Spotlighting social gaming
I was part of a small coterie of journalists who attended a recent lunch with some of the gaming industry's great and good at which the topic of social gaming dominated.
In the hot seat for most of the time was Kristian Segerstrale, co-founder of Playfish: a social-gaming company, one of the big successes on Facebook and bought by Electronic Arts for nearly $300m at the turn of the year.
Mr Segerstrale told the rest of his lunching luminaries that social gaming did so well out of the gate because "it's fundamentally about getting people who are not gamers involved in gaming".
No big shakes: that's what the gaming industry has been trying to achieve for the last few years in order to ensure its survival. Mr Segerstrale's lunchtime cohorts wanted more than simple explanations.
"I don't think anyone knew where it would go. It lowered the barriers of access to gaming, like YouTube did for video. Now playing games is literally a click away, and you don't have to look for them because your friend will tell you where they are. That's been a key driver," Mr Segerstrale told the other panellists, who included IGN president Roy Bahat, EA chief creative director Rich Hilleman, long-time designer Warren Spector and Shiny Entertainment founder David Perry.
He also noted that of Facebook's 400m monthly users, around 200m play social games.
That figure astounded fellow lunchers - and none more than Dave Perry, who has been in the business for more than 25 years and who started when he was 15. "The shocking thing for me," he said, "is that some of the social games just aren't that good, yet they still get a lot of play."
Warren Spector tried to explore why it seemed that guys like him - who take two to four years to develop a game - are portrayed as having got it wrong when they're compared to the companies like Playfish at the forefront of social gaming.
"We didn't see that thing coming. It had to come from an outsider who has a different vision. Change usually comes from the outside. It's hard to change from within. It's an entrenched business. We are not a mature business," said Mr Spector who has worked on blockbusters like Deus Ex and Ultima.
He said he tried "frictionless" games five or six years ago but was more or less stymied from the start. "Everybody I talked to said 'Why do that? Do what people expect. They would rather give you more money for this triple-A game.'"
Mr Perry,who worked on Earthworm Jim and Enter the Matrix, quoted a similar scenario.
"I remember pitching 15-minute game experiences and it was shot down in flames."
The conversation wheeled back to games themselves; Mr Segerstrale told us that social games are about getting players to build that "value of self" as they invest time, money and friendships in playing the game.
He also noted that the company's games like Pet Society and Restaurant City are updated once a week "reacting to players and testing that sense of the game being alive. It keeps people there and when we launch new features they will tell you right away if they like it or not."
Mr Segerstrale also noticed that this frequent interaction with players means the company is able to understand their likes and dislikes better.
"We are developing a long-term relationship with a specific user and that means if someone is a hardcore Pet Society player, chances are we shouldn't push Gangster City at them."
Mr Perry saw the value in that and seemed to suggest that, in the future, perhaps Facebook will need social gaming more than social gaming will need Facebook.
"The thing is you are now building on a platform and your platform is your community. That is why you will survive."
Mr Spector turned philosopher, asking: "There is lots of talk about audiences, but does art and creativity enter into that? Is it all about reaching an audience, which sounds vaguely evil to me."
Mr Segerstrale admitted that metrics about users and how they approach games can be useful but don't take away from the need to have a good compelling game. "More than anything, the cool thing about data is it validates design. You do still need the creative vision as well."
Gary Whitta, the host for this "luminaries lunch", quipped: "You don't need a game designer, they will only argue with you."
He went on: "You already have the formula. That is why you see so many of the same games - it's a fish game that's doing well, so let's have another fish game. You have to win the analytics war."
For Mr Spector, that was anathema. "I will retire before I have to make a game based on analytics or market share. I will go open a bookstore. Sales are not the only thing that matter. If I got data that said one thing and I believed in my heart of hearts in another, I would screw the data and ignore it," declared Mr Spector.
Mr Whitta then went on to point out that "gaming is a combination of technology and art. Game design concepts have become more sophisticated - and with social gaming, it seems like we have rebooted everything. We are back to very very remedial game concepts."
