Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

Simplifying Copyright for the Modern World

Thanks to Scott Macmillan of Macguffin Games, I learned about an article by Cory Doctorow called Digital Licensing: Do It Yourself.

Doctorow suggests a fascinating idea: self-service licensing. Let’s say you create a game, and someone wants to create plush toys of the characters and sell them online. Technically, it’s illegal unless they get your permission. Disney, for instance, would want you to negotiate an agreement with their expensive lawyers…which requires you to hire your own expensive lawyer. Unless you’re a huge manufacturer and intend to sell to hundreds of thousands of customers, it’s not worth the expense and effort.

But you’re an indie. You don’t have an army of lawyers on staff. Your staff might consist of just you, in fact. So if someone wanted to make a plush toy out of your video game characters, and you had no problem with people doing so, even for commercial gain, but wanted to make sure you were protected, what could you do?

Your options used to be sticking your head in the sand, risking the dilution of your trademark, giving permission but worrying about what legal rights you might accidentally give away, or preventing people from making what are essentially derivative works without your consent. But why not just give them consent? After all, it isn’t your core business, and they’re taking all the risk. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could make an agreement with them without having to negotiate over the course of weeks or months?

Doctorow suggests some general wording that covers your obligations to your own trademarks and rights while also allowing others to understand what they can and cannot do and how you expect to be paid from their profiting off of your works.

The key part is simplicity:

Complexity is your enemy here. Two or three sentences are all you want, so that the idea can be absorbed in 10 seconds by a maker at three in the morning just as she embarks on an inspired quest to sculpt a 3D version from your logo using flattened pop-cans.

The secret to simplicity here is in the license fee, the payment schedule, and the enforcement regime.

What’s exciting is that such simplified, self-service licensing opens up potentially multiple market research opportunities! Someone can make plush toys and determine if they sell well WITHOUT you needing to invest in it. They carry the risk, and you can earn royalties if it works out for them. Someone else can do paper-craft, or craft some earrings, or create a movie, or make a painting, or any number of possible derivative works, carrying all the risk of seeing if there is a market for these things, and if it turns out that there is, you always have the option of doing something bigger with them.

Without self-service licensing, you have to dictate everything yourself. You need to prevent everyone from doing fun crafty things based on your work, but you also only have so much time to dedicate to your own business, which means less time to do anything that could potentially create new markets based on your work.

When I was younger, I drew pictures of Super Mario Bros characters. I tried to sell them at a garage sale and also at a shopping center. Now, keep in mind, I was a child trying to sell pictures I drew, and I had no idea that I was infringing on Nintendo’s copyrights and trademarks. Nintendo wasn’t going to do anything to me because they didn’t even know I existed. But if I had done it today, you could imagine that I would be using eBay or some website, which means the entire world could find me. Suddenly, my personal little craft is just that much more dangerous. Nintendo could shut me down if they wanted to. A lot of the creators of Nintendo-themed woodwork and art are only getting away with it because Nintendo hasn’t pointed their legal team at them. But if Nintendo had a self-service license, it would simultaneously protect their trademark while also allowing fans to create and sell crafts on a small scale. My Nintendo-themed drawings could be sold, legally and without harm, and Nintendo gets a small cut of any revenues I get.

Now, Nintendo might not care too much about the relatively small amount of money that would come their way through such a system, but what about you? Do you have fans that would love to create works based on your game? Wouldn’t it be nice if they were given a simple, safe way to do so? One that would give them peace of mind that they wouldn’t get sued by your company on a whim, and that also lets them kick back some extra money towards you?

And even if self-service licensing doesn’t appeal to you (although I would strongly suggest reading Cory Doctorow’s article to see a much better explanation since it might change your mind), the idea of simplifying your licenses in a Creative Commons way would only help. Copyright is confusing, and most people don’t know what it is, let alone why they should pay attention to your EULA. Why provide 37 sections of legalese when you could tell them what you expect in 4 plain-language sentences?

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

2008 Global Software Piracy Study

The Business Software Alliance, which is made up of mainly larger software companies and claims to be the “voice of the world’s software industry and its hardware partners on a wide range of business and policy affairs”, sponsored research by IDC. Their findings were released in the 2008 Global Software Piracy Study.

