Jeez, if there was one thing that could make up for missing Will Wright's talk earlier, it's sitting at his feet while this session was delivered! So my mood is slightly improved, although we have to wait between 2-6 weeks before GDC posts the recording (if they do so at all). Anyone find a transcript or a recording out there yet?
So, my notes on the last session of the day. Hosted by Eric "Stage Presence" Zimmerman, the panel was feisty, passionate and speed-talking. I got most of it, bar the detail (who needs it?).
IGDA Session: Burning Down The House - Game Developers Rant
Warren Spector, Brenda Laurel, Jason Della Rocca, Chris Hecker.
Eric: We do not live in a perfect world and this is not a perfect industry. I’m moderating this panel of illustrious curmudgeons who have a lot to say about what’s right and what’s wrong with this industry today. Every GDC and in the corridors of the companies where we work, there are complaints. Grumblings. This year it’s quality of life and working conditions in the industry. The idea of this panel is to bring out those rumblings, bring them to light. So without further ado:
Warren Spector:
First of all I don’t hate you, Will Wright. I just had one of those "I’m not worthy" moments in the elevator. YOU ARE the 800lb gorilla.
OK. I don’t feel very ranty actually. I tried to bail on this panel. But I have to say something so I want to say how this business is hopelessly broken. Haha. We’re doing pretty much everything wrong. This is at the root of much of what you’re gonna hear today. Games cost too much. They take too long to make. The whole concept of word of mouth, remember that? Holy cow it was nice.
Wal-Mart drives development decisions now. When publishers minimise risk by kow-towing to the retailers, you have a serious problem. When every game has to either be a blockbuster or a student film, we got a real problem. For my end of the game business all of our efforts are going into reaching a mainstream audience who may well even not be interested in what we do! My first game cost me 273,000 dollars. My next one is BLAH millions. How many of you work on games that make money? 4 out of 5 games lose money, according to one pundit who may be lying, admittedly. Can we do any worse if we just trusted the creative folks entirely instead of the publishers?
My point is coming. We’re the only medium that lacks an alternate distribution system. All we have is boxed games sold at retail. This is changing a little. But think about our competition for your entertainment dollar. First run, broadcast, reruns, DVDs.. you name it. hardback, paperback, e-book. Theatre release, pay-per-view, video, DVD. We put our thing on the shelf at Wal-Mart, it sells or it doesn’t, and OMG you just blew 10m dollars. The publishers not respecting developers, this is not the problem. We have a flawed distribution model. There are very few ways of getting a game done these days. Developers.. why should we get a huge return? We’re taking some of the risk, but the $10m, the marketing space, the retail space all belong to someone else. We have winner-take-all business that carries a lot of risk. So .. we have to find alternative sources of funding. Chris Crawford used to rant about how we need patrons.. I don’t care if it’s wealthy patrons, I don’t care what it IS, but it’s critical that we divorce funding from distribution.
We need alternative forms of distribution too. I’m not saying publishers suck, although I do believe that in many cases. [laughter] If the plane went down who would care about the marketing guys? We need another way of getting games out there and in players' hands. If any of you bought Half Life 2 at Wal-Mart, please just leave the room. Has everyone bought Bioware’s online modules? JUST BUY THEM, OK, even if you don’t have the original games! We HAVE to get games into gamers’ hands. So I’m not saying publishers are evil.. if we do all this and go direct to our consumers with games funded some OTHER way than EA or whoever.. we’ll keep more of the money.. we have to find someone to pay for it and find a buyer after. We need Sundances. Independent Film Channel. Equivalents of those. Just try to find some way of funding your stuff that doesn’t come from a publisher.
The movies have this now: the studios don’t fund everything that happens out there. I’m not holding the movie business up as a model of great business practice, but you can get $ from a wide variety of sources. You know what, when the studio system was in place, that didn’t exist. Every creative person was owned by a studio. Cinemas were owned by studios. Content was limited. As soon as the supreme court stepped in and said no you can’t have development, distribution and retailing, everything changed. Now we have Bruckheimer, and Sideways. Sundance. Indies. At the very worst we need publishers to ask more than that one question: is this going to generate max profit. For most games this is NOT THE RIGHT QUESTION. Volkswagen owns rolls Royce, they understand the need for – oh the music’s running, I’m outta here. Thank you.
