On public service gaming

Recently I del.icio.us'd a link to David Rejeski discussing the value of a corporation for public service gaming (in the US). We Brits have such a corporation, of course, in the British Broadcasting Corporation which, since its inception in the 1920s has done far more than just broadcast. The BBC makes television and radio shows, as well as hugely useful inventions, a walloping great website (and websites), content-on-demand, games of all sorts, commercial stuff (but not with public money, as I understand it), fundraising, interactive education, and a whole bunch of other interests that I've either forgotten about or never even knew about in the first place.

Disclaimer: a reminder that the following is entirely my own personal opinion, not that of my employer's, and should not be taken in any way to be the BBC's take on things.

While the US realises (rather ruefully perhaps) that public service media is a bit of a good thing, over the pond the BBC has recently been considering its future, and what public service actually means for the Corporation-that-does-far-more-than-broadcast. Putting aside the curiousness of a 'television license' - why just television? - and the fact that the corporation is currently stuck with the word broadcast in its name, many people have asked the question, or a variation of: "Should the BBC be doing games?"

Should the BBC, as a broadcaster, be doing games? Should the BBC, as a powerful creative content producer, be doing games? Should the BBC, as a public service entity with an understood remit to Educate, Inform and Entertain, be doing games?

And what's a public service game, anyway?

I LOVE this subject. And, because I haven't done this out here before, here's my take on things to date. I'm going to start with the last question from the group above, because I think it's the most important one, then work backwards to the least important one in context: whether the BBC should be making games of any kind at all. And like I said before, this is all my own opinion here. I'm more than open to a good discussion about it too, especially if said discussions involve cocktails and yelling.

-=[o]=-

1. What's a public service game?

My favourite question, and here's my view: a public service game is one that provides or creates a public good. Yes, that actually can just mean a good game. Oh that's convenient, you say, but let me explain: a fine, good game, one that will be remembered, one that does not necessarily pander to the already-popular but maybe creates "popular", one that can stand proud as a quality piece of work, and one that doesn't befuddle, sell soap or disinform. I'd say that was a work of public good, and if it's a game, so be it.

Commercial entities can therefore produce such games, and do so all the time (Lego Star Wars, anyone?), although maybe not explicitly. But perhaps if there were a public service entity producing such games, then that public service entity should strive to produce only such games? In brief, quality and originality, free of advertising and sponsorship bias, free of political bias, and where possible, free at the point of consumption, too.

Lastly, of course, public service creations should go where others haven't dared to tread (yet); they should experiment on behalf of the commercial industry as well as customers interested in the new, the alternative or the different.

Public service creations should strive to quest out at the edges, and bring back news of gold or inclement weather for the benefit of others. Public service entities are, after all, millions of tiny investments by the Many: they should risk more because they can afford to, and they should share those lessons and insights with everyone else. Yes, everyone else.

-=[o]=-

2. Should the BBC, as a public service entity with an understood remit to Educate, Inform and Entertain, be doing games?

Is a computer or video game capable of educating, informing or  entertaining? Yes. Could a computer or video game speak to certain audience types or moods better than television or radio shows could? Yes. Do audiences want to spend some of their time playing games rather than watching television or listening to radio or browsing websites? Yes.

Is there an independent UK development industry that the BBC could work with? Yes. Is there a demand for high quality games? Well, yes, judging by the continuing rise in sales. Is that demand being fulfilled by commercial activity alone? This question is key. What do you think? Does it matter?

Should public service media only do what commercial media won't or can't? If so, the huge majority of public service output, including Doctor Who, Radio 1 and EastEnders, wouldn't exist. Oh, I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks this would be a good thing, but I doubt they're the entire country.

Would this sort of action "skew the market"? Only if the BBC were to somehow produce hugely successful triple-A games in-house .. without spending money in the UK industry .. and whilst muscling out commercial entities trying to do the same thing .. and stifling demand for any games other than those created by the BBC. My answer is therefore No, it wouldn't.

-=[o]=-

3. Should the BBC, as a creative content producer, be doing games?

Storytelling is a good talent of the BBC's. It has decades of experience telling stories, making people laugh, creating worlds, producing award-winning dialogue as well as visual and audio treats. It nurtures home-grown talent, and exports the work of that talent abroad.

However, the BBC's decades of experience are not yet in the digital world of interactive storytelling. I would even go so far as to say that no-one's single-handedly cracked it yet, although Marc Laidlaw, David Jaffe and a comparatively small handful of other folk have come screamingly close, hampered, I think, only by technology.