I take issue with a few parts of the 25 page report. For one thing, there is still a claim that every illegally downloaded piece of software corresponds to a “loss” for a software vendor. The report itself uses quotes around the word “loss”, which indicates to me that even the IDC can’t just outright claim they are real losses. A simple mental exercise will demonstrate how false it is. Do you know someone who downloads software illegally? If not, pretend you know someone who has downloaded hundreds of games, productivity software, and office software illegally. Now, tell me, if this person had to pay for each and every piece of software, would he or she have the money to do so? Most likely, the answer is no. Software isn’t like a physical product that can be returned, such as a car, so if this person were to be caught, I have a hard time believing that uninstalling the illegal software would restore these supposed “losses” to the software vendor.

The way they legitimize the claim that each pirated copy is a loss? By showing a strong correlation between piracy rates and the strength of the software industry in a country. Except I don’t think anyone doubts that losses occur overall, which is all that correlation shows. You could look at it as each pirated copy of software contributes to the whole, and the whole correlates with a weak software industry, but it is hardly a 1:1 causation.

But what’s even more bizarre is how software piracy “losses” seem to go up or down depending on currency exchange rates! Yes, the BSA claims that because the USD went down, piracy “losses” went up. Can we use triple quotes on that word?

It is fascinating to see how Russia, China, and even Brazil are lowering their piracy rates by a large margin, which corresponds with job increases, although it isn’t clear if there is a causation one way or another in those cases. It seems that developing countries are the ones where the largest increase in software piracy is occurring.

There is a section in which the study lists factors that help to lower piracy. A couple of these factors are described using words like “have been paying off” to indicate that we should expect that such factors were being used and were measured in their effectiveness. Most, however, use words like “will lower piracy” or “can have an impact”, which indicates to me that these are more wishful thinking and not necessarily based in any numbers. Most telling: one of those latter factors is Technical Advances, specifically Digital Rights Management (DRM).

At the end, the BSA lists their blueprint for reducing piracy. Most of the items are about stronger copyright laws and better and heavier enforcement of the laws. I’m not so sure I like a group of the larger, multinational software companies dictating how copyright laws should work better for them and less for smaller indie shops and micro software vendors, or for citizens at large. We live in a world where thousands of unique videos are created and uploaded to YouTube every minute. People create and have the protections of copyright, and haven’t had to worry about stricter enforcement, and I fear that stricter enforcement will be like trying to hold onto water more tightly. The bigger companies will survive if people are pushed to pirate software and other media more often, but the smaller companies and individuals might not. The BSA doesn’t have as much to lose, or “lose”, as the smaller companies do, yet they act as everyone’s voice. It worries me.

The one item I agree with and would love to push for: increase public education and awareness. Except I don’t like where the BSA’s focus lies. They seem to want to focus on educating the public about how valuable software is so that they won’t pirate it. They want to inform people that they should only obtain software legally. Basically, let’s teach the “consumers” how to consume the right way.

I want to see more people understand what copyright law is and how it helps them as creators. Again, more people create more new copyrighted works per minute today than they did decades ago. And most probably don’t even realize they own the copyright! Why? Because copyright law isn’t set in a single statute. It’s distributed through court case decisions, and only larger companies that can afford expensive lawyers can even hope to wield copyright effectively. It’s way too confusing for the average person, even though the average person is holding more copyrights than they know what to do with. THAT’s why there is a perception that copyright is a tool used by big business. Because only big business can hope to understand it well enough to use it! I think if more people understood how THEY can wield copyright to their advantage, they’ll respect the copyrights of others. If the BSA wants to treat smaller copyright holders as if they don’t count as anything but the general public of years ago, they shouldn’t be surprised when there is some grumbling from public’s ranks. We’re creators, too. You don’t hold a monopoly on copyright law. It’s ours, too, and it is not there to protect you or your business models.

Efforts by the Creative Commons to simplify copyright licenses is more of what I would like to see software developers do. I’d also like to see more focus on smaller companies and the effect of illegal downloads on THEIR bottom lines. Most people don’t care about the “billions” of “losses” that they can’t comprehend. They care about Joe Software Developer, who they see shopping with them at the grocery store. Let’s see his face in interviews, rather than some guy in a suit representing Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe.