Jason Della Rocca:
My first rant is related to my work with the IGDA. Meta-level issues. When we’re talking diversity, quality of life, censorship. This are big infinite problems that will never really be solved . These big pictures issues affect developers daily lives. One day your publisher will walk in and cut a game because the government says you can’t make X types of games. That could happen, it's unlikely but possible. But developers are apathetic, head in the sand. But I’m going to cross that off the list cos the room is full here. We need bigger rooms! I don’t want to be negative about GDC, but .. the sessions that have been most packed .. the game design challenge or Will Wright’s talk, seem to be the thing we’re most interested in, and it’s really important that we’re here and talking and I don’t know why they don’t allocate larger rooms to this issue. (Hallelujah -Alice). So apathy is a serious issue. For every one of you in this room there are a thousand out there who don’t care.
Xenophobia. We don’t’ care about anything outside of the game industry. There is so much knowledge, research, business models, management practices out there. We don’t pay attention to anything else outside, and that hurts us in many ways! Software development pros tells us we’re fools – there are tons of systems, processes and tools out there that you could use. This pro, he doesn’t make games.. and you all shake your head and say he doesn’t make games, what does he know, but you know – medical applications are pretty unique! If your machine crashes, someone might die. So yeah, we’re unique, but so are they – and there is decades of research and knowledge that proves that these processes have return, this management stuff is in my brain right now, it’s one of millions of examples of how we as an industry don’t pay attention to other stuff just because it’s not called games. This fear of formal processes. We’re creative cowboys - well it holds back the industry. We had several panels throughout the weeks, the academics, the brainiacs are willing to do this stuff for free. Give them a challenge! Give them a problem – some PhD students could research shipping practices or something.
Journalists and the media side is also broken. I don’t want to point a finger, but they perpetuate a lot of myths about what gamers want, and want counts in the industry. So to sum – open up. Don’t be closed minded to all this stuff out there. Maybe we’re all working too hard to take notice, but I guess that’s an issue we’re working on too.
Greg Costikyan:
I don't know about you but I could have been a lawyer, or a carpenter. or a sous-chef. How many of you are here because you’re after a paycheck? [One bloke raises his hand, audience laughs and crows]. Ahuh. And how many of you are here because you love games? [all hands go up]. Right. So we’re being told that everything’s going to get bigger. Paychecks. Budgets. Consoles. But is it going to get better? I’ve been researching old board games and I’ve spotted a pattern. A new genre: it’s called One Hit Game And Its Imitators. One fishing game appears in mid-19C and dozens follow. Games grow through innovations. Creations of new game styles that spawn imitators and whole new markets. The story of the past few decades is not about graphics and processing power, but startling innovation and industry. That’s why we love games. BUT IT’S OVER NOW!
As recently as 1992: games cost 200K. Next generation games will cost 20m. Publishers are becoming increasingly risk averse. Today you cannot get an innovative title published unless your last name is Wright or Miyamoto. Who was at the Microsoft keynote? I don’t know about you but it made my flesh crawl. [laughter] The HD era? Bigger, louder? Big bucks to be made! Well not by you and me of course. Those budgets and teams ensure the death of innovation. Was your allegiance bought at the price of a television? Then there was the Nintendo keynote. This was the company who established the business model that has crucified the industry today.. Iwata-san has the heart of a gamer, and my question is what poor bastard’s chest did he carve it from? [audience falls about]
How often DO they perform human sacrifices at Nintendo?? My friends, we are FUCKED [laughter]. We are well and truly fucked. The bar in terms of graphics and glitz has been raised and raised until we can’t afford to do anything at all. 80 hour weeks until our jobs are all outsourced to Asia. but it’s ok because the HD era is here right? I say, enough. The time has come for revolution! It may seem to you that what I describe is inevitable forces of history, but no, we have free will! EA could have chosen to focus on innovation, but they did not. Nintendo could make development kits cheaply available to small firms, but they prefer to rely on the creativity on one aging designer. You have choices too: work in a massive sweatshop publisher-run studio with thousands of others making the next racing game with the same gameplay as Pole Position. Or you can riot in the streets of Redwood City! Choose another business model, development path, and you can choose to remember why you love games and make sure in a generation’s time there are still games to love. You can start today.
