Imagine watching a detective film or TV show where an interface like Project Natal allowed you to shift objects within the scene. While the characters are talking or doing whatever, you can use virtual hands to pick up things to look underneath, or push things aside to look behind them -- do your own sleuthing.
Imagine having limited control of the camera angle so you see what's happening behind or above the characters. You could peak around corners before the character does... but can't warn him or her of the danger.
Or imagine being able to change the setting in ways that the characters can interact with. Perhaps you steal the investigator's mug of coffee, and he looks around for a few seconds in puzzlement. Or perhaps you stack a lot of boxes just behind the character so, when he turns around, she bumps them and they collapse on top of her.
All of these examples have problems. For example, in the first scenario, what happens when the detective looks at an object which you've just moved and carries on his conversation as if nothing changed? I'm proposing these examples just to show there is much untapped potential for the blending of films and interaction.
It could be more game-oriented, making the audience's interaction vital to the plot. A mystery story might not be solved unless the player finds and points out clues while the detective is on the scene. Think of it as a real-time mystery game, where the player does not have all day to find clues. The player might even have to point out facial expressions on witnesses during interrogations for the detective to notice and respond.
Or it could be basically a film with view-only interaction, as in my second example.
It's one of the great wonders of life that we never run out of room for discovery and innovation. This is one area where I'd like to see more.
Showing posts with label inter-industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inter-industry. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
game companies making films
This is a very interesting article. Apparently, some game publishers are considering making their own feature-length films, rather than outsource that work to Hollywood.
I've hoped Blizzard would make full animated films for the theaters ever since I first saw the Diablo II cinematics, and later the World of Warcraft cinematics (I never played StarCraft). In those cases, a game company doing movies makes sense, because the films would be a natural extension of what Blizzard already does for their games.
On the other side, there are games like Bioshock and Modern Warfare. Great films could made of those, but I'd expect live action and not animation. Ubisoft and Activision would have to create wholly new subsidiaries to make those films.
If the merger of games and films within one company became common, I would worry that we'd see more film-based games rushed to market. I've written before about such games. They're great when they only use the film's basic setting and are not held to a matching release date. The popularity of Ghostbusters, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and LOTR and Star Wars games demonstrate how little timing matters when making quality games of great IPs.
On the other hand, I think films based on game IPs could succeed in the same way. In most cases, I'd like to see the films use only the settings and characters of games, rather than the plots. Great films could made of Halo and Destroy All Humans! if new plots were devised. Bioshock, Neverwinter Nights, and Deus Ex are possible exceptions (I would follow the game plots).
If any company should be trying to make films, it's Bioware. Their reputation is primarily as storytellers already, and they rely heavily on cutscenes in their games. Bioware and Blizzard are best set to lead game publishers and developers into film-making, if that's where the industry's headed.
I've hoped Blizzard would make full animated films for the theaters ever since I first saw the Diablo II cinematics, and later the World of Warcraft cinematics (I never played StarCraft). In those cases, a game company doing movies makes sense, because the films would be a natural extension of what Blizzard already does for their games.
On the other side, there are games like Bioshock and Modern Warfare. Great films could made of those, but I'd expect live action and not animation. Ubisoft and Activision would have to create wholly new subsidiaries to make those films.
If the merger of games and films within one company became common, I would worry that we'd see more film-based games rushed to market. I've written before about such games. They're great when they only use the film's basic setting and are not held to a matching release date. The popularity of Ghostbusters, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and LOTR and Star Wars games demonstrate how little timing matters when making quality games of great IPs.
On the other hand, I think films based on game IPs could succeed in the same way. In most cases, I'd like to see the films use only the settings and characters of games, rather than the plots. Great films could made of Halo and Destroy All Humans! if new plots were devised. Bioshock, Neverwinter Nights, and Deus Ex are possible exceptions (I would follow the game plots).