If you would like to learn more about what copyright is and how it affects you, please see my article on What an Indie Needs to Know about Copyright

Categories
Games Geek / Technical Marketing/Business

Blast from the Past: Metal Gear Solid Pamphlet

I’ve been playing Metal Gear Solid with some coworkers, and we’ve been having fun making fun of a lot of the silliness: Genome soldiers are genetically engineered to be the best except for the side-effect of extreme myopia. And an inability to store long-term memories of the fact that someone just shot at them. Or how Snake is a trained mercenary but didn’t think that maybe he should have recognized what a sniper’s laser sight looks like instead of letting Meryl get shot multiple times.

Anyway, somehow I remembered something from years ago. In 1997, back when the Nintendo 64 was still new, I found a bunch of addresses for video game developers. Some were even located nearby (this was back before most of them left Chicago)! So I wrote a bunch of letters, printed off of a dot matrix printer on my Apple II c+, asking them if they had any games they planned to produce for the N64. I made sure to let them know about games they had created in the past that I liked.

A number of the letters came back. The addresses I had for Acclaim, Nexoft, and Taito were no longer valid and the forwarding time had expired. Oh, well.

Koei sent me a newsletter, the Koei Connection, Vol 4, No 1. It included information about P.T.O. II, Heir of Zendor, Dynasty Warriors, Ark of Time, Sign of the Sun, and VirtuaPark – The Fish. They had a section to answer player questions, and I learned that I could order games directly from Koei. You could get Romance of the Three Kingdoms 3 for PC DOS 3.5 for only $19.95! B-)

But the coolest response was from Konami. I received a large envelope. In it was a letter:

Dear Gianfranco

Thank you for your interest in Konami. We do have several games coming out for the N64 such as International Superstar Soccer 64 and Goman 5 (Legand of the Mystical Ninja). Lets not forget NBA In the Zone ’98 the first 5 on 5 Basketball game for the N64. The possibility of having Metal Gear 64 has even me getting goose bumps. All that and the new Castlevainia on the Playstation it’s going to be a great Fall. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us here at (847) 215-5100.

All grammatical and spelling mistakes are preserved.

There was a P.S. “Keep on playing!” Quotes were preserved as well. B-)

So what was in this big envelope? A poster for International Superstar Soccer 64. A sell sheet photocopied to list Vandal-Hearts, Contra: Legacy War, Suikoden, NBA In the Zone 2, and Crypt Killer. “The Justifier Light gun for the Sony Playstation available now!” And the reason why I remembered it all:

Cover

There was this cool fold out pamphlet about a game I had never heard of. Metal Gear Solid? What’s that? B-) Below are some scans I had made. If you click on the image, you can see a much larger version at higher quality so you can even read the text if you’d like. And some of the text is pretty funny. “It is 3D functions of the 32-bit machine realize the possibilities of this game to its fullest potential.”

Inside_M_Flap Inside_G_Flap

Pg_01

Pg_02

Pg_03
Note how this game is a “new expression of real time full polygon action!” B-)

Pg_04

Back

I hope you Metal Gear fans enjoy it.

Categories
Game Development Linux Game Development Marketing/Business

Why You Should Support Mac OS X and GNU/Linux

If you’ve been following my blog for some time, you know that I always encouraged development for multiple platforms and not just Windows. The common argument against doing so is that you increase your development costs and effort for a very small percentage of increased customers. Where’s the benefit?

Wolfire explains why you should support Mac and GNU/Linux platforms. When you’re an indie developer, especially one starting out, you’re a small fish in a big pond. You don’t have a huge marketing budget. You don’t have a massive sales force to help push you through retail. PC Gamer, IGN, and any of the large game review websites aren’t likely to cover your game. Having Mac and GNU/Linux versions of your game makes these obstacles less important, increases your visibility, and improves sales.

So what happens when your game is available for the supposedly negligible extra few percentage of people who play games? Websites such as The Linux Game Tome, LinuxGames.com, InsideMacGames.com, and even the official Apple Games site will cover your game and your company. Then sites such as SlashDot will cover it. That’s a lot of potential customers from a dedicated niche, people you couldn’t reach by releasing yet another Windows game!