[standing ovation]
Brenda Laurel:
I want to talk about the spectacle. The meanings created by images that hold us in webs. My thesis is that we are contributing to the damage that the spectacle does to human beings by suggesting the interactivity of a joystick is real agency. We entrain people to understand that imitation has personal power. The spectacle trains us to be consumers. We are urged to keep the economy healthy, pay our bills. Did you ever notice there’s not place for the earth on the bottom line? We cancelled the Voyager mission for less than the cost of a video game! The dream of space appropriated by George W Bush? How can we stand for this?
Games keep essential social myths in place. So we have tropes in our business. Criminals are cool. The commercial game business is a non-consensual relationship between middle aged men and young boys. It’s worse than the catholic church. These are guys who have really big tyres on their trucks … and we all know why! [laughter] So the fantasies of these guys position these boys as tiny little clones: so they force you to take your genius to create this .. this .. we can’t have that fellas. Oh by the way there was a crowd in the ladies bathroom today. w00t!
GTA. I talked to 22 little boys in LA, all of them wanted to see that game. With only one exception, the thing that they wanted to see was to be able to drive by their house. They weren’t interested in stealing cars. Or the criminals. Or the back-story. They weren’t interested in that, they wanted the simulation of driving by the house.
We model male ethos in the games we design: soldier, super athlete, criminal. Anyone who was born with internet and computers are prosocial. Skaters are mainstream. We have two models of alpha maleness: skaters and ballers [I have no idea what this is referring to - A]. … we need heroes, but what kind of heroes are we making? Where’s Malcolm X, or Chavez? There hasn’t been a game about geopolitics that was worth a shit since Hidden Agenda! We should be giving people rehearsals for citizenship and change. I have to tell you, Microsoft is the walking dead. DRM is a wet dream. It’s not gonna work! Cat’s out the bag! When this happens, you have to let the cards fly in the air and fall where they may. GIVE IT UP ABOUT DRM. GIVE IT UP ABOUT OWNERSHIP. Cleave to open source! A NEW ECONOMY IS COMING. As we become further connected we will find new economies emerging. We are the wellspring of popular culture. We have a responsibility.
Chris Hecker:
It pains me to say this but I recently just took a job at EA. However, I worked for Will on the game you just saw, so.. [laughter] I’m going to rant about How Sony And Microsoft Are About To Screw Your Game Design. Look, how are we going to get where gameplay, graphics and physics are all evenly well balanced? At the moment we’re the 120lb weakling, except nowadays his right arm here, graphics, is enormous.
So, as you know, graphics and physics grind on large homogenous floating point data structures in a very straight-line structured way. Then we have AI and gameplay code. Lots of exceptions, tunable parameters, indirections and often messy. We hate this code, it’s a mess, but this is the code that makes the game DIFFERENT. Here is the terrifying realization about the next generation consoles: I’m about to break a ton of NDAs here, oh well, haha, I never signed them anyway.
Gameplay code will get slower and harder to write on the next generation of consoles. Modern CPUs use out-of-order execution, which is there to make crappy code run fast. This was really good for the industry when it happened, although it annoyed many assembly language wizards in Sweden. Xenon and Cell are both in-order chips. What does this mean? It’s cheaper for them to do this. They can drop a lot of cores. One out-of-order core is about four times [did I catch that right? Alice] the size of an in-order core. What does this do to our code? It’s great for grinding on floating point, but for anything else it totally sucks. Rumours from people actually working on these chips – straight-line runs 1/3 to 1/10th the performance at the same clock speed. This sucks.
We hope Nintendo doesn’t follow Sony and Microsoft on this, although they totally flailed this generation so anything could happen. Think about batchable designs and simulationy systems. You wanna just write the gameplay. You could just do PC games. Luckily due to the power of Will Wright, our game is a PC game! [laughter]
...
