine…

Global illumination and occlusion culling might be Pro-only features, but it’s still really exciting.

Set for release this Summer. Bring it on!!