If any company should be trying to make films, it's Bioware. Their reputation is primarily as storytellers already, and they rely heavily on cutscenes in their games. Bioware and Blizzard are best set to lead game publishers and developers into film-making, if that's where the industry's headed.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Natal thoughts
In response to the GameTrailers discussion of Project Natal and competitors...
First, let me repeat that Microsoft stands to leave Nintendo and Sony in the dust if they make Natal useful for general TV viewing. If they can design Natal software that mimics the basic functions of TV remotes, then many non-gamers will bite into an intuitive product which frees them from ever again needing to hunt for a TV controller. Considering that the Xbox's original purpose was to move Windows into the living room, this makes all the more sense.
Certainly, a couple hundred bucks is a lot to pay to replace your TV remote, but not if the same hardware acts as a DVD player and on-demand TV/movie service. How far this strategy would take Microsoft's console would depend largely on the targeting and substance of its marketing campaign. But this basic Natal application could explode the market, attracting consumers far beyond the boundaries of present gaming audiences.
Reliability seems like the main issue to me. I still disbelieve projections that the 360 will remain Microsoft's primary console for another five years. The console has survived its dismal reputation for hardware failure largely thanks to the warranty. Once present owners are no longer comfortable under that umbrella, a new wave of bad publicity will pour down. And, like Windows Vista's reputation could not be saved from the mistakes of its early presentation, the 360 cannot shake its original failures even if new models perform better. The 360 market won't collapse completely when hardware replacement is no longer guaranteed, but it will definitely be shaken. A fresh start will be necessary by 2011.
Pachter has suggested Microsoft might come out with another version of the 360 soon, instead of a wholly new console. It's possible. But, as I said, anything that looks and feels basically like the original 360 will suffer from its RROD reputation.
That avid or "hardcore" gamers are not rushing to buy Wiis just to play The Conduit and Metroid Prime 3 is no surprise. Some people do buy consoles just for one or a few games, but that is certainly not average consumer behavior. The success or failure of hardcore Wii games offers little insight into potential Natal game sales because the Wii is not a comparable console. Even among occasional gamers (such as those who buy only a sport game or two per year), the Wii is popularly defined as a family or kids' console because that describes the majority of its games. Present gamers and non-gamers alike who are disinterested in the more dazzling Wii titles will be attracted to similar content on Natal, simply because the 360 console has a different general focus and appeal.
Really, the more the 360 becomes the multimedia console, offering TV/movies and other non-game services, the less the Wii and 360 will be direct competitors. If Nintendo continues to focus exclusively on games and offer an obviously unique experience, then Microsoft and Nintendo might soon compete only in the way that DVD manufacturers compete with the iPod -- the consumer only has so much money, but buying one product doesn't affect one's desire for the other.
I agree 100% with Pachter that controllers are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Motion control is an exciting alternative, not an unqualified progression. The most obvious reason is that physical activity is not always welcome. Gamers will always want to game from the couch on occasion.
Will some genres always demand a traditional controller? I doubt it. Even a system like Natal, which seemingly enables 1:1 representations of player movements, isn't limited to 1:1 animations. I don't need to wave my arm completely to have my character wave his arm completely. A game could be designed so that a small movement on my part results in an exaggerated movement on-screen. Thus, a game like Mortal Kombat won't necessarily have players leaping and twisting around in their homes. I can't think of any basic style of game which is impossible to translate well into motion control.
Natal's proposed ability to incorporate the unique objects of individual players could play a major role in games. For example, as a guitarist, I own guitars which are different from the guitars of other musicians. If Natal can scan a guitar of mine so that others can see it, that ability to share in an active environment online is a great appeal. Even without the online component, I'd love to play with my own guitar in Rock Band 2.
The scanning function could be applied to many games to match the protagonist's body proportions and clothing to the player's. This would personalize heroes, but there are other benefits. Imagine your character looking a little different every day, just as you do.