Eric: I had no idea what I was going to get when I put this panel. What an incredible panel I got. Questions?
Q: Retail developers, get out of your death march! Do you guys think it’s possible for a young student who wants to get in to be an independent developer? Is this possible? Artists these days are getting a 30K dollar degree to work in a 40K job for 80 hours a week. It’s disgusting.
Jason: not an easy path. IGDA are trying to help. All the time when .. we see a lot of students and schools, and when they work on game projects in schools, every one of those projects is a clone of an existing game. NOW is your time to make something innovative or wacky. When you’re working on a student project, use your opportunity to do some crazy stuff!www.experimentalgameplay.com
Brenda: we work with our students so that they have a chance to do interactive media that isn’t just game design.
Q: (Justin) I have a friend called Ben who has this idea for zines that can be passed around.. you think the consoles will ever be platforms for this sort of stuff?
Brenda: I think mobile’s the platform for that.
Warren: we’re developing for multiple platforms. Hah. We still have to figure out what our final deal is. I dunno if I expressed it very well, but all of the problems come back to the fact that you are under the control of the one person who gives you money.Brenda: why don’t you say fuck?
Warren: my mother doesn’t approve.
Jason: Warren wears cardigan sweaters.
Eric: You are a very good Jewish son.
Warren: thank you
Q: I am one of the bad guys: I’m working on a big budget next generation console game. I want to ask about totally legalised piracy? Not Russia and grey market – I’m talking Blockbuster. 20 dollars a year you can borrow whatever you like then give it back. People are going to rent my game for 4 dollars. I won’t see any of that. They’re robbing me!
Chris: I’m pro-piracy. I want people to play the games I make. I do it because it’s art. I think DRM is a total fucking stupid mess. If the game industry collapses and can be reborn, I’m all for it. Pirate on!Greg: they’re not pirating the game! Someone bought a legal copy! The world is not designed in such a way that money inherently funnels its way into your wallet!?
Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!
[the session was brought to an end by the GDC organisers who were timekeeping, to huge booing and catcalling.]
So that's that. Fucking fantastic. Nothing could top that, so I'm off to the pub.
I really am going to have to make a GDC one year, I love just soaking up and thinking over the ideas and opinions of designers, even though I'm not one myself. Thanks for the frequent lengthy updates Alice, it's been great following the GDC from across the pond. Hope you can still hold a pint glass down the pub after all that typing! ;)
Posted by: Pete C | March 12, 2005 at 01:33
That last questioner was so lame. I wonder if he's ever been to a library?
Hey, that would mean that librarians are pirates! "Quiet, or you'll feel the point o' me cutlass, ye scurvy dog!"
Hmm, time for bed....
Posted by: NelC | March 12, 2005 at 03:18
That panel ROCKED! Wish I coulda been there, but being 9000 miles from San Francisco is a bit of a problem. So here it is: DIY, give it away, do it for art's sake, and fuck big media. Perfect, perfect, perfect. THANK YOU ALICE!
Posted by: mpesce | March 12, 2005 at 05:54
Hehe my pleasure, glad you got to get a bit of it :)
And as for that last bloke and his terrible question, he left the room with his tail between his legs...
x
Posted by: Alice | March 12, 2005 at 08:14
Some links for hints of what new business models will look like for the games industry:
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html
http://www.digitalartauction.com/history/bcbm.htm
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | March 12, 2005 at 13:18
Interesting stuff.... I'm not a game designer, but the comments here give me hope that maybe I could do something interesting and make an impact.
BTW, just for future reference, a baller is someone who plays basketball, probably in the same way that a hacker is someone who uses a computer.
Posted by: JW | March 12, 2005 at 13:32
Great session. Thanks for transcribing it.
I think baller in this context is referring to a gang member.
http://www.gang-busters.com/terms/html/..%5Chtml%5Cletter_b.aspx
Posted by: Joe | March 12, 2005 at 15:26
thank you very much for this coverage. elightening and educating for those of us too poor to attend. again, thank you.