Troy Hepfner, of My Game Company, said that releasing Dirk Dashing for GNU/Linux was a very good idea:

And I am so glad we tried a Linux version of one of our games – this has turned out to be a huge shot in the arm for our business!

33% of initial sales came from GNU/Linux, and while the total percentage of sales from GNU/Linux users has gone down relative to Windows and Mac users since then, it’s not an insignificant amount of income. Hepfner has said that he knows a number of his Windows sales came directly from people who only heard about his game from Linux-based gaming news. Again, supporting these other platforms can help an indie to stand out from a crowded Windows-only marketplace.

Wolfire says that supporting these supposedly negligible platforms can help you take advantage of vocal minorities and surprisingly dedicated fans to spread the word about your game.

To conclude, if you’re not supporting Linux and Mac OS X from a philosophical standpoint or for the fans, at least do it for the money. If you don’t support non-Windows platforms, you’re leaving a lot of cash on the table. I don’t know about you, but I’m not in a position to just say f— it to a large community of people who want to support us.

Bottom line: If you agree with the larger game companies and think that there is no benefit to supporting multiple platforms, you’re wrong. You are not running a large game company that can get millions of dollars in sales in the first month of release while ignoring everyone but the hardcore gamers. Having cross-platform ports available provide you with plenty of marketing opportunities which can increase sales greatly. With hundreds of games being released each year, you need to do something remarkable to make your game stand out. It’s still quite remarkable to support Mac and GNU/Linux users, so take advantage of it.

[tags] marketing, indie, cross platform development, sales [/tags]

Categories
Game Design Games Marketing/Business Personal Development

Back from Vacation

Last night I got back from over a week-long vacation. I visited friends in Des Moines, and it was very relaxing, aside from hurting my back and seeing the chiropractor four times. I walked around downtown Des Moines, visited the historic Capitol Building, went to a dueling pianos show, watched a couple of movies, danced at a nightclub, and otherwise had a great time.

Oh, and I learned how to play checkers.

I was in the library and passed the game section. There was a book on playing checkers. I thought, “Ok, I haven’t played that game since I was a kid, and I think I heard someone saying that it is as cerebral as chess. Let’s see why.” Did you know that the official rules of checkers REQUIRES you to jump your opponent’s piece if you can do so? I didn’t know this rule, and when I asked, it seems that most of my friends didn’t either! This one simple rule suddenly makes this otherwise child-friendly game really, really complicated.

Besides trying to figure out ways to make simple games more strategic by forcing moves the way checkers does, I spent a good amount of time figuring out my next move in life. I read a couple of books and articles on life purpose and business and wrote a bunch of notes. I took advantage of my time away from work obligations to think about what I want out of my life. I’ll have more to write about my decisions later, but suffice it to say that I don’t want life to force my hand because it might put me in a suboptimal situation.

It’s my move.

[tags] checkers, life purpose, business, game development [/tags]

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Marketing/Business

Meaningful Play 2008

Gregg Seelhoff announced that he attended Meaningful Play 2008, an academic conference ” that explores the potential of games to entertain, inform, educate, and persuade in meaningful ways”, and he posted his notes.

  • Day 1: Want some good data on casual gamers and Flash game business models?
  • Day 2: Want some good data on 60+ year-old gamers as well as serious games?
  • Day 3: The wrap up, with some information about a panel on board games.

I’ve been thinking about the kind of games I wanted to make, and rather than create short-term sales product that will be thrown away within a week, I’d like to make games that matter. Games that stick around long after you’ve played them, like a good book or a good movie. I really liked the idea of an entire conference dedicated to meaningful play, and I hope I can attend the next one. There were some good nuggets of information that Gregg managed to report, such as who plays games at Pogo.com and for how long, but I especially liked reading the following on what kinds of serious games received good reviews:

An acceptable game (threshold 1) succeeded in the areas of technical capacity and game design. A good game (threshold 2) passed threshold 1 and, additionally, succeeded with aesthetics, visual and acoustic. For a game to be great (threshold 3), it had to pass both previous thresholds and also succeed in the final two areas of social experience and storyline (“narrativity and character development” is too long). Few games reached the final threshold.

Look at that! A prioritized list of what makes up a good game!