Anyway, I've focused mainly on hardware here. I'll probably write another Natal article focusing on potential games. In the meantime, any thoughts?
First, let me repeat that Microsoft stands to leave Nintendo and Sony in the dust if they make Natal useful for general TV viewing. If they can design Natal software that mimics the basic functions of TV remotes, then many non-gamers will bite into an intuitive product which frees them from ever again needing to hunt for a TV controller. Considering that the Xbox's original purpose was to move Windows into the living room, this makes all the more sense.
Certainly, a couple hundred bucks is a lot to pay to replace your TV remote, but not if the same hardware acts as a DVD player and on-demand TV/movie service. How far this strategy would take Microsoft's console would depend largely on the targeting and substance of its marketing campaign. But this basic Natal application could explode the market, attracting consumers far beyond the boundaries of present gaming audiences.
Reliability seems like the main issue to me. I still disbelieve projections that the 360 will remain Microsoft's primary console for another five years. The console has survived its dismal reputation for hardware failure largely thanks to the warranty. Once present owners are no longer comfortable under that umbrella, a new wave of bad publicity will pour down. And, like Windows Vista's reputation could not be saved from the mistakes of its early presentation, the 360 cannot shake its original failures even if new models perform better. The 360 market won't collapse completely when hardware replacement is no longer guaranteed, but it will definitely be shaken. A fresh start will be necessary by 2011.
Pachter has suggested Microsoft might come out with another version of the 360 soon, instead of a wholly new console. It's possible. But, as I said, anything that looks and feels basically like the original 360 will suffer from its RROD reputation.
That avid or "hardcore" gamers are not rushing to buy Wiis just to play The Conduit and Metroid Prime 3 is no surprise. Some people do buy consoles just for one or a few games, but that is certainly not average consumer behavior. The success or failure of hardcore Wii games offers little insight into potential Natal game sales because the Wii is not a comparable console. Even among occasional gamers (such as those who buy only a sport game or two per year), the Wii is popularly defined as a family or kids' console because that describes the majority of its games. Present gamers and non-gamers alike who are disinterested in the more dazzling Wii titles will be attracted to similar content on Natal, simply because the 360 console has a different general focus and appeal.
Really, the more the 360 becomes the multimedia console, offering TV/movies and other non-game services, the less the Wii and 360 will be direct competitors. If Nintendo continues to focus exclusively on games and offer an obviously unique experience, then Microsoft and Nintendo might soon compete only in the way that DVD manufacturers compete with the iPod -- the consumer only has so much money, but buying one product doesn't affect one's desire for the other.
I agree 100% with Pachter that controllers are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Motion control is an exciting alternative, not an unqualified progression. The most obvious reason is that physical activity is not always welcome. Gamers will always want to game from the couch on occasion.
Will some genres always demand a traditional controller? I doubt it. Even a system like Natal, which seemingly enables 1:1 representations of player movements, isn't limited to 1:1 animations. I don't need to wave my arm completely to have my character wave his arm completely. A game could be designed so that a small movement on my part results in an exaggerated movement on-screen. Thus, a game like Mortal Kombat won't necessarily have players leaping and twisting around in their homes. I can't think of any basic style of game which is impossible to translate well into motion control.
Natal's proposed ability to incorporate the unique objects of individual players could play a major role in games. For example, as a guitarist, I own guitars which are different from the guitars of other musicians. If Natal can scan a guitar of mine so that others can see it, that ability to share in an active environment online is a great appeal. Even without the online component, I'd love to play with my own guitar in Rock Band 2.
The scanning function could be applied to many games to match the protagonist's body proportions and clothing to the player's. This would personalize heroes, but there are other benefits. Imagine your character looking a little different every day, just as you do.
Anyway, I've focused mainly on hardware here. I'll probably write another Natal article focusing on potential games. In the meantime, any thoughts?
Monday, June 22, 2009
blog compensation and the FTC
Apparently, the Federal Trade Commission has decided to start policing bloggers.