Mr Segerstrale generally agreed with that. "These products iterate really quickly. Pet Society today after 100 iterations has fewer buttons than when it started. They are iterating to become more simple."
Mr Hilleman from EA added: "Social games understand it is there to do a job and to fit into a little window. The number of people who will snatch 10 minutes here and five minutes there, that is the growth of the market."
Mr Segerstrale said there is also a lot of growth for designers. He said it takes about three to six months to develop the core version of a game and thereafter you "expand and keep iterating".
"I would kill to make a game in only two years," said Mr Spector. "My games and that of other people take longer than that."
He then joked that at the end of the process, he often feels exhausted. "There is a feeling of relief and exhaustion. Hey, maybe after this I will get four guys and do an iPhone game."
Mr Segerstrale seemed to relish that prospect. "We don't have enough game designers working on social games and that is why something like farming games are the biggest category and why they make sense because when you have one that does really well, then you have a ton of people piling into that category."
As the discussion veered towards a "them and us" twist with social games in one corner and the trad team like Mr Hilleman in the other, he observed that "while everything is going more social, our consoles are dividing our friends."
Mr Spector said what worried him is the headlong rush to use motion controllers popularised by the Wii, and including Sony's Move and Microsoft's efforts to get rid of the console altogether with its Project Natal.
"I think it's kind of weird... that we've sort of said, 'We've got 20, 30 years of people learning how to do this - sitting on their couch and having a good time, and knowing where the buttons are' - and we're saying 'You've got to stand up and wave around and gesture,'" Mr Spector mused. "We're in the process of throwing away people - kids, adults - who know this stuff."
It's not that Mr Spector hates motion controls, because he admitted he has a vested interest. "I'm working on a Wii title and I'm loving it."
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Maggie just a point. Microsoft aren't attempting to get rid of the console, the Natal is being designed to be used alongside the current 360 and the 360 controller. It is being designed as a extra device for it. Albiet one that will complete change the way gaming is done.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The big advantage of Facebook games over the more traditional games is that when it comes to online play, you don't need to be an expert to do well. Take Counter Strike Source as an example. If you log onto a random server, chances are you will come across a group of hardcore gamers who have played for years and will simple blow you to pieces every time. This is no fun for a beginner. Similarly, most MMOs seemed to be filled with top level characters who insist on calling everyone else who isn't a top level character a n00b. Now, not every game is like this, and most of the time if you go online with a FPS having played it in single player for a bit then you will generally do ok and end up enjoying yourself. BUT, whilst playing you can't then easily chat to friends on Facebook at the same time. As the first poster said, we need a combination of the two, activity and social. Yes, the Steam chat does help with this, but I only know a few people who use this for PC gaming, so immediately the number of people I can talk to is cut down. Besides, most 'proper' games require too much attention to be able to chat to everyone at the same time, unless you are using a headset in game.
Complain about this comment
Playing Street Fighter 2 around a friends house on his SNES, and getting beaten every round, was something I would probably like to forget. When I finally figured out the hadouken, and of course the shoryuken, with enough skill to beat my chum I was over the moon with my efforts. Obviously this harks back to days when it wasn't possible to move onto the next game after fifteen minutes because that would cost money. Then there was the endless weekends spent playing Doom on a LAN, and Rise of the Triads (for the more hardcore gamers out there), where I developed skills based on the rules that allowed me to beat better opponents. If it wasn't for this learning curve there would simply be no enjoyment, and I for one can't understand why games developers would want to create 'fast-food' style games that keep us amused in a vegetative state. Thankfully there will always be a core group of people that have the character to press the continue button when they have been handed their backside by a 12year old kid in China, and I for one will never stop enjoying the achievement of mastering a game. It deeply saddens me that an industry that I so adore, and have even worked to be an active part of through my own career, is so fascinated with creating the 'next big thing', rather than an enduring legacy.
I would attribute my personal skill of 'never giving up' purely down to the fact that video games taught me how to get beat in such a way that it wasn't met with depression, but determination to succeed against someone so blatantly better than me.