It’s unfortunate when you can’t play games because they are made for specific platforms, especially when there is always this emphasis on the ubiquity of Flash. Many of the games Gregg links to were Windows-specific, and they wouldn’t run in Wine. When so many of these games aren’t even meant to be commercially viable, is it still a valid argument that providing a port to other platforms such as Mac and Gnu/Linux would be pointless since having access to a few hundred thousand more players wouldn’t be worth it?

I would have liked to know more about Ian Bogost’s keynote, but Gregg provided some good notes for most of the rest of the conference. I have more than a few PDFs to download and read through.

[tags] meaningful play, game design, game development, serious games, casual games, conference [/tags]

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Marketing/Business Personal Development

Now Is the Best Time to Make Games

Jeff Tunnell posts for the first time in a long time about how you shouldn’t fear the economy and should start your game business now. Yes, there is a lot of doom and gloom about how the economy is stagnating and people are worried about paying the bills.

But that just means there are less people willing to take the risk of starting their own businesses! Less competition means more opportunities for your business!

But how do you start? I wrote an article about Forming an LLC in Illinois, and running an LLC is much easier than running an S Corporation. If you don’t know the difference, there are plenty of resources online about the different types of business entities.

I also wrote about what an indie developer needs to know about copyright. Copyright laws can be quite complex, so it pays to know at least SOMETHING about them.

Not sure how to even start making games? I also wrote You Can Make Games, which describes how easy it is to get into game development, and the best part? It has gotten even easier since I wrote that article two years ago! With technology like PopCap’s framework (and TuxCap for people who want to recognize that there are people who use Mac and GNU/Linux), libSDL, and freely available Java and Flash web development tools, there should be nothing to stop someone with a computer, an idea, and a willingness to put some effort behind it from making a game.

There are great articles and other resources for running your game development business at GameDev.net. Advice can be found at the IndieGamer forums.

So what’s stopping you? And for that matter, what’s slowing me down?

[tags] indie, game development, video games, business [/tags]

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Marketing/Business

Is Casual Mutually Exclusive with Hardcore?

Years ago, Nintendo Power’s 100th issue listed the best 100 games of all time. Besides Mario and Zelda games, Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior, there was the game listed at #3: Tetris.

I remember that a lot of people complained that there is no way that Tetris could be ranked so highly in such a list. In fact, people still complain when they see Tetris listed very highly in Nintendo Power’s most recent update of the list with the top 200 games.

Tetris is a great game. It was probably the first financially successful game that caused other game developers to say, “Wait, I’m crunching for years at a time, and I could have made THAT?” So why all the animosity? Oh, right. It’s a casual game. It’s too simplistic to be considered among the best.

But is casual really mutually exclusive with hardcore? Are these words really describing two different types of games?

Earlier this year, Corvus wrote that casual games can be identified as such by how forgiving they are. If you only have 5 minutes in your busy schedule to dedicate to a game, you’ll play Bejeweled sooner than you’d play Starcraft. Trying to play Starcraft in 5 minutes would be an exercise in stress management. You can’t just stop when you have to leave, so your choice is to keep playing the map you’re currently on, ruining your schedule, or quit and lose your progress. Bejeweled much more forgiving in this sense.

In this sense the GameBoy game Wario Land 2 was much more casual in nature than many other platformers. In this game, Wario was unkillable, a departure from the typical Mario-based platformers. If you can’t kill or harm Wario, what can you do? Solve puzzles! If you’re not very dexterous, the game doesn’t punish you the way Super Mario Bros would. Again, it’s very forgiving. Contrast Wario Land 2 with Super Mario Sunshine, which gives you a limited number of lives, requires you to restart a level if you fail, and features enemies and obstacles that can kill Mario. Super Mario Sunshine is very punishing. The challenge comes in punishment avoidance.

Contrast Strange Adventures in Infinite Space against Sins of a Solar Empire, two very different games. One lets you play multiple games within a matter of minutes, while the other one requires a much larger time commitment. Actually, if you’ve ever played SAiIS, you’ll know that the game also requires a larger time commitment simply because you won’t notice that an hour has passed and that you’ve played hundreds of sessions. Still, the interface for SAiIS is point and click and dead simple. SoaSE might have a good interface for strategy fans, it’s just hard to fathom someone fresh to video games getting it as easily as they would with SAiIS. And how about the difference in game play? If you lose a space battle or otherwise fail in SAiIS, it’s not so bad. Just start a new game, just like you would if you won. Try again. The sting of defeat isn’t harsh because you probably lost and won many games in the time it took you to read this post. Losing in SoaSE, on the other hand, is a bit more harsh.