Companies increasingly include bloggers in their marketing drives. The FTC is concerned that not all bloggers reveal their relationships with these companies while consumers turn to the blogs for product reviews. Basically, the FTC believes consumers have a right to full disclosure when receiving product advice.
I'm generally not a fan of government regulatory agencies, but the FTC proposal certainly makes sense under current law. It's more a clarification of how existing laws apply to blogs than a creation of new rules. There's ample room for regulatory abuse, but I expect it will generally be business as usual.
In any case, this seems like a good time to talk about my own site's company relationships. I've spoken about them with fellow bloggers from time to time, but never explicitly discussed it on here.
First, you've probably noticed the "Partners" section in my sidebar. I used to have it labeled as something else, though I don't recall the label. For five or six months now, I've received a small amount of revenue in the form of monthly payments for including hypertext ads in that section for various companies and organizations -- enough money to buy one or two games each month. The advertisers are found through a middleman company, and I accept only ads that I think are somewhat relevant to my site.
When I started this blog years ago, I never dreamed I'd be able to make any money or derive any benefits from it. Now that I do, I'm a little stricter with myself about posting almost every weekday, but you can peruse my archives and see that the content is basically the same. I have had to consider how commercial I'll let the site become, though.
I think my priorities are pretty clear. If money was my top priority, I'd be spamming and posting all over the internet, writing more about news, writing many articles per day, etc. But money is not my top priority for this site, nor will ever be. That's why most my articles are still philosophical and niche, why I only write one article per day, and why I rarely mention my site apart from POTD (Post of the Day) links on Twitter.
Over the years, I've been given beta access directly by developers, given interview opportunities, given products and prizes to give away in contests, and have even received a few review copies of games. On a few occasions, I've been solicited for design advice by developers; and I briefly worked for a European developer (primarily as a reviewer). I continue to link to CrosuS, a product which I contributed to in a small way, but more because it is unique and respectable than because I have any affiliation with it (my contribution to CrosuS was negligible).
Most relations I've had with marketers have been brief, but I've been an EA Contact for months now. EA has given me exclusive screenshots, interview opportunities, a heads-up on new web content, and a few free review copies. In return, I offer to review particular games and help games I like gain exposure... usually by incorporating details of the game into a philosophical discussion typical of Anyway Games. I only review and market games I'm truly interested in. I've rejected offers concerning many games, from EA and others, such as THQ's Dragonica Online.
Have these relationships affected the honesty of my reviews and comments? I don't believe so. You might note that, while I gave Dead Space and Spore good reviews and have praised many EA games (just look at their present list of upcoming titles -- impressive), my reviews were not so kind to other of the publisher's games, like The Godfather II (which I received a review copy of) and Mass Effect. In fact, I am one of the few who have been very critical of Mass Effect, despite acknowledging that it's a good game overall (I'll be writing about hopes for the sequel this week).
Pandemic is responsible for one of my favorite games of all time, Star Wars: Battlefront. Recently, I've been helping them to advertise The Saboteur because it looks like a potentially awesome game. But I wrote a rather scathing review of another Pandemic title, LOTR: Conquest.
The point is that I am a brutally, compulsively honest person. I have Asperger Syndrome and am a reasoned Catholic. Put those two together, and the result is an extremely stubborn commitment to truth and morality. I care more about truth, God and my fellow human beings than profit and rewards. And I reject the common notion that moral rules change depending on whether one is acting in or outside of business. I certainly am not always right or accurate, but I try very hard to be honest with myself and others.
I also try to be open. So I've added a note in this site's heading for readers who don't communicate with me regularly. I try to make my biases plain, but please feel free to ask me if ever you'd like to know where I'm coming from.
Companies increasingly include bloggers in their marketing drives. The FTC is concerned that not all bloggers reveal their relationships with these companies while consumers turn to the blogs for product reviews. Basically, the FTC believes consumers have a right to full disclosure when receiving product advice.