That skill recently featured on a very good works appraisal!
Complain about this comment
The Hess
Yes, though people do use VoIP in games, I think typed chat still has the advantage for several really straightforward reasons:
1. It is quiet so it does not impinge upon the rest of the environment
2. It is a little more confidential, perhaps for the same reason
3. It is easy - you do not need to plug up mics or headsets and so on
4. From the moderation point of view, chat can be moderated as players have logs.
5. It is easy to differentiate conversations
There is something called the cocktail party effect. This is the ability for someone to stand in a group of people and pick out one person with whom you are having a conversation. However, this ability requires various elements like being able to position the various voices in relation to what your other senses are telling you and so on; things that are not possible down a remote line which can make mass communication a problem.
Complain about this comment
It is a pity that my post at number 2 has been referred to the moderators - I assume that this is because I talked about the issue of social interaction by using the game I work for as an example.
Quite how someone in the industry can make their view WITHOUT talking about their own product I am not very sure!
Complain about this comment
So the trend is for games that are essentially less exclusive - less dependent on high levels of skill and experience, less focused on the technological interface, more responsive to the non-gaming reality of people's lives. I wonder what the luminaries of the industry would make of an extremely low-tech "game" like the recently launched round-robin writing site [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator], or whether they would even recognise it as such; no graphics, no animation, requires a high degree of creativity, is fairly intellectual and more collaborative than competitive. Would Mr. Spector approve?
Complain about this comment
Scriptor
There is no reason why both are not possible. We are looking at the interface of our game at the moment (to give one small example).
If you create a barrel to store your tools, for instance, you can examine that barrel to see what its quality is and how much damage is gains over a period of time. Now, a lot of players like the list of numbers you get when you look at things, however, other players would rather look at the barrel and think "that's a bit tatty. I will polish it up."
So, we are considering making it more graphical, however, keeping the number system - eventually, we may even give you the option of which to use.
Likewise, you can play the game concentrating on building skills, grinding your digging for instance, as some players do, or you can just let them build naturally as you get on with just surviving the world. Both are quite legitimate ways of playing the same game - one is not more intellectual than the other, just different.
Complain about this comment
Joss,
Peaceful coexistence of the highly technical and the highly creative - I like it! Can we export to the "real world?"
My sympathies re having your post referred to the moderators by the way, would love to know what your game is called ... my first post so I didn't know about not including URLs and included the one I was referring to, Scriptopus ... the moderators, otherwise so quick off the mark, have not responded to my request to be allowed to edit so at least it makes sense. Let's see if they let this one up.
Complain about this comment
Typing is all well and good in a slower game, but setting the VoIP to friends only is far easier, especially in CS:S or Crysis Wars. and with a headset its just plug and play. however, most of the time my conversations are directly related to in game action, and a proper conversation about anything else is just too much when trying to avoid being shot!
To be fair I don't think that proper games are going anywhere fast. Look at Modern Warfare 2 (and 1 for that matter, it remained a best seller for years), look at when GTA IV came out, FF XIII. All of these are proper games, and as long as people buy them then they will continue to be made. Personally, I want to see games pushing the limits of what is possible on today's computers in terms of graphics/physics (like Crysis did 3 years ago, and continues to do so, seriously, look at the graphics in some screenshots!) as well as have the great stories and soundtracks that make them the ultimate multi-media experience that the truly great games have become.
Complain about this comment
Not sure where everyone gets this notion that when one trend replaces another, the older one just lies down and dies or at least suffers. Maybe at the beginning but eventually there is a place for all types of games. I think there is a place for motion control games, even my wife can come along with me and the kids, then there is a place for the iPhone games she plays on the tube to avoid the daily papers (I can't stand the mini time wasters myself, I like to waste big chunks at once), I like FPSs myself but I dabble in MMOs to even the day. I see all of them flourishing and getting better. They very well better, since we are all cooped up in our houses needing something to do other than watching TV. If we are becoming zombies I'd like to see it be worth it...