Posted by: art after next | March 12, 2005 at 16:28
Hi. Thanks for the article. But let me ask you something: ARE YOU BLIND? Your line spacing makes your articles almost impossible to read. I think you have interesting things to say, it's just too painful to read them.
Posted by: zeke | March 12, 2005 at 20:13
I can't wait for all these idoits to go their own way and bankrupt themselves. Then when development does get outsourced to the Guptas in India we might actually get some real innovation, rather than the fifth rehash of some urban myths.
Of all these whiners, only Brenda had anything remotely resembling a cogent thought, but her rant ends as foolishly as any of the others.
Sorry, guys, but Saddam is gone, and unless you can get Kim Il Jong to be your patron, you are out of luck.
Posted by: anonymous | March 12, 2005 at 21:49
For another model of how to make money making games without selling one's soul, check out our site
http://www.piecorp.org/
In addition to learing about our particular efforts, the MMOG called "Mars First!", you can read the (Creative Commons licensed) article "A Lever Long Enough: Value driven enterprise in the networked information economy", posted on our site at
http://piecorp.org/aleverlongenough.html
about the emergence of a new alternative to the traditional capitalist model of corporations and markets (which Yochai Benkler calls "commons-based peer-production", of which open source is but one example), and how to leverage that production model for socially-constructive ends.
We have developed a business plan (for massively multiplayer gaming development, distribution and support, in this case) that doesn't rely on proprietary tech, content or distribution.
Besides being self-supporting (after an initial development phase that would be funded by donations), the model actually generates significant net revenue that is then rolled over into the creation of other, similar, public interest projects in a "virtuous circle".
As an offshoot of the development process, open-source tools for design, development, support and content-creation are publicly released.
P.S.: PIECORP, Public Interest Entertainment Corporation, is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, dedicated to using the technology of games to make a difference, and to developing open source/open development/open publishing/open distribution tools for others to do the same. Everything we create is available for the common good.
(Disclaimer: Brenda Laurel is on our board, but doesn't know I'm posting this and she did not speak on our behalf at the GDC, which I did not attend this year. Nothing I post here should be construed as representing her POV or opinion, nor anyone else's but my own as founder and executive director of the organization.)
Anyone interested in talking about this model or our project (or interested in funding some of it) is welcome to contact me through the website.
Posted by: galiel | March 12, 2005 at 22:46
"Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!"
Heh.
Posted by: Ben | March 12, 2005 at 23:03
>(Disclaimer: Brenda Laurel is on our board, but
>doesn't know I'm posting this and she did not speak on
>our behalf at the GDC, which I did not attend this
>year. Nothing I post here should be construed as
>representing her POV or opinion, nor anyone else's but
>my own as founder and executive director of the
>organization.)
Nevertheless, Brenda's comments turned my stomach. She not only bashed Bush, she called all public corporations inherently evil. She was so far left in her views that if she isn't at least a Green, she's a freakin' Communist. I won't be supporting your organization in any way, shape, or form so long as she is on your board.
Bruce
Posted by: SirBruce | March 13, 2005 at 04:15
It's sad to see smart people say things like this. If they hate the non-indie game market so much, why don't they leave it? And in some cases, how can they hate the non-indie game market when they're not even a part of it?
If all you want is to innovate, and everything in your current job makes it hard for you to innovate, then why don't you move to the section of the game industry that doesn't have any of these problems? I'm not sure if it's a mental disconnect or if they're just being disingenuous. Either way I respect these people a little less.
If Warren Spector actually thinks that people who pirate your game weren't going to buy it anyway, then I *know* there's a mental disconnect in there somewhere.
Posted by: bobstevens | March 13, 2005 at 04:21
I'd like for you to explain how someone living in Russia who makes a few dollars a day is going to buy your game legally for what is the equivilent of 200 dollars in Russia when he can easily get the same game pirated for a few dollars.
The people who commit piracy the most are often those who can't afford to buy the legal copies anyhow. Piracy in America is rather pointless considering that you can get the games for the same cost as a pirated copy by borrowing it from Blockbuster anyhow.