If the guidelines are approved, bloggers would have to back up claims and disclose if they're being compensated — the FTC doesn't currently plan to specify how. The FTC could order violators to stop and pay restitution to customers, and it could ask the Justice Department to sue for civil penalties.
Any type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in reviews.
.... the guidelines also would cover the broader and common practice of affiliate marketing, in which bloggers and other sites get a commission when someone clicks on a link that leads to a purchase at a retailer.
I'm generally not a fan of government regulatory agencies, but the FTC proposal certainly makes sense under current law. It's more a clarification of how existing laws apply to blogs than a creation of new rules. There's ample room for regulatory abuse, but I expect it will generally be business as usual.
In any case, this seems like a good time to talk about my own site's company relationships. I've spoken about them with fellow bloggers from time to time, but never explicitly discussed it on here.
First, you've probably noticed the "Partners" section in my sidebar. I used to have it labeled as something else, though I don't recall the label. For five or six months now, I've received a small amount of revenue in the form of monthly payments for including hypertext ads in that section for various companies and organizations -- enough money to buy one or two games each month. The advertisers are found through a middleman company, and I accept only ads that I think are somewhat relevant to my site.
When I started this blog years ago, I never dreamed I'd be able to make any money or derive any benefits from it. Now that I do, I'm a little stricter with myself about posting almost every weekday, but you can peruse my archives and see that the content is basically the same. I have had to consider how commercial I'll let the site become, though.
I think my priorities are pretty clear. If money was my top priority, I'd be spamming and posting all over the internet, writing more about news, writing many articles per day, etc. But money is not my top priority for this site, nor will ever be. That's why most my articles are still philosophical and niche, why I only write one article per day, and why I rarely mention my site apart from POTD (Post of the Day) links on Twitter.
Over the years, I've been given beta access directly by developers, given interview opportunities, given products and prizes to give away in contests, and have even received a few review copies of games. On a few occasions, I've been solicited for design advice by developers; and I briefly worked for a European developer (primarily as a reviewer). I continue to link to CrosuS, a product which I contributed to in a small way, but more because it is unique and respectable than because I have any affiliation with it (my contribution to CrosuS was negligible).
Most relations I've had with marketers have been brief, but I've been an EA Contact for months now. EA has given me exclusive screenshots, interview opportunities, a heads-up on new web content, and a few free review copies. In return, I offer to review particular games and help games I like gain exposure... usually by incorporating details of the game into a philosophical discussion typical of Anyway Games. I only review and market games I'm truly interested in. I've rejected offers concerning many games, from EA and others, such as THQ's Dragonica Online.
Have these relationships affected the honesty of my reviews and comments? I don't believe so. You might note that, while I gave Dead Space and Spore good reviews and have praised many EA games (just look at their present list of upcoming titles -- impressive), my reviews were not so kind to other of the publisher's games, like The Godfather II (which I received a review copy of) and Mass Effect. In fact, I am one of the few who have been very critical of Mass Effect, despite acknowledging that it's a good game overall (I'll be writing about hopes for the sequel this week).
Pandemic is responsible for one of my favorite games of all time, Star Wars: Battlefront. Recently, I've been helping them to advertise The Saboteur because it looks like a potentially awesome game. But I wrote a rather scathing review of another Pandemic title, LOTR: Conquest.
The point is that I am a brutally, compulsively honest person. I have Asperger Syndrome and am a reasoned Catholic. Put those two together, and the result is an extremely stubborn commitment to truth and morality. I care more about truth, God and my fellow human beings than profit and rewards. And I reject the common notion that moral rules change depending on whether one is acting in or outside of business. I certainly am not always right or accurate, but I try very hard to be honest with myself and others.
I also try to be open. So I've added a note in this site's heading for readers who don't communicate with me regularly. I try to make my biases plain, but please feel free to ask me if ever you'd like to know where I'm coming from.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Natal and TV viewing
I suggested on Geoff Keighley's blog that Microsoft should advertise Project Natal, when they release it, alongside their Netflix and on-demand movie services. Hopefully, they'll also have live TV deals by then, like they made in Britain with Sky.
People who play games infrequently, and even not at all, are already attracted to the Netflix service. I have two non-gaming relatives who use Xbox 360s exclusively for Netflix and renting movies in high definition. Consumers who own or are interested in the Wii will be attracted to Natal games. But it's a combination of both Natal gaming and cheap, on-demand movie/TV services in 360 advertising that will convert Wii owners and tap into the irregular-gamer/non-gamer market.
This leads me to a point made my Peter Molyneux about Project Natal. The new hardware, Molyneux argues, opens up possibilities beyond traditional genres and applications.
What about TV interaction? Microsoft could position their next console to become as universal as DVD players if it enables TV viewers to interact with average, non-gaming TV shows somehow.
People who play games infrequently, and even not at all, are already attracted to the Netflix service. I have two non-gaming relatives who use Xbox 360s exclusively for Netflix and renting movies in high definition. Consumers who own or are interested in the Wii will be attracted to Natal games. But it's a combination of both Natal gaming and cheap, on-demand movie/TV services in 360 advertising that will convert Wii owners and tap into the irregular-gamer/non-gamer market.
This leads me to a point made my Peter Molyneux about Project Natal. The new hardware, Molyneux argues, opens up possibilities beyond traditional genres and applications.
What about TV interaction? Microsoft could position their next console to become as universal as DVD players if it enables TV viewers to interact with average, non-gaming TV shows somehow.
Monday, March 23, 2009
TV spectating: the question
The Sci-Fi channel has apparently taken the leap into game spectating. From what I've read, though, their WCG Ultimate Gamer show is as much reality TV as spectating. I don't like that idea, but it raises the question of what sort of show could make game battles popular on TV.
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Netflix update
I rejoined Netflix late last week, and their partnership with Microsoft is definitely a much better deal than I expected.
As I said before, my trial of Netflix last August left me with low expectations for the online service that would reach Xbox Live. Little of the streamable content was worthwhile, most of it being decades-old B movies or worse. Since then, Netflix has signed a deal with Starz, which adds plenty of films that are actually good and well-produced: Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men, Enchanted, etc.
They also seem to have made more TV series available for streaming. Some, like NewsRadio (Phil Hartman is hilarious!) and The A-Team, are available on Hulu for free. But now Netflix also has many seasons of Law & Order, CSI, Dead Like Me, and other popular shows.
I watched many movies and TV episodes over the weekend and had no problems with stream quality. Keep in mind, though, that I have an old CRT television and cable-quality internet. If you have an HD-TV or slow/choppy connection, I suppose your stream quality could be worse. Regardless of how often the current streaming strategy works, it seems nonsensical that users are not allowed to forego live streaming and instead choose heavy buffering for better resolution.
It's also disappointing that so many triple-A films which can be purchased for download elsewhere (i.e., are already available in a disc-less format) are not available for streaming, but I can only assume that's due to the film publishers.
But the benefits outweigh the shortcomings. I now have over a hundred films and TV shows in my queu. All of them are on-demand content with DVD-like controls and no commercial interruptions. As long as I'm a member of Netflix, I can take all of that content with me when I travel. It's a sweet deal.
As I said before, my trial of Netflix last August left me with low expectations for the online service that would reach Xbox Live. Little of the streamable content was worthwhile, most of it being decades-old B movies or worse. Since then, Netflix has signed a deal with Starz, which adds plenty of films that are actually good and well-produced: Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men, Enchanted, etc.
They also seem to have made more TV series available for streaming. Some, like NewsRadio (Phil Hartman is hilarious!) and The A-Team, are available on Hulu for free. But now Netflix also has many seasons of Law & Order, CSI, Dead Like Me, and other popular shows.
I watched many movies and TV episodes over the weekend and had no problems with stream quality. Keep in mind, though, that I have an old CRT television and cable-quality internet. If you have an HD-TV or slow/choppy connection, I suppose your stream quality could be worse. Regardless of how often the current streaming strategy works, it seems nonsensical that users are not allowed to forego live streaming and instead choose heavy buffering for better resolution.
It's also disappointing that so many triple-A films which can be purchased for download elsewhere (i.e., are already available in a disc-less format) are not available for streaming, but I can only assume that's due to the film publishers.
But the benefits outweigh the shortcomings. I now have over a hundred films and TV shows in my queu. All of them are on-demand content with DVD-like controls and no commercial interruptions. As long as I'm a member of Netflix, I can take all of that content with me when I travel. It's a sweet deal.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Hulu and YouTube
You might have already read by now that Microsoft is at least considering integration of web services like Hulu and YouTube into Xbox Live. I see this as a big deal.
HULU
First, Hulu has a different business model than Netflix. Users can view content (TV and films) at no charge, the shows being paid for by advertisements. It includes a number of triple-A and top-notch TV shows (like NewsRadio), and browsing them is simpler than with Netflix. Hulu even has an integrated tool for selecting clips and emailing them to friends. I love Hulu. I much prefer its quick and easy TV-on-demand service with relatively few commercials in lieu of a traditional cable or satellite subscription.
The first complication I see is that Xbox Live currently charges users to rent content which can be viewed for free (through advertisements) on Hulu, such as Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. My gut says Microsoft would screw us and not allow Hulu to show anything we're charged for now, but it's possible Microsoft would take the high road and allow us the paid-by-ads alternative.
Microsoft would almost certainly place its own ads in Hulu's content. That strikes me as the absolute best marketing tool the company would have for reaching XBL users. I bet most users are more likely to watch a good TV show or movie with game advertisements in them than to download trailers and video interviews for every game they might enjoy. Ads in Hulu via the 360 would reach more Xbox users than ads anywhere else.
And contracting with Hulu would be a major selling point. Yes, it's available online, but most people would rather watch free, on-demand shows on their television than on their computer. TVs can be hooked up to PCs, but that's not a mainstream practice (it's common among tech junkies only, who are not that big a chunk of society as a whole).
Hulu would benefit greatly by attracting more advertisers with the 360 user community. Their services would consequently expand and become more attractive to users and marketers. More film studios who currently contract with TV broadcasters might see Hulu as a viable partner. Because Hulu would finally be playing on the televisions of millions, rather than on computers, the company could finally become a direct competitor to subscription television.
Of course, if Hulu was ever big enough to compete directly with them, the Hulu business model would probably change; either they'd gradually increase ad interruptions, as TV broadcasters have over the years, or they'd start charging a subscription of their own. But we can hope their present model would stand for a while.
YouTube
Videos of Halo and other games already cover YouTube. More gamers would watch those sort of videos if it could be done while already focused on games (engaged on their gaming console). YouTube integration would greatly facilitate game tutorials and walkthroughs. It might even make gaming tournaments more viable.
YouTube integration could significantly affect the design of many games. Community and Arcade games would use YouTube most frequently, but I'm talking mainly about the design of triple-AAA titles. And I don't mean like Spore either, which enables players to share their creature creations. No, I'm talking about dynamics. What makes games like Halo and MMOs so popular on YouTube is their room for fresh, personal experiences. It's the ability to still see new and exciting stories months or even years after the game is released. It's the revelation of personal preferences and personal adventures -- stories which are individually representative.
YouTube play-session stories are excellent marketing. Ads are more effective when they're recommended by friends. Videos of unique and exciting experiences encourage lengthy conversations between friends -- conversations which embed the ads to memory, inform, and stoke anticipation. YouTube integration could greatly increase impulse purchases of downloadable