Tomorrows games: Designed by players?

[EndR]

An interesting article over at news.com were both Will Wright and J Allard comment on a possible direction for games in the future...

Some tidbits:

"(Gaming) is the only medium where we yield control of the protagonist. Let's yield control of the director--and the producer," said Allard, a vice president at Microsoft. "We're going to take on the Wikipedia model. We're going to take on...the open-source model, if you will, for gaming."

How an un-Microsoft:ian view..

"Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas," Wright said.

The whole article:
http://news.com.com/Tomorrows+games,+designed+by+players+as+they+play/2100-1043_3-6034630.html

 

[ninzel]

Great idea , I just hope it means they aren't trying to offload the work of creating games to us to save themselves money. If they offer complete cohesive games up front PLUS the ability to customize our exepreince that would be very cool.
I hate it when you see a game with a real crappy SP game that you can tell the developer put very little effort into, but has a strong MP.MP is just a perfect example if trying to offer less for the same price. It's alot easier to create a sandbox to allow players to play MP in than it is to create an engaging SP with great stories and characters.
This could turn into the same thing, getting a lackluster incomplete game up front.

 

[Titanio]

Well, it's happening right now in the PC space, and has for some time..

I think to make it more than a minority interest, though, you need to make it fun, part of the game as such. Like Spore. Otherwise it may seem like too much like hard work - I mean those mods you see, those extra levels created by players in PC games - that's a lot of work. Of course, there are people for whom that's fun and a big interest, but most people aren't going to dedicate themselves in that way to it (though I appreciate that this is acknowledged).

It's also a bit of a double-edged sword for publishers. They don't want people getting so wrapped up in a game, and in free content, that they stop spending money on new games.

I think it's good to have it available though, and hope it'll move more into the console space with time.

 

[ninzel]

Well, it's happening right now in the PC space, and has for some time..

Oh no now don't say that, MS and 360 pioneered customization. Other platforms don't exist don't you know.

"I think to make it more than a minority interest, though, you need to make it fun, part of the game as such. Like Spore. Otherwise it may seem like too much like hard work - I mean those mods you see, those extra levels created by players in PC games - that's a lot of work. Of course, there are people for whom that's fun and a big interest, but most people aren't going to dedicate themselves in that way to it (though I appreciate that this is acknowledged)."

I don't see this being a problem with consoles since a console has neither the interface, nor the complex robust software neccesary to really get as creative as you would on PC.
Therefor the level of complexity will be rather limited.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hooray, user content Buggy, poorly scripted, with no idea of story structure (though many moderns pro writers can't write for toffee!)... Sometimes quality addons appear but in my (rather limited I admit) experience, you can't expect great things from the general public. It is possible with the option to sell content you'll see people invest the effort needed to produce a quality product (and it is something I would consider doing with the option).

Personally I see this mostly as a scam to make free money for MS. Open up the market to sell stuff, let the general populace make the stuff at no cost to MS, let the gamers buy the stuff the make at negligable cost to MS to run the market place, and slice a %age from all sales. Also won't this be bad for the game developers? If game lifespan is extended through user mods, won't people have less time for new games? Dunno. If I'm playing one game, I'm not buying others.

 

[EndR]

Hooray, user content Buggy, poorly scripted, with no idea of story structure (though many moderns pro writers can't write for toffee!)... Sometimes quality addons appear but in my (rather limited I admit) experience, you can't expect great things from the general public. It is possible with the option to sell content you'll see people invest the effort needed to produce a quality product (and it is something I would consider doing with the option).

Personally I see this mostly as a scam to make free money for MS. Open up the market to sell stuff, let the general populace make the stuff at no cost to MS, let the gamers buy the stuff the make at negligable cost to MS to run the market place, and slice a %age from all sales. Also won't this be bad for the game developers? If game lifespan is extended through user mods, won't people have less time for new games? Dunno. If I'm playing one game, I'm not buying others.

This is not entirely MS view of things...

 

[ninzel]

Personally I see this mostly as a scam to make free money for MS. Open up the market to sell stuff, let the general populace make the stuff at no cost to MS, let the gamers buy the stuff the make at negligable cost to MS to run the market place, and slice a %age from all sales. Also won't this be bad for the game developers? If game lifespan is extended through user mods, won't people have less time for new games? Dunno. If I'm playing one game, I'm not buying others.

A little cynical, but I can see some truth in that. On PC this is a great idea. On a closed platform like 360, coming from a company like MS it could easily be abused. Let's hope that the PC remains strong and competitive acting as a balance for what MS would likely love to do, which is essentially be a pimp for amateur content creators.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Personally I see this mostly as a scam to make free money for MS. Open up the market to sell stuff, let the general populace make the stuff at no cost to MS, let the gamers buy the stuff the make at negligable cost to MS to run the market place, and slice a %age from all sales. Also won't this be bad for the game developers? If game lifespan is extended through user mods, won't people have less time for new games? Dunno. If I'm playing one game, I'm not buying others.

I suppose E-Bay is just a "scam" too...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A little cynical.

If it were found MS make no money from encouraging user content, I'll applaud them. For all the talk of 'better communities' etc. though, I'll be shocked if the moment they first thought of it, it wasn't with any consideration with how much money they could make. My cynical imagination sees a boardroom with brainstorming session on ways to generate revenue, and after someone suggested makng money from user content, the PR people were set onto spinning it into how wonderful user content would be for the gamers. Nothing unique to MS. That's just the way big business is run (usually), and it does annoy me when the PR tries to suggest otherwise.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I suppose E-Bay is just a "scam" too...

