Wading through the apologies. This Thanksgiving I met a young fellow who worked in games, and we discussed our respective career paths a bit. He's a UI programmer/designer combo, which is a rare and useful bird in the aviary that is game development. We spoke about the importance of a cohesive user experience, how UI is the gateway to that, and how he and one artist had been given carte blanche to go through his entire game, screen by screen, to make sure everything was user-friendly, intuitive, and seamless. UI design is often one of those things left until the very end of the development process, which leads to games with visual experiences that aren't cohesive, so this was impressive.
By Brandon Sheffield
-this article was originally published in the January issue of Game Developer
I was reminded of a talk I saw at GDC China, where Double Fine designer Joe Kowalski discussed making UI that served to expand or reinforce a game's universe, rather than just being functional. My new acquaintance said yes, this was what he was trying to do as well, especially since this was a social game. And when he said the word "social," I could actually feel the ellipses forming as the conversation trailed off.
Then began the apologies: "We've actually been able to strip out all the things users hate, like paying to win, and all that sort of stuff, and we're targeting the core, so hopefully we can actually do something fun with it."
Old-school developers just don't like social
How familiar was that latter part of the conversation? How many times, when you learned that a veteran industry acquaintance was now in social games, have you had this apologetic back and forth? They say, "Well, we're really trying to make this one interesting," and "This one's not that bad, though," and you trot out set phrases like, "Yes, it must be really interesting having that close a relationship with the player" or, "So how much do you pay attention to metrics versus intuition?"
Inevitably the conversation returns to the industry at large, the launch of the Wii U, how Halo 4 is out now, and whatever else you're actually interested in. This got me thinking: Who actually wants to make social games?
Social games are still where much of the money is (though that money is dwindling), and game development is a job, after all. Sometimes you have to take the work and make your rent. But it seems very few veteran game developers, especially those in the West, actually want to make these games.
This is what gives rise to the plethora of GDC talks titled things like "Are social games legitimate?" Or the incredibly frequent discussions of how social games "don't have to be evil." The apologies are right at the tips of our tongues when we discuss this entire branch of the industry. They're simply not the games we as developers want to play. There are some mobile arcade-style games, but there's also that social mobile genre where you click things on a timer.
I've noticed that veteran game developers tend to feel that console and PC games are "real," while social and mobile are not. I find myself having this bias, and I know those who work in social resent it. The trouble is many of these games tend not to be skill-based, and they're not targeted at developers, demographically. They're targeted at our moms and our kids. But didn't we get into this industry to make the games we want to play?
To make sure I wasn't crazy, I asked social developers on Twitter: When talking about your job, do you get defensive? Do you make excuses? Most said yes, and those who said no immediately got defensive, which said something. Partially they're just sick of traditional developers looking down their noses at them. But one person summed up the sentiment many were getting at by saying, "There's some cool stuff about it, but I'd rather make real games."
So who does like social?
It's a simple answer: Businesspeople like making social games. Social feels like a business more than a place where you manufacture dreams and whimsy. The money is in social because it's run and ruled by business folks who first saw games as a place to make money, and then pulled in the veteran developers to make it happen. And who knows this better than China?
China never had a console market. They don't have nostalgia for the past--not for 8-bit chip tunes, not for 16-bit chunky pixel graphics, not for flat-shaded polygons. The old consoles pretty much didn't exist in that market, at least not legally or officially. (As an aside, when I gave a talk at GDC China, one part that had attendees nodding in agreement was when I said, "Retro is big in the West--this probably doesn't make sense to you.")
China's market began with free-to-play, and that's the business they know. But it is a business, and they're aware of it. That's why the market there has gotten so precise about its monetization. It's looked at as a job--one that can make a good deal of money. There never was another successful model in the region.
That comes at a cost, of course. I actually saw an attendee at GDC China ask of a speaker, during a post-talk Q&A (paraphrased): "I understand your metrics for monetization; that's all well and good. But do you have any metrics or charts you can show us related to how much fun we need to add for retention purposes?"
I can imagine the guy going back to his team and saying, "No, no, no, guys, according to this chart here, we're going to have to add six more Fun Units if we want people to keep playing."
I'm a huge proponent of making the games you want to play. I want more diversity in games, but I want that to come from different people coming in and making the games they want to play. Let's get 60-year-old housewives making our social games--why not? But let's also stop apologizing. If you're in it to make money as a business, be straight about it. If you really enjoy making games for the social demographic, that's awesome too. But I say: If you don't actually like making and playing social games, just don't make them.
I was reminded of a talk I saw at GDC China, where Double Fine designer Joe Kowalski discussed making UI that served to expand or reinforce a game's universe, rather than just being functional. My new acquaintance said yes, this was what he was trying to do as well, especially since this was a social game. And when he said the word "social," I could actually feel the ellipses forming as the conversation trailed off.
Then began the apologies: "We've actually been able to strip out all the things users hate, like paying to win, and all that sort of stuff, and we're targeting the core, so hopefully we can actually do something fun with it."
Old-school developers just don't like social
How familiar was that latter part of the conversation? How many times, when you learned that a veteran industry acquaintance was now in social games, have you had this apologetic back and forth? They say, "Well, we're really trying to make this one interesting," and "This one's not that bad, though," and you trot out set phrases like, "Yes, it must be really interesting having that close a relationship with the player" or, "So how much do you pay attention to metrics versus intuition?"
Inevitably the conversation returns to the industry at large, the launch of the Wii U, how Halo 4 is out now, and whatever else you're actually interested in. This got me thinking: Who actually wants to make social games?
Social games are still where much of the money is (though that money is dwindling), and game development is a job, after all. Sometimes you have to take the work and make your rent. But it seems very few veteran game developers, especially those in the West, actually want to make these games.
This is what gives rise to the plethora of GDC talks titled things like "Are social games legitimate?" Or the incredibly frequent discussions of how social games "don't have to be evil." The apologies are right at the tips of our tongues when we discuss this entire branch of the industry. They're simply not the games we as developers want to play. There are some mobile arcade-style games, but there's also that social mobile genre where you click things on a timer.
I've noticed that veteran game developers tend to feel that console and PC games are "real," while social and mobile are not. I find myself having this bias, and I know those who work in social resent it. The trouble is many of these games tend not to be skill-based, and they're not targeted at developers, demographically. They're targeted at our moms and our kids. But didn't we get into this industry to make the games we want to play?
To make sure I wasn't crazy, I asked social developers on Twitter: When talking about your job, do you get defensive? Do you make excuses? Most said yes, and those who said no immediately got defensive, which said something. Partially they're just sick of traditional developers looking down their noses at them. But one person summed up the sentiment many were getting at by saying, "There's some cool stuff about it, but I'd rather make real games."
So who does like social?
It's a simple answer: Businesspeople like making social games. Social feels like a business more than a place where you manufacture dreams and whimsy. The money is in social because it's run and ruled by business folks who first saw games as a place to make money, and then pulled in the veteran developers to make it happen. And who knows this better than China?
China never had a console market. They don't have nostalgia for the past--not for 8-bit chip tunes, not for 16-bit chunky pixel graphics, not for flat-shaded polygons. The old consoles pretty much didn't exist in that market, at least not legally or officially. (As an aside, when I gave a talk at GDC China, one part that had attendees nodding in agreement was when I said, "Retro is big in the West--this probably doesn't make sense to you.")
China's market began with free-to-play, and that's the business they know. But it is a business, and they're aware of it. That's why the market there has gotten so precise about its monetization. It's looked at as a job--one that can make a good deal of money. There never was another successful model in the region.
That comes at a cost, of course. I actually saw an attendee at GDC China ask of a speaker, during a post-talk Q&A (paraphrased): "I understand your metrics for monetization; that's all well and good. But do you have any metrics or charts you can show us related to how much fun we need to add for retention purposes?"
I can imagine the guy going back to his team and saying, "No, no, no, guys, according to this chart here, we're going to have to add six more Fun Units if we want people to keep playing."
I'm a huge proponent of making the games you want to play. I want more diversity in games, but I want that to come from different people coming in and making the games they want to play. Let's get 60-year-old housewives making our social games--why not? But let's also stop apologizing. If you're in it to make money as a business, be straight about it. If you really enjoy making games for the social demographic, that's awesome too. But I say: If you don't actually like making and playing social games, just don't make them.