Posted by: Exitium | March 13, 2005 at 10:26
Sir Bruce -
It is useful to know that you evaluate the merits of a thing based exclusively on the personal ideology of all associated with it. It is unfortunate that you rush to throw out all babies with every drop of bathwater.
At the very least, now we know not to take your mmog stats at face value, but to wonder instead how your ideology has led you to skew the results to favor those games whose creators and distributors meet your ideological litmus test. Silly me, I assumed you were a reputable source, and referred many to your stats.
Or do you feel it is unfair, and even silly for people to discount your stats based on your ideology?
Personally, I have found it useful to evaluate the merits of a thing based on its actual merits. To reject things a priori on the basis of your superficial perception of the ideology of all associated with a project, is an act of precisely the kind of dogmatic, unthinking ideology to which you seem to object.
Incidentally, it is rather ignorant to dismiss a person with a body of work and a record of contribution to the industry such as Brenda's, based on a hasty and superficial interpretation of a transcript of a single comment of hers at a rant session. Brenda is not only a game entrepreneur herself (founder and CEO of Purple Moon), but has and does consulting for many of the leading corporations in America.
If you intend to oppose all worthwhile activity, capitalist or philanthropic, that happens to have opponents to George W. Bush associated with it in any way, then you are clearly not a fan of American democracy nor of capitalism. More like one who yearns for the clarity and simplicity of the McCarthy era.
I assume you have an enemies list now. If Brenda ends up associated with an mmog that merits inclusion in your stats, will you exclude it based on your Unamerican Activities list? How do we know you haven't already skewed the results to fit your ideology? See how ridiculous this can get?
In which case, I am happy not to have your support - even for a 501(c)3 organization, which, by law, does not involve itself in political activity of any kind, and even though I have been an entrepreneur myself for twenty years. Apparently, my choice to make my creations freely available makes me a Communist, too - as Bill Gates called anyone associated with the open source movement. How amusing.
Posted by: galiel | March 13, 2005 at 17:30
Post deleted for violations of Godwin's Law -- keep it civil or take it somewhere else! -- Alice
Posted by: SirBruce | March 13, 2005 at 19:14
Back to the actual point of the post, someone has to get the ball rolling. Someone has to be the catalyst, and help evolve a self-sustaining alternative system for development and distribution and revenue-collection.
The system will not cure itself, nor will alternatives spontaneously appear. Mere faith in the magic of the "market" will not suffice, any more than the truly insightful rants referenced above will cure the ills.
What is needed is the willingness to devote resources, energy and time to step outside the system and build alternatives that are not only financial sustaining, but professionally and personally satisfying as well. It is not an overnight project, either; Rome was not built in a day (outside the gamer world, that is).
But, there are solutions. There are ideas and plans out there, have been for a long time, that require only the application of a critical mass of money, time, and energy, to make it happen, from funding new creations, to distributing them, to collecting revenue, and perpetuating the cycle entirely outside the current system.
And, the resources exist, too. The money is out there, the manpower is available, the desire is clearly abundant.
All that stands in the way is a set of fictions about the way things "must" be done, chief among them the idea that nothing worthwhile can be ventured unless it happens within the confines of our proprietary, antagonistic, hyper-corporate culture, where not only the product of our labors but even the product of our minds is converted to "intellectual property", something to be hoarded and secreted and rationed and owned by others, where "war" is waged to "beat" the competition, where workers are exploited, customers (barely) tolerated and only money talks. We have been hypnotized to believe that we are enemies of one another. It is a divide and conquer strategy that has deprived the world of much creativity and art and benefit, and, like all dogmas, it can and should be questioned, and alternatives sought. Commons-based peer production, aka open source/open development/open publishing, is one part of the answer.
There are, by the nature of our profession, a lot of big egos around, and a lot of self-interest behind many of the complaints. That won't be enough to make the difference. It takes generosity of spirit and a willingness to get down in the trenches rather than be up on the podium. I, for one, am delighted to hear folks finally speaking out. There can be no change until there is acknowledgement of the problem.
However, I have heard these grumbles for years, behind the scenes, and often the loudest grumblers, the most rabble-rousing ranters, end up being the ones who, at the end of the day, go back and make yet another empty special-effects spectacular for The Man.
Nothing will change until we change it.
Together.
Posted by: galiel | March 14, 2005 at 01:57
Post re-made to avoid "Godwin's Law" -- don't allow others to attack me without allowing me to defend myself.
>It is useful to know that you evaluate the merits of a
>thing based exclusively on the personal ideology of
>all associated with it. It is unfortunate that you
>rush to throw out all babies with every drop of
>bathwater.
Wow, nice to see you're mastered hyperbole and demagoguery; now lets see if you can handle logic.
>At the very least, now we know not to take your mmog
>stats at face value, but to wonder instead how your
>ideology has led you to skew the results to favor
>those games whose creators and distributors meet your
>ideological litmus test. Silly me, I assumed you were
>a reputable source, and referred many to your stats.
I've always told people not to take my stats at face value. You're not going to wound me by accusing me of bias; I've heard that many times before.
>Or do you feel it is unfair, and even silly for people
>to discount your stats based on your ideology?
It's simply a matter of judgement, and you're also conflating factual reporting with organization. If Stalin was a reporter, I would not discount his articles simply because he was Stalin; I would evaluate them on their own, self-contained content and merit. I would keep in mind his potential for bias, of course.
Now instead, if Stalin was on the board of an organization, then I would certainly be inherently suspicious of the goals of that organization. Even if his influence from his position is limited, I worry about the judgement of the organization wanting to associate with such a person.
Now of course I'm not saying Brenda is Stalin. But Brenda strikes me as the person who is not simply expressing her opinions, but is advocating them, and would be an advocate of those political opinions even on the board of your organization. Now perhaps her voice doesn't hold much sway over the board, but I still have to question the judgement of the organization to have her on the board in the first place.
>Incidentally, it is rather ignorant to dismiss a
>person with a body of work and a record of
>contribution to the industry such as Brenda's, based
>on a hasty and superficial interpretation of a
>transcript of a single comment of hers at a rant
>session. Brenda is not only a game entrepreneur
>herself (founder and CEO of Purple Moon), but has and
>does consulting for many of the leading corporations
>in America.
Ummm, I was THERE, okay? I'm not interpreting the transcript. It goes way beyond the swipe at Bush. She accused the majority of corporate CEOs as being corrupt middle-aged men indulging in power-trip fantasies trying to turn little boys into either corporate cogs or trained killers -- you know, Republicans and the evil soldiers/police they use to oppress the hippies. She said all public corporations were evil.
I make no judgement about her past work, especially that which I don't know about. I'm sure some of it was good and some of it was bad. But your organization is supposed to promote not only a "civil society", but a set of values that go along with teaching people to get along in virtual worlds. If that philosophy has no room for Capitalism, I want no part of it.
>If you intend to oppose all worthwhile activity,
>capitalist or philanthropic, that happens to have
>opponents to George W. Bush associated with it in any
>way, then you are clearly not a fan of American
>democracy nor of capitalism. More like one who yearns
>for the clarity and simplicity of the McCarthy era.
This coming from someone who, if they think like Brenda, opposes all worthwhile activity, capitalist or philanthropic, because it happens to be associated with George W. Bush in any way. Oh, who am I kidding? If it's capitalist or associated with Bush, it can't be worthwhile, right?
Let's be clear -- the reactionary and polar nature of our dispute here originated with Brenda, not me. Clearly you think this is not proper and I agree, but if you want to move to a constructive dialog, you need to do something about her, not me.
>I assume you have an enemies list now. If Brenda ends
>up associated with an mmog that merits inclusion in
>your stats, will you exclude it based on your
>Unamerican Activities list? How do we know you haven't
>already skewed the results to fit your ideology? See
>how ridiculous this can get?
The key thing is I *know* I'm not going to do that, because I hold myself to a higher standard as a journalist. Naturally, I have to convince my readers that I'm not going to be biased, and that can only come by building up trust over time.
But I have no reason to believe Brenda isn't applying her bias inside your organization, nor do I have any reason to believe, despite your disclaimer, that you actually think differently, because frankly you haven't expressed your opinions beyond what you've posted above, which could very well include a lot of Devil's Advocacy. But if Brenda's opinions are so rabidly anti-capitalism, anti-Republican, anti-white male as they appear, then why should I believe that her games, which will focus on "the rules, regulations, laws, political and economic systems and social conventions and principles" will not reflect those biases? Why should I doubt her rules systems will reward behave that is closer to Karl Marx than Milton Friedman?
>In which case, I am happy not to have your support -
>even for a 501(c)3 organization, which, by law, does
>not involve itself in political activity of any kind,
>and even though I have been an entrepreneur myself for
>twenty years. Apparently, my choice to make my
>creations freely available makes me a Communist, too -
>as Bill Gates called anyone associated with the open
>source movement. How amusing.
I have nothing against open source or someone choosing to make open source software. I do have a problem with someone claiming anything made via the profit motive is inherently evil and exploitative.
Bruce
Posted by: SirBruce | March 14, 2005 at 02:53
It is always distressing when people are irrationally determined to cause damage, because of some wild ideological hair up their ass, to people they don't even know, working on projects they haven't bothered to learn about, attempting to do worthwhile work in the world.
It is so easy to carelessly and thoughtlessly destroy the efforts of others, even their life's work, from the comfort of an armchair, and so difficult to actually do something constructive. Hate is a lazy emotion, and this medium is easy prey for the lazy.
I have plenty of life experience with people more committed to argumentation than action. I used to be like that myself. Then I grew up. Life is simply too short, and too precious, to bother with such self-indulgent nonsense when there is important work to be done.
So, I treat Sir Bruce as damage and route around him. Life, and work, will go on, with or without his sanction, approval or acclaim. Clearly, he has nothing constructive to offer in this discussion.
One final note, just to be clear and unapologetic: Brenda Laurel isn't just "on our board," she chairs it, at my invitation. She also happens to be a dear personal friend of mine, which is why I take great acception to Sir Bruce's ignorant, McCarthyesque smear of a wonderful, individual with a generous and genuine heart---who, incidentally, has contributed far more to this industry than he probably ever will. Among other things, she co-founded the GDC.
The demons you fight are clearly your own, Sir Bruce, and you are projecting bizarre caricatures on real people with real lives that bear no relationship to your simplistic black-or-white fantasy-world. You should think twice about the real consequences of your thoughtless words. It is far easier to tear down that to build, but just because it is easy, doesn't make it right. Life isn't a video game, and it's not all about beating the "enemy".
Posted by: galiel | March 14, 2005 at 04:16
"That panel ROCKED! Wish I coulda been there, but being 9000 miles from San Francisco is a bit of a problem. So here it is: DIY, give it away, do it for art's sake, and fuck big media. Perfect, perfect, perfect. THANK YOU ALICE!"
Quoted for emphasis.
Posted by: Ross Mansfield | March 14, 2005 at 14:01
Maybe we should all get back into side-scrollers big time...
Posted by: bottleHeD | March 14, 2005 at 14:57
If SirBruce's original post mentioned Nazis, then it was a proof of Godwin's Law, not a violation of it. (It's a law as in 'Natural Laws of Physics,' not as in 'speed limit.')
Posted by: fluffy | March 14, 2005 at 16:02
What are they ranting about really? The things they complain about have existed since the dawn of video gaming!
Pong appeared - Dozens of Pong clones followed suit
Space Invaders - Dozens of clones followed
PacMan - dozens of clones and maze games
>>Fast Forward to the days of Consoles... Same deal. Mario Bros 3 was a mega hit - EVERY company had to follow suit with a side-scroller.
It never ends folks. And it's not just in the video game industry. So stop complaining and just make fun games.
Posted by: RayB | March 14, 2005 at 20:27
Just a note, I couldn't read your page without having Firefox change the page style to "no style". Otherwise it was rendered with each line overlapping the ones before it. Dunno if it's a firefox problem or a stylesheet issue. Anyhow, thought you should know.
Posted by: Merc | March 14, 2005 at 20:37