Adam Messinnger alerts us to the Gamespot feature on the urban warfare simulator that There is building for the US armed forces. It's called "A.W.E." ("Asymmetric Warfare Environment"). Can "S.H.O.C.K." be far behind?
I have no idea how I feel about this.
On a business side, it makes a lot of sense. You get a publisher financing the development of the whole MMOG architecture, client, game engine and related and you can reuse the technology to create and enhance a commercial MMOG too.
So you acquire a sponsor for the technology development, you will probably acquire a support, deployment and further development contract if the initial project is successful and you can reuse the whole experience, technology and software to enhance the commercial MMOG already published or for future projects. Is that not a dream?
If there would not be the moral aspect. But that is another and more complex topic I suppose.
But from the business point of view, it was a good move. Well done There.
Posted by: Luca Girardo | Apr 25, 2004 at 04:52
Without commenting on There's strategy or execution, the Gamespot interview exposes some deep and embarrassing delusions.
I've posted my continued comments over on Water Cooler Games, via the trackback above.
Posted by: Ian Bogost | Apr 25, 2004 at 20:43
Luca, I agree with what you've outlined above, but I think this situation is kind of in reverse. There had already built it's entire engine and technology through VC funding, so the military isn't really paying for the development...the technology is already in place. What the military is paying for is tweaks to gameplay (hand gestures, additional objects, etc.) and some other architectural changes I'd imagine.
I think this is a good use of There's technology. From a training perspective, this allows users from around the globe to collaboratively conduct training exercises in a non-threatening environment. Mistakes can be made and learned from, and no one gets hurt (except for egos maybe). It's been a significant up-front cost for the military, but they are spending millions moving troops around the world for these types of exercises. This will cut costs significantly if the military sticks with moving more training to this environment.
Moral aspect you say, what moral aspect? ;)
Posted by: Bart | Apr 26, 2004 at 11:54
Increased military use of game-like tools for training seems a bad omen for the "games don't affect behavoir" argument. If game worlds are used to teach, what's GTA teaching?
Of course some of us think we can distinguish when it's time to learn from when it's time to play. Books are used to teach, yet the presense of Nora Roberts doesn't implicate junior's math text. But, when did logic have much to do with this?
There's nothing wrong with the military trying to use the latest technology and media. Any moral discussions about the military in general seem to have little place here.
Posted by: Staarkhand | Apr 26, 2004 at 13:01
Fwiw, Kriegspiel is one of the oldest forms of simulation gaming and there's been a long history of military wargaming -- including the use of computer technology. Peter Perla has the best book, imho, on this. Some background from a previous project here:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1g.htm
http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page4a.htm
Apologies for the number of dead links -- this was circa 2000.
Posted by: greglas | Apr 26, 2004 at 15:26
Bart wrote: There had already built it's entire engine and technology through VC funding so the military isn't really paying for the development...the technology is already in place.
Right, initially in April 2003 it was reported that "The U.S. Army has signed There to a $3.5 million contract to adapt its technology for an advanced computer simulation program. "
see San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/20/BU83768.DTL&type=business
But at the same time I have to say that seen how There was at that stage ( a sort of chat client with some graphic (at least the GUI as I saw it)) the adaptation had to be an extensive one introducing more both on the client and server side and I doubt it was achieved just buy reengineering. Or at least not without a large reengineering and redeveloping much from the scratch. Or they had a very powerful and flexible architecture.
I am sure several other companies will probably try to follow There example and try to increase business opportunities for their MMOGs. Or who knows, it could become a new specialized market.
As said by Bard, such a massively simulation could decrease the costs of training, decrease the number of life maneuvers. And it could offer the possibility to simulate scenarios that could not be tested before. Especially interesting for law enforcement agencies, anti terrorism agencies, etc.
It is not new that game companies collaborate with the DoD, mostly about simulations. See http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/090701/p1_01.html
Why should MMOG be an exception? I am surprised it took so long.
Posted by: Luca Girardo | Apr 26, 2004 at 16:27
Staarkhand: Any moral discussions about the military in general seem to have little place here.
Well I think it plays a role. But at a different level. When you want to deploy a project with a military partner, you have to take in considerations the for the development team. Do developers have any moral objection limiting their participation to the project? Could be that a morale killer? Could some developers leave if the company accept the contract? Could that influence the success of the project? Do the enhanced security standards require further investment? Etc.
That side of the moral dilemma could be pretty interesting. The dilemma itself too but it is probably out of topic.
Posted by: Luca Girardo | Apr 26, 2004 at 16:32
Sorry for the missing link tag in the previous postings. Here all the links:
San Francisco Chronicle article.
Gamespot article about game companies and military partners.
Posted by: Luca Girardo | Apr 26, 2004 at 16:43
Luca Or at least not without a large reengineering and redeveloping much from the scratch. Or they had a very powerful and flexible architecture.
I think the baseline technology was mostly in place, and from what I understand, There does have a very flexible architecture, with the utilization of Flash/XML combo, along with DBs in the back. I've posted here before about the potential use of There in an educational setting, which I think There's current framework could tranistion to rather easily (well, maybe not easy, but easier than trying to use any other MMO on the market).
Posted by: Bart | Apr 27, 2004 at 10:06
Oh man. Just when I was starting to recover from the screen shots shown at State of Play.
If you've ever spent any time at all in There, which is the most happy fun la-la land of a virtual world, it's quite a shock seeing the cute little avatars being held up at gunpoint, wearing burkas, and dying bloody deaths.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Apr 28, 2004 at 20:36