Complain about this comment
On a blog post a few months ago I wrote about how the social aspect of a game is most important to most online gamers, even if they don't realise it. I have often been amused that new players may moan and argue on kingdom chat in our game how we don't have third person view (they think its unfair that a bear can sneak up on them), or that our graphics are not the best, or they don't like the fight system, religion system and so on.
They will remain in game for hours, chopping a tree down, or digging a hole or levelling the land while telling us all about the other games that are so much better than Wurm.
But of course, they have completely missed the point of what they enjoy more than anything else - they like to talk. That is their true love. As long as they have something to do, something to preoccupy them, that is what they love.
A lot of the virtual world type games have a basic problem, although they have sophisticated buddy tools, they don't offer anything to do. Facebook scores because you have thousands of apps to play with while you socialise. And the apps themselves do very well because they are in an environment that has social tools (I wonder if they would do so well if they had been outside of FB)
The next generation of MMOs have to address this. To a certain extent they do already in that you can socialise and move around the world at the same time, but it needs to go farther than that. A really successful MMO will need in the future to allow as broad a culture as real life can allow. So, if someone wants to hide in a corner, farm to survive and build their little village for them or just a few friends, they can. If they want to be part of a much larger group, they can. If they want to avoid PvP (because either it holds no interest for them, or they just don't plan to spend that much time online defending their bit), they can. If they want to run off to war, they can. If they want to grind skills and watch the numbers rank up, they can. But if they just want to build sand castles, thats okay too.
The point is that the the game should not encourage, by its design, any particular culture, but be versatile to let cultures develop and probably have some way of ensuring that competing cultures don't ruin each other's game (server variants being the most obvious way).
But, what ever the choice of lifestyle within the game the player chooses, there must be plenty for them to do, with some of it being necessary. If a player can simply stand there and do nothing, that is what a lot of them will do - until the moment that something fun pops up on facebook and then they will be gone, and may well not come back. If standing there means that something will eventually creep up on you and eat you, then you are going to get moving - now you are not just chatting, you are getting involved, and that is far more addictive.
Really, none of this is any surprise at all - it is what people do in real life. When we are kids, we are accused of hanging out at the park doing nothing. But of course, that is not true. While loitering with our friends we are checking our bicycle breaks, picking our noses, annoying the girls/boys, lying on the ground to change the view, wondering why no one has texted us, kicking a football around, and so on. We might not be doing anything productive, but we are not just standing there like a statue.
That is human nature - we multitask automatically, we are fidgets. For a game to expect us to be happy doing nothing but talking is very unimaginative and does not understand what being human is.
Complain about this comment
If every casual gamers was given 20 minutes with Heavy Rain it would be the biggest selling game of all time... ALL TIME! The rapper says so, in my head!
Complain about this comment
@ U5349290
The "perfect MMO" you just described seemed a lot like a game called World of Warcraft
>>"A really successful MMO will need in the future to allow as broad a culture as real life can allow. So, if someone wants to hide in a corner, farm to survive and build their little village for them or just a few friends, they can. If they want to be part of a much larger group, they can. If they want to avoid PvP (because either it holds no interest for them, or they just don't plan to spend that much time online defending their bit), they can. If they want to run off to war, they can. If they want to grind skills and watch the numbers rank up, they can. But if they just want to build sand castles, thats okay too."
Complain about this comment
Eve online is possibly 50/50 social and action, personally I spend most of my time sat docked in station busy chatting to other corp members or alliance chat, thats not to say the game is not fun, just my preference, other people I am chatting to are out PVPing, mining or running missions while busily chatting away. I think the point is that it is good to have a safe haven in any game so you can simply log on and chat/socialise without having to look over your shoulder in fear of being ganked/killed/whatever.
Complain about this comment
Suprised that this article does not mention Playstation Home. It's a great mix of social network and gaming. There are tonnes of totally free games in there, something for everyone infact. It's better than the crud that is on Facebook.
It's a shame that consumers focus on popularity rather than quality.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS