At the D.I.C.E. summit held this week in Las Vegas, EA CEO [edit: Chief Creative Officer, not CEO] Bing Gordon discussed the medium-term future of games. Virtual worlds will play a prominent part. Basic message: Each generation of teens is more comfortable than the last when combining different media. "What magic circle?" they will say.
Read on for a few quotes, thanks to GameSpot. Also, coverage at Gamespy.
Selected quotes from Gamespot:
"Gordon touched on what game consoles would be like circa 2008; he revealed the importance of launching hardware with the early adopter in mind (because he or she establishes the standard others will be forced to follow); he divulged how to think like a kid (to make your game an integral part of a child's entertainment universe); and he divulged why it's good to hang out with nongamers (because it's only a matter of time before someone converts them into gamers…so it might as well be you).
"Imagine a world where a console can support 8GB of RAM," Gordon said. And if you "have a hard time thinking what you'll do with it, don’t worry. The kids will know." His focus on teens' abilities to multitask and their reliance on instant messaging underscored one of his general themes, which was to 'know your market.' Gordon added, "Kids got Run Lola Run'ed a long time ago, and they will have expectations of media and entertainment far different from that of 20-to-25-year-olds today."
Looking toward the future, Gordon evangelized the need to recognize how important virtual worlds will become for kids. A father of a teenager himself, Gordon predicted that "virtual worlding" will become a rite of passage for teenagers.
He suggested that tomorrow's killer apps will come from "100x physics, where everything on the screen is modeled." They will reach a standard that Gordon calls "Pixar quality." He also said the future's best game would feature living worlds where NPCs are "inspired by The Sims and have complex emotions." ("GTA on steroids" is how Gordon put it.) Gordon also touched on something he called "win-win & make-make," which is a theory that implores the gamer to "beat the world together," as well as one that sees open-ended ways of winning. He also saw the day when everything in a game would be customizable, a la The Sims, and gamers would have persistent online identities--or what Gordon calls "fully baked avatars." "
************
Full article here.
Edward Castronova>"What magic circle?" they will say.
If they say that, then all the more reason they need one.
It's encouraging that EA are so upbeat about virtual worlds, although it would be nicer if they actually finished making something beyond UO.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 07, 2004 at 06:15
Looks like a nice idea. The question is how to finance the development of such type of games: "100x physics, where everything on the screen is modeled"
and
"feature living worlds where NPCs are "inspired by The Sims and have complex emotions." "
Already now a good MMORPGs project requires at least 10 million dollars. And still it is very limited in terms of content, modelling and related.
How can we get the best in term of content, modelling, graphic, AI and related with the lowest investment? That is probably the magic question that has to be answered. And the company finding the right answer will also be the winner of the next generation of MMOGs.
TSO has showed that a large budget alone does not ensure a success in the complex MMOG market.
Posted by: Luca 'Khefri' Girardo | Mar 07, 2004 at 06:51
Can they leverage fan interest into content? That's got to be one answer.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 07, 2004 at 10:22
> How can we get the best in term of content,
> modelling, graphic, AI and related with the
> lowest investment? That is probably the magic > question that has to be answered...
If we take the question literally the answer is straightforward: put the development tools in the hands of the users and watch what they do. (Consider as an example how much more advanced the fan missions are of games like Thief than the ones made by Looking Glass.) There are far too many issues here, and the economic returns too problematical, for any one company, especially one working in an intellectual property oriented environment, to solve. The only way (I think) to get from here to there is to figure out a way to harness the energies of all the user talents interested in developing the synthetic world experience. To restate the same point: to figure out a way to structure synthetic world development on an open source model. That's not a simple problem, of course.
Posted by: Fred Hapgood | Mar 07, 2004 at 10:32
"Gordon touched on what game consoles would be like circa 2008"
It might be the choice of snippets, but none of the other comments resonates at all with this 2008 timeline. This is 2004 last I checked. For a 2008 release date, you should be looking at building your MMORPG about... Now.
So who's designing a Pixar-level (Speaking of content creation! A quick google puts $90 million as the production cost. And that's for a single viewpoint/single story. Say it gets 10x cheaper in 10 years - that still would equal current MMORPG costs), 100x physics (I really don't want to try and parse what that means), fully deformeable world?
As for using fan content to generate your world for you? There is a reason why you have to pay graphics artists and programmers, despite so many being willing to work for free. The payment is in exchange for creative control & quality guarantees. Without these, you'll have a mismash of crap with occasional buried gem. Much like the Web :>
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 07, 2004 at 11:29
Bing is Chief Creative Officer, not Chief Executive Officer.
I honestly think you could make that game (to the best of today's tech) for around 30-35 million. But only if you've done one or two of these before, and have a team that understands the issues, and if you're willing to invest some in R&D beforehand.
Posted by: Raph Koster | Mar 07, 2004 at 13:41
"[Gordon] also saw the day when everything in a game would be customizable"
"100x physics, where everything on the screen is modeled"
"win-win & make-make"
"[Gordon] revealed that among his favorite books [is] Snow Crash"
So nice of Bing to have read my paper :-)!
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Mar 07, 2004 at 14:39
Fred> The only way (I think) to get from here to there is to figure out a way to harness the energies of all the user talents interested in developing the synthetic world experience. To restate the same point: to figure out a way to structure synthetic world development on an open source model.
I couldn't agree more. Second Life allows residents to leverage their skills in order to make the world a better place and have options in terms of how they manage their own IP.
Brask> The payment is in exchange for creative control & quality guarantees. Without these, you'll have a mismash of crap with occasional buried gem.
The Second Life users who are receiving developer rewards (direct US$ from Linden Lab to the users with the highest monthly traffic from other users) and who are generating the most L$ (and potentially converting it into US$ via Gaming Open Market) are producing content that is of very high quality. Sure, not everyone can create at that level, but if even a relatively small percentage can, you have a development team that dwarfs even EA's huge teams. The trick is building the a world that helps that team work towards common and collective goals.
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Mar 07, 2004 at 14:46
"...he divulged why it's good to hang out with nongamers (because it's only a matter of time before someone converts them into gamers…so it might as well be you)."
What basis does he have for believing in this conversion? People have a wide variety of choices in how to spend their leisure time. Why are games going to be the winner?
I do see the gaming audience growing just because every new generation that comes along now will have grown up with electronic gaming. We still have generations around now that didn't grow up with these kinds of games and these people will never be big consumers of games.
I have my doubts about virutal worlds exploding in popularity still. I think online gaming is going to grow, but why will MMOs be the game of choice? What's more likely to have five million players? EverQuest 5 or some online version of Madden Football or FIFA? If you want to talk about casual appeal, what's more casual than a game that can start and be finished in 20 minutes? The only weakness of an online Madden game is that someone has to lose, and losing tends to discourage the loser.
Posted by: Mark Asher | Mar 07, 2004 at 15:26
+1 on open source. Preferably an open source project that's backed by *some* paid development (we all see how terrible existing open source VW projects are doing). Problem is, VW companies want everyone to pay them for subscriptions, so they're not too excited about working on software that anybody can use to set up a server.
Of course they can still make up some original non-free content, host it on their server and make some money with that, but that's not monopolistic enough for most company's tastes, I guess. :-)
BTW, kudos to SL. I'm really proud of you guys; it's not quite my ideal VW (not open source, not distributed, but PROGRAMMABLE!!), but it's the closest thing yet. It's very exciting. Now I just need to find a better video card so I can play it. :-)
Posted by: Christopher Armstrong | Mar 07, 2004 at 15:28
Mark: How about a VW where you can play a football game on par with Madden right in the world? >:)
Posted by: Christopher Armstrong | Mar 07, 2004 at 15:32
"+1 on open source. Preferably an open source project that's backed by *some* paid development (we all see how terrible existing open source VW projects are doing). Problem is, VW companies want everyone to pay them for subscriptions, so they're not too excited about working on software that anybody can use to set up a server."
We've already had something close to open source with the pirate UO servers and the NWN persistent world servers. Both of these, while not exactly open source, build off of commercial products and arguably improve on the original products somewhat. I think Raph even hired someone for SWG who ran one of the pirate UO shards.
To really make open source work I think you need to allow both sides to make money. NWN doesn't have great networking code so it's not a great choice for a persistent world game. Just imagine something like it, however, that could host several thousand players in a game. Then take that game and let any new development build their own virtual world out of it and charge players to play in it. Let the original developer take a cut of those fees and the new developer also get a cut, and you have a powerful incentive for both sides to stay interested in the open source materials and continue to improve them.
Posted by: Mark Asher | Mar 07, 2004 at 19:25
"virtual worlding will become a rite of passage for teenagers"
Personally, I think there are changes coming that are far bigger than the effects of 8GB of RAM. There are geo-social trends with how and why people are using the internet that are very different than just a few years ago, to the degree where I think we are going to start to see increasing evidence of a new emerging ethnicity as the result.
While I am no anthropologist, having worked with Japan as a bicultural liaison for over 10 years, there are certain clues that I look for when studding cultures. There is actually a huge difference between an affinity group and an emerging trend within a culture that manifest itself as generational gap. Additionally, there is also a huge difference between simple generational gaps and what we are seeing emerge on the Internet today. From what I can see, I think what we are seeing on the internet is much less a generational gap, than it is cultural rift. And, if I was going to make a 10-year prediction it would be that while ‘Netizen’ may currently be a word that describes the early adapters of the internet, in less than 10 years, I think it will refer to one of the world’s youngest ethnicities.
A few weeks ago, I started throwing this idea around with our community manager Lee Pearson, as he’s an expert in building affinity groups. At first we approached it from the thinking that Netizens (IE people who live their life on the internet) might be another affinity group, but as we talked it became increasingly clear that that the word Netizen could be used in a similar way to how one might use a word like Japanese, German or Aztecan.
My guess is that virtual worlds will play the role of cultural Mecca or a sort of Netizen ‘promise land’, and become a sort of ‘rite of passage’ for newcomers both young and old. And while it may be interesting to guess where this Mecca will get placed, and if it’ll be in "Pixar Quality", I think there may be bigger questions that also beg answering.
For example, what will Netizen Art become? Netizen Economics? Netizen Family? Netizen History? Netizen Humor? Netizen Linguistics? Netizen Music? Netizen Politics? Netizen Property? Netizen Technology? Netizen Worship? Etc, etc, etc.
I’ll be the first to admit that many of these questions are several years premature, but the fact that a few of them already have preliminary answers suggests something very interesting is going on.
-bruce`
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Mar 07, 2004 at 21:45
Hmm - we have Mr Gordon's speech - but we also have 2 EA's online games: Sims Online and Earth & Beyond. Sims didn't meet the expectations and now it has only about 90000 players (they expected about 250000). E&B has about 15-25k players - and (rumours) EA plans to shut it down in Q3 this year despite many, many players want to keep it alive. Another EA online game - Motor City Online was shut down in August 2003 (players have been offered a free copy of either The Sims Online or Ultima Online). To sum up - EA doesn't have any spectacular successes in online games (ok - maybe one - Ultima Online, but it's an old-timer) - and also doesn't show any interest in developing the existing ones.
What's more - players that played any of EA's online games that were (or will be) shut down won't come back to EA when EA releases a new online title. Players will just lose their trust for EA, because they won't be sure how long the game will live....
More info on EnB rumours:
http://www.ebportal.com/forum/topic/3/13377/0
Posted by: Tomasz Wozniak | Mar 08, 2004 at 08:07
That EnB shutdown rumor looks false. Which is not to say they won't shut it down, but the basis for this 'sky is falling, and it's falling on EA's heads' rumor appears false as no-one can seem to produce the SEC filing with the quoted verbiage.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 08, 2004 at 11:39
> As for using fan content to generate your
> world for you? There is a reason why you have > to pay graphics artists and programmers,
> despite so many being willing to work for
> free. The payment is in exchange for creative > control & quality guarantees. Without these,
> you'll have a mismash of crap with occasional > buried gem. Much like the Web :>
That analogy doesn't scare me off, but you
might be interested to know that the way creative control and quality issues are dealt with in SL is by forming groups who pool their land and impose zoning rules on anything built there.