So maybe there is a difference between casual and hardcore games, but I still think that there are steps that a game developer can take to make any game more accessible. Developers should take steps to make the complexity more manageable through the interface at the very least. And if your game is punishing the player for taking certain actions or for failing, ask if it is really necessary to punish him/her that badly. Hey, Nintendo! Do we really still need a limit on lives for Mario games?

[tags] indie, casual game, game design [/tags]

Categories
Game Development Games Marketing/Business

Hollywood Video Games Suck

The brave and noble bloggers of the Round Table this month have written some great posts about film-to-game adaptations. I was originally going to write that games are usually just another brand-associated piece of merchandise, like the candy bar, the Happy Meal toy, and the coloring book, but some people covered it. I was going to write about how game developers can actually make a good game based on a movie, and demonstrate it with my memory of what people said about Beavis and Butt-head, but someone mentioned an even better example in the Chronicles of Riddick games. I noticed that people are putting a lot of the hate on E.T., a game which I loved playing as a kid, but as someone long ago already wrote about how good a game it is, I don’t think I have too much to add to it other than to say “Hey, if you didn’t play it, don’t knock it until you tried it!” I could write about the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory post-mortem I attended, about meeting a programmer who left the company after that project, and my experience with playing the game, but someone has already discussed how hard it is to make a game based on a movie while satisfying requirements from the publisher, the movie production house, and the estate of whoever owns the rights to the story, especially when the movie itself is on a short production schedule.

What will I write about? How bad games based on movies are bad for the industry’s public image and are possibly detrimental to its growth.

Yes, even a bad video game with a movie tie-in will sell more than a good video game without one would. I understand that the funding from those games can go into paying for good games to get made. It makes sense.

But what about Joe Hypothetical, the person who loved WALL·E, and just now bought the game? According to my latest issue of PC Gamer, the game is horrible. Now, maybe it just isn’t made for people who would read PC Gamer and so the review might be biased, but according to Metacritic, the WALL·E reviews are mixed. IGN’s reviewer loved it. But let’s say for (my) argument’s sake that the game sucked. What about Joe?

As much as Joe loved the movie and might wish the game was awesome, he might admit that it was horrible. So what’s Joe going to play next?

Well, nothing. If this big-budget game sucked, a game he paid upwards of $50 for, why would he pay that much again to play a game that was made without the backing of Hollywood? He’s not a glutton for punishment. Leave that kind of “fun” to the nerds. And so Joe won’t play games in general, he won’t pay for games, and will continue to be a non-gamer, which is of no benefit to the game industry as a whole.

Maybe it won’t be that bad. Joe might be one of those people who play casual games on portals to kill a few minutes here and there, and so maybe one game won’t spoil him completely. But it will sour him on the experience of paying the equivalent of 5 tickets to a movie for a game, enough to give him pause whenever any game is released, even if he might be interested.

Meanwhile, WALL·E sold over a million copies, so at least Hollywood got its take.

Take 2 and Rockstar Games get a lot of flak for making games that put the video game industry in a defensive position from morality critics, but what kind of message do other publishers send when they agree to release games by the movie’s release date, regardless of the quality of the game? I understand that there are pressures and requirements and that the developer is trying to make a good game out of a bad situation, but why would the publisher agree to allow games that look bad on the company and people involved? Is it really just because it is a lucrative position to be in?

Wait. I just read that question. Duh. If you are measuring your company on the quality of your games, then it would be absurd to release crap. But if you were measuring your company based on how many units you sold, then “quality of your games” isn’t decided by PC Gamer reviews. What reviews? People voted with their wallets, so clearly this game was of quality enough.

It’s just frustrating to think that opportunities are wasted and yet rewarded so much. I can’t see how it is good for the game industry overall if you have millions of people out there who think that games are nothing more than simple and frustrating diversions, especially when good games can be made with a bit more effort and a bit more push-back by the publisher.

[tags] video games, hollywood, marketing, business, game development [/tags]

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Marketing/Business

The Complexity of a Casual Game

Since so many people seem to be surprised that Spore, a game that mixes all sorts of game genres into one game, didn’t create the ultimate experience for each of those sub-games, and Will Wright’s recent interview with MTV in which he claims that Spore was meant to be a casual game:

“I’d say that’s quite accurate,” Wright told me. “We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players. “Spore” has more depth than, let’s say, “The Sims” did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for “Sims 2?, which was around 90, and something like “Half-Life“, which was 97, and we decided — quite a while back — that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of “Sims 2? than the Metacritic and sales of “Half-Life.”

And one way of getting there is to present a narrower range of options than a hardcore player might be expecting?

“Yes,” he said. “Part of this, in some sense was: can we teach a “Sims” player to play an RTS [or Real Time Strategy game]? … I think the complexity we ended up with was toward that group.”

So reducing the range of options is one way to make a game more casual, but what options are we talking about? I think there are two ways in which you can look at a game’s complexity: input complexity and rules complexity.

With input complexity, the available interface options are limited. For a complex input scheme, look at NetHack. There is a command for drinking, and one for eating. One for putting on armor, and one for equipping weapons, and one for putting on a ring, and entirely different commands for taking them all off again! Attacking can use any number of commands to kick, throw, fire an arrow, zap a wand, or swinging your weapon. NetHack is definitely NOT a casual game, but look at FastCrawl for a more accessible game. Instead of requiring the player to know every function of every button, key, or icon, you limit the interface. Technically Tetris can be played with three functions: move left, move right, and rotate piece. It’s not a mindless game, though. You can employ various strategies at various stages of the game. There is complexity, but it is hidden behind a simple interface. This combination makes it an accessible game, as the success of the GameBoy with children and adults alike can attest to. For another example of a simple interface, see Fishie Fishie. From the creator’s page:

Yesterday I played a game that had three different buttons for “jump”. Three! I mean, really, what’s happened to the world? How am I supposed to keep an eye on the kids, stay up to date with current affairs, and remember which button to press when I want to esape the toothy maw of an airborne crocodile? In protest I built Fishie Fishie, a game you play using exactly one button.

Rules complexity deals with what’s happening in the game itself. If you’ve ever played the Buffy the Vampire Slayer board game, you know what I mean when it comes to complexity. The interface is simple and familiar enough: roll dice, move players, attack other characters. But then you have to keep track of hit points, goals, who is a vampire when, and yes, the current phase of the moon! And if you’ve never played Dungeons and Dragons, just keep in mind that choosing your character’s class, alignment, feats, skills, and armor is what you do BEFORE you start playing. If you’re playing a cleric, trying to turn the undead will result in moans from the other players since play basically STOPS until you do all the complex calculations to figure out how many ghouls at what strength you turned or destroyed. Now compare these rules to the “0 player” Game of Life. There are only four rules, and yet the ways these rules interact, the dynamics of the game, are rich and complex.

Buffy could have taken a lesson from the card game Fluxx. In Fluxx, the rules change constantly as you play since played cards can add, change, or remove rules. Even though you would think it would be too complex and only appeal to the geeky, in my experience it seems that everyone loves it. I think a key part of it is that the rules aren’t hidden away in a manual but right there on the cards in front of you! You can walk away from the game to get a snack while the rest of the players take their turns, and when you get back you know exactly what the state of the game is just by checking the cards. An otherwise complex game made casually accessible by its interface!

Perhaps Buffy fails to appeal to playing fans not because it is too complex but because this complexity is hard to understand just by looking at the game. Every time you pull the game out of the closet, you have to re-remember the rules before you start, and usually that means someone has to read the instructions, if they still exist. Throughout the game, you have to periodically consult the instructions to clarify what to do in certain situations. With Fluxx, you can just start playing.

So can you make a complicated rule-set accessible by limiting the interface? Can you reduce the rules of the game to a handful and make an otherwise complex game easier to grok? It seems that if the rules are simple, the interface can also be simple, but if the rules are complex, the interface doesn’t have to be. If you believe that reducing complexity is key to making a game more casual-friendly, I believe you can still make otherwise hardcore games more accessible by making the interface intuitive and simple.

[tags] indie, casual game, game design [/tags]