By my reckoning, yes. eBay make stupid amounts of money doing absolutely nothing.

 

[ninzel]

If it were found MS make no money from encouraging user content, I'll applaud them. For all the talk of 'better communities' etc. though, I'll be shocked if the moment they first thought of it, it wasn't with any consideration with how much money they could make. My cynical imagination sees a boardroom with brainstorming session on ways to generate revenue, and after someone suggested makng money from user content, the PR people were set onto spinning it into how wonderful user content would be for the gamers. Nothing unique to MS. That's just the way big business is run (usually), and it does annoy me when the PR tries to suggest otherwise.

I totally agree,but it's still cynical. Not that it's bad or wrong to be cynical when talking about MS, but it is what it is. :smile:

 

[Blazkowicz]

An interesting article over at news.com were both Will Wright and J Allard comment on a possible direction for games in the future...

Some tidbits:


How an un-Microsoft:ian view..


The whole article:
http://news.com.com/Tomorrows+games,+designed+by+players+as+they+play/2100-1043_3-6034630.html

I was going to point out how in Sim City, Theme Park and The Sims it's the players who create their own environment, and these games were ported to consoles. In fact those three games only provide you with game logic, art assets and empty land.

Reading the article I see it's about Will Wright's new game and how it will be a MMO "Sim Species", and I learn this Will Wright is the guy who created the Sims (so this guy is Dr Wright from Sim City on the SNES ?! )

so, you see it's not that new and not a conspiration from MS, nor open source gaming, nor the next big trend that will be forced on us by fat lazy game studios. Wright and Allard just hyping their stuff.
Expect this to be a HDD-only, broadband-only X360 game

 

[mckmas8808]

The Movies gives you a building your own thing kind a feel too so....

 

[ninzel]

It will be interesting ot see what Sony does on this front.
First of all Sony seems to be much more open to the idea of allowing players to use key/mouse which would really aid in content creation. Then you have the rumours of Linux plus bigger HDD's. Plus the idea of having a more open online system more like PC. All those combined seems like they wold be more conducive to user content creation.

 

[Sis]

If it were found MS make no money from encouraging user content, I'll applaud them. For all the talk of 'better communities' etc. though, I'll be shocked if the moment they first thought of it, it wasn't with any consideration with how much money they could make. My cynical imagination sees a boardroom with brainstorming session on ways to generate revenue, and after someone suggested makng money from user content, the PR people were set onto spinning it into how wonderful user content would be for the gamers. Nothing unique to MS. That's just the way big business is run (usually), and it does annoy me when the PR tries to suggest otherwise.

You seem to imply that it's a scam any time you give an audience something they want and are willing to pay for it. And it's not just big business--it's every business. Even this website we're hanging out at gets ad revenue. I don't think you'd call it a scam any time a new article is posted?

I think you are absolutely right about the brainstorming sessions. Growing their revenue base is part of their job, though.

 

[ninzel]

You seem to imply that it's a scam any time you give an audience something they want and are willing to pay for it.

But how does MS know what everyone wants? For example is MS going to force each peice of content to come with a price where it has to be a transaction. Maybe mod creators and users want it to remain more open and free like on PC. This is the same as with HD where MS is forcing HD on everyone, instead of just putting the platform out there, and allowing devs and users to decide what they want.
If MS builds some flexibility into the system, allowing the players and creators to decide how this plays out in detail, I don't see the problem. But I have my doubts MS will do it that way.

 

[Sis]

But how does MS know what everyone wants? For example is MS going to force each peice of content to come with a price where it has to be a transaction.

This is all about normal market research and gut instinct, but mostly "try it and see what happens."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You seem to imply that it's a scam any time you give an audience something they want and are willing to pay for it.

No, I think it's a 'scam' when someone finds a way to make money off other people's effort without needing to put in any effort or contribute to/reward that person's effort. This isn't every business. This isn't even most buisnesses. Most businesses, people work to provide a product or service and sell that product/service to people who want it. If they don't put in the hours, they don't get the returns. Then you get middlemen who take someone else's product/service and resell it at a markup, but even these people tend to have to run distribution, advertising, etc. which counts as work. Setting up an internet exchange isn't particularly hard and requires very little upkeep. It's not really work. The content is provided by a workforce 'free' for the reseller (in this case MS) who takes (presumably) a slice or fee for the privilege of letting the person use their exchange. The internet's offers more opportunities to get paid for doing nothing than people have ever had before.

Still, this conversation is really RPSE than consoles so I won't carry on.

 

[ninzel]

This is all about normal market research and gut instinct, but mostly "try it and see what happens."

It's probably less about gut instinct and more about creating a situation where there is no other option but to make money from it. If MS truely cared about all consumers they would simply put out the platform, and let the market dictate the progress.

 

[Sis]

Still, this conversation is really RPSE than consoles so I won't carry on.

No need, really--your distinction is a subtle one that I didn't pick up until you expanded on it so thanks for clarifying it.

It's probably less about gut instinct and more about creating a situation where there is no other option but to make money from it. If MS truely cared about all consumers they would simply put out the platform, and let the market dictate the progress.

MS is not an altruistic company. As a company, it needs to be fiscally responsible and just building a platform without carefully considering the implications of doing so is neither responsible to the bottom line and may be detrimental to consumers.

But regardless, I doubt we'll see it everywhere, rather only in a few focused uses, such as Sims style games. I doubt MS sees this as a primary revenue line but more of a distinction when compared to competitors.