Posted by: Fred Hapgood | Mar 08, 2004 at 11:47
Bruce Wrote: Personally, I think there are changes coming that are far bigger than the effects of 8GB of RAM. There are geo-social trends with how and why people are using the internet that are very different than just a few years ago, to the degree where I think we are going to start to see increasing evidence of a new emerging ethnicity as the result.
In my research into learning styles, I'm finding similar evidence that points to all sorts of psychological and socialogical impacts games (in a small sense) and digital media (in a broader sense) are having and will continue to have on our youngsters. In the learning style literature, things are pointing towards an emerging style. This style involves minimal text-based content, with a huge shift towards multimedia/video/audio content delivery...all interactive to some degree. The amount of multi-processing that kids can handle nowadays is astounding. Children under the age of 10 can master complex interfaces (game/web/media driven) faster than most folks in the workforce, or even college-level students.
Posted by: Bart | Mar 08, 2004 at 16:33
"Children under the age of 10 can master complex interfaces (game/web/media driven) faster than most folks in the workforce, or even college-level students."
I remember that being said 20 years ago. Doesn't this say more about children than about any new ability?
We shouldn't be at all surprised at the flexibility of children. I mean, children learn languages much faster than us old people. Furthermore, the statement:
"are having and will continue to have on our youngsters"
is rather confusing. The set of "youngsters" is constantly changing as new ones are added and old ones get popped off the stack as old fogeys who can't program their VCR. A social process taking 20 years can't have cumulative effect on youngsters as they aren't around that long. Further, new youngsters come into the field completely reset, unaffected by the behaviour of the old youngsters (unless you want some Lamarkian evolution).
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 08, 2004 at 18:46
"Further, new youngsters come into the field completely reset, unaffected by the behaviour of the old youngsters"
And this is good, and this is also bad. I'm not old, but I'm not new either. I bump into oldies that couldn't set their VCR clocks if their life depended on it, as well as young wizes who believe Machine Language is what R2D2 speaks.
Its good that the pace of technology is so fast newer generations come in as an almost fresh start, unencumbered. But it comes at a price, a potential disconnect. Just like I couldn't for the life of me fix my own car, they won't be able to root out a worm out of their network. Historically society has survived through these disconnects, but I have to wonder with 6 billion thinking hats, is there a speed of evolution that causes a tear in society? Or do we assume there will always be a continuum of people filling the gap no matter how fast we move from one technology plateu into the next?
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 09, 2004 at 00:24
Bosh. Bing has talked a good talk about online in the past, but the reality is that EA sunk $150m into EA.com, which was a complete waste, shut down Kesmai (aka EA NVa), the single EA studio with the longest and best experience in online, and has now gutted Origin. The reality of their actions defies their claims.
Posted by: Greg | Mar 09, 2004 at 12:48
It's now official - Earth & Beyond is closing.
Earth & Beyond Says Goodbye
Starting September 22, 2004, Earth & Beyond will no longer be in service. After an amazing two years of galactic adventure, Electronic Arts has made the decision to close Earth & Beyond in order to focus resources on future games.
Please check your email associated with your Earth & Beyond game account for updates and more information on what this closure means to you. We hope you've enjoyed the game as much as we have and that we'll see you again in another great EA game!
For more information, please visit www.enb.com.
Thank you,
The Earth & Beyond Team
Told you. :)
Posted by: Tomasz Wozniak | Mar 17, 2004 at 06:05
Here's more info: http://www.earthandbeyond.ea.com/news/news_article.jsp?news_id=1828
Posted by: Tomasz Wozniak | Mar 17, 2004 at 06:27