I'm saying comparatively here: compare film and television dialogue to that found in the average videogame and while games like God of War are eye-openingly marvellous, they're not quite Pulp Fiction in the dialogue department. We can expect this to rapidly change: movie and television talent can bring better performances to games, just as game talent can bring mystery and playfulness to shows. The talent agencies are there already.

Most importantly though, the BBC has an obligation to reach all of its license-fee paying households. If there are household members who prefer games to television and radio, then the BBC ought to be providing to them on the platforms and mediums they favour, whether they're spin-offs (where is that Doctor Who game?) or original content. As Simon says,

The cultural reference point for the next generation will be YouTube rather than Bleak House.

I'd say it could be games, based on this and this and their ilk, but his sentiment is spot on.

-=[o]=-

4. Should the BBC, as a broadcaster, be doing games?

Broadcaster schmordcaster! The BBC should broadly cast its public money about onto the best mediums and platforms for its customers, the license-fee payers. Yes, a broadlycaster, please, forgive me. If those customers want games (or movies, or television, or websites), then they must have them, and in various forms and formats.

As it stands, the BBC produces all such things, with commercial investment for the more ambitious and expensive projects. The balance of the public money spent is an intriguing one, and the majority will continue to go on news and television, I'm sure: but adjustments need to be made going forwards in the light of the popularity of certain newer genres and platforms.

Commercial investment does mean, of course, that the fingers of commercial concern begin to touch any projects in development. "Will it make money?" will come to the fore, hopefully not before "Will it be any good?" but sometimes such is the way of things. See Tomb Raider 3 through what was it, 7?, for examples of this. Or any Uwe Boll film. Or Star Wars Episodes 1-2 for that matter.

-=[o]=-

Here's the crux of it all though, if you're still with me.

If the BBC were to stand up and proclaim that it were to produce 'public service games' from here on in, it would be a disaster. Does it proclaim that it produces public service drama? No it doesn't. How about public service Doctor Who, or public service Strictly Come Dancing? Public Service Teletubbies?   

If David Rejeski's corporation were to be formed in the USA - and it certainly would be interesting to see that happen - I'm sure that it would want to remain quietly in the background of game development, certainly not spending $$$ on flashy logos or television adverts.

"Public Service Media" probably suffers too much from being tagged as 'worthy' for it ever to have a public persona. Public service media should be like a cod liver oil pill: life-enhancing and good for you, as long as you can't taste it. A public service game can range from a quality web-based bit of fun to a multi-million-pound commercial co-production for the expensive stuff (much like Rome, a BBC & HBO co-pro TV show), but must have a primary focus on quality and integrity, not just a fast buck.

(Thanks to Jem for sending me the Simon link, which kicked this whole thing off: and yes, I totally agree with Simon - state-subsidised games for growing broadband takeup was nutty, and entirely moot.)

Over to you for corrections, improvements, and cocktail recipes.

Comments

[Cris]

*claps*

The BBC is one of the main reasons i could never emigrate to the US and i've been hoping for a while now that they would be prudent enough to realise their expansion onto the internet, podcasting and downloadable content should just be the first step to a much more wide range of content, services and medium!

First DTV, next the MMO wooooorld!

I vote Eastenders MMO, where we can all live miserable east london lives from anywhere in London! Now that's progress.

Maybe a Little Britain FPS? Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps Sims clone?

I want to work in THAT R&D department!!

[Sicart]

Public service gaming has been for quite a while one of my interests. At the risk of making self-publicity, I have actually written some stuff and done some presentations on the topic (which can be found in my website).
In general, I agree with the article, but I'd like to expand the notion: every game that voluntarily plays a role in the public sphere is a public service game. That is, it need not be sanctioned by a public (broadcasting or not) corporation. What it needs is to be placed in the sphere of the public, which can also be done by private initiative or even by individuals, given the distribution models of the Internet.
What I usually tell to my students is that public service games would be made by the BBC or by, say, Banksy, because some of his art actually does play a role in the public sphere as much as the prime time news does.
So, public service games like the BBC, public service games like graffiti.

cheers!

/miguel

PS: I've left out some extra considerations on how/why public corporations should behave - but my ideas can be read on my site :)

[ash]

Just an addendum - the BBC does produce games. If you count alternative reality games like Jamie Kane (designed for 14 year olds girls, and it looks it), anyway. There was a slightly better one promoting something Egyptological last year, too, called something like Escape to Samara. This is definitely a space in which they are planning a significant presence.

[Seb Potter]

Good thoughts all round. I think there are certain people at the BBC who do really get this, and it will be really interesting to see how the corporation's output evolves as the television becomes less and less dominant as a platform in the coming years.

[Adam]

What a fantastic idea. Too bad the BBC would spend fantastic amounts of money making sure that only British customers could play their games, just like they seem to be willing to spend oodles to make sure that only British costumers can get some of their content (their archives, for example). I can loudly predict that any game they made that they released for free would attempt to phone home, and if the origin is an IP address allocated outside of the UK the game wouldn't work.

[Enrique Sanchez]

I think that another issue to be considered is the BBC's commitment to create relevant local content instead of relying on cheaper foreign (basically American) imports. This is often forgotten mainly because the BBC fufills this need so well, but it's the main remit for most public broadcasters abroad, especially in Europe.

The point is that this is hugely required in the UK game industry. The only games that involve UK culture to any real degree do so with cliches, such as Lara Croft (the aristocracy) and the Getaway (cockerney gangstaaaas) which are easily marketable to foreign markets (again, basically America). Even UK devcos make all their games to be sold in the US, with American settings and/or characters. Otherwise they are culture-neutral titles, such as racing games.

Whenever there's some kind of reference or cameo of British culture in a game we all get excited, but imagine a game that was entirely set in and about actual British life? Where is the Shaun Of The Dead or Wallace And Gromit of videogames?

It's this problem that the BBC is perfectly placed to tackle and indeed I imagine the only people capable of it.

[Seb Potter]

It's not that the Beeb spends fantastic amounts of money to make sure that only British customers can play their games (or more normally, view their content), it's that the British customers have already paid for the content, and often that content is only licensed to the BBC for use in the United Kingdom. Where there are no such rights limitations we might see such content being delivered unencumbered with DRM when it's practical to do so. There aren't fantastic amounts of money being spent on this either - restricting content by geographic lookup of an IP address is pretty much free.

In the case of games, I'd imagine that where it decides to get involved in game development the BBC is going to be building on its television brands, incorporating television content, and generally narrowing the distinction between television and other platforms. Why should UK television license payers fund the creation of games for global audiences? Unless things change drastically with the charter review the BBC has no remit to produce commercial products for sale outside of the UK.

(Oh yeah, these are all my personal opinions, and not those of my employer either.)

[bob]

I think you've found the solution to what ails the game industry. This gives me hope for the future of games. The game industry as it exists, with its financial pressures, can't afford to expand its definition of what a game is. So no games that are centered around intellectual or emotional complexity; just flashier versions of what-came-before. Something outside the current industry would be needed to make the necessary change.

"Public games" won't be coming from the U.S., though. Public radio and television have always been small here (most public TV programs here are in fact from the BBC), and recently have come under serious attack. The same people who are going after public broadcasting are also none too fond of computer/video games. The future of what already exists is questionable; new programs are unimaginable.

I think the problem with the writing in games isn't that Marc Laidlaw (or Orson Scott Card, etc.) are being held back by the technology so much as by the industry's idea of what the role of the writer is. Mistakenly, the industry believes that design and writing are separate issues, and the writer is usually brought in to add polish to an existing story and design. (Let's face it, although a great game, "Half-Life" had one of the most clichéd stories out there- I can think of at least half-a-dozen games with the same basic plot.) Again, it seems like a force outside the current game production paradigm is required to enact real change. I really believe that if the game industry is going to survive much longer, it needs to seriously change and expand beyond what it's doing now. "Public games" could turn out to be the salvation of the entire industry.

[Dom]

I'd imagine one of the easiest ways in which the BBC could help public service gaming is to issue a grant to the most promising game designs. I know that Children In Need hands out grants, but I guess that's a pretty different thing and we grouchy license-payers wouldn't be as happy about our money going to game grants. I'm not entirely sure what other grants the BBC might give. I know that when I was at Uni, a couple of graduates created a game company entirely funded by grants from the Arts Council and local North East commitees to help produce art in the region. That kind of thing sounds right up the BBC's alley, but perhaps I'm wrong. I'm sure you'd have a better idea than I do!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/games/

http://spong.com/detail/game.asp?tid=10124292

Too late, the beeb already does Dr Who games...

Should they try and do something that gamers actually want to play though? Personally, I'd say no, but that's purely because "licensed" style games are almost always really poor, and that's what the BBC would most likely do. After all, the other media they're involved in is generally tie-ins. In fact, beyond their news output, I don't really know anything the BBC does that I'd consider good since Farscape (Dr Who and Little Britain score an "OK" but they're nothing compared to, say, Babylon 5 and Father Ted).
But, beyond pessimism at their quality levels it's a really interesting topic.

[Cris]

I keep telling my dad that TV, Film and games are going to overlap and intermingle, but he won't have it, he still considers computer games something that 8 year olds play.

I think when the BBC is supplying IP TV and our sets or set top boxes are basically computers, it will all blur together and you'll start getting interactive sections of TV programs...

I've thought the idea of Episodic content is a great one. You buy a game for the Playstation 3 based on a TV Show. For arguement, lets say it's The Sopranos (not BBC I know). It's GTA clone, but it follows the storyline set out by the last 5 series of the game, and has an online element too, so there is plenty of single and MMO fun to be had.

Now every week, a new show is broadcast (works better for a BBC show) and your PS3 gets new game content that allows you to play around the plotline of the show. Like Enter the Matrix, you'll play the bits you only half saw or extend a scene to understand it more.

This could certainly work if it was an MMO of a drama, like Eastenders, because as the things happen on the show, they can happen in the persistant world, and it would change things...

Damn, i just want my Eastenders MMO so i can get it on with Peggy!!

[Mark]

Imagine also asking the question; should the BBC develop a computer system to heighten public computer literacy. Today the answer would be "no" because there are compelling alternatives but when there were no such alternatives, the BBC did create a computer system (the BBC micro) which served it's purpose. So perhaps the answer on gaming lies in a similar vein. Is there a compelling alternative? At the moment, games serve almost exclusively to entertain and are bound by commercial needs. The BBC could drive development of such projects that would never make the commercial greenlight. And if it could do that and create the opportunity to have fun, then you have a public service game.

[andy]

A lot of good points, well made, there my dear. The Beeb did various experiments with interactive storytelling of the nature of "call in and tell us what should happen next", that didn't quite work for lots of reasons. But the principle remains worthy of experimentation. I wholly agree that the one area that games need an adventurous piece of risk taking is in narrative. 'Storyteller' is a role that most games companies miss out (or combine with 'producer' or whatever). And is the one thing the Beeb has in spades. Jamie Kane started it off. Let's hope they'll keep it going, and do it bigger and better.

Cocktails: try the Pussyfoot. A double shot of lime cordial, a double shot of grenadine, a splash of vodka, orange juice 3/4 up the shaker, and then pineapple the rest of the way. A squeeze of lemon juice, a cherry. Lovely.

[loki]

I think that reframing the idea would probably help a lot. don't call it 'games' call it interactive media. The idea of doing the Enter the Matrix type of side-plot exploration is a really good one for entertainment. But there is other areas, and this is why I say it should be done under the larger umbrella of interactive content.

Imagine a tv show which derives its content from interactions in an MMORPG type environment, or a more educational type of thing like games involving things like biology, chemistry, physics...

And there is one area of game development which I personally sorely miss, games in the style of the old text adventures, where plot is central to the game, and the competitive parts of the game are more peripheral. Like the original Dune... This style of game would be very well suited to spin-offs from doctor who. It is a type of game that has almost disappeared from the market with all this fuss over FPS games and MMORPGs, and is immensely fun, because you get to pretend you are your hero character or one of his/her sidekicks.

[drk]

Forget all this - the BBC have already been there, done that and got the t-shirt.

The BBC Computer Literacy campaign - which sold a LOT of 6502 Acorn BBC branded computers was a major propaganda push by a public service broadcaster to inform and educate the public.

About computers, about programming, about the potential of technology that would later mature into the internet (Teletext + Prestel + Hackers == Prince Phillip's Account)

The BBC inspired a whole generation of hackers - good and bad - to create new stuff - and BBC/AcornSoft created novel games.

What games? Elite, Sentinel, and the Spitfire flight sim (can't remember the name) - not to mention a whole slew of text-adventure games and a huge number of educational roms and addons that inspired a whole generation of computer geeks to higher and higher levels of geekery.

I wrote my first machine code in 6502 assembler - because the BBC had a built in assembler - and if nobody here understands just how revolutionary that was way back then - they weren't there.

Nuff said! The BBC should continue to inform and educate - even if that means making games.

Again.

[Kevin Marks]

A couple of quick points.
I'm not sure how well the Beeb gets this whole thing. Having been a founder of the first BBC spinout in this area (the MultiMedia Corporation in 1990) and seeing the same thing happen again more than once, I'm not convinced the corporation has interactivity in its DNA. (Yes, bad pun but great article).
Secondly, the whole 'the UK have paid for it already, so we have to use DRM' argument is a load of bollocks. If it's been paid for, why demand it be paid for again. Turn off the DRM, use the World Service mandate to put it on the web for everyone, and upsell DVDs or whatever. Watching Beeb types playing at being commercial is embarrassing, because the whole reason they joined the BBC was to avoid sordid commerce, so when they try and do it they act like their own clumsy stereotypes of businessmen.

[Digger Derricks]

that's really interesting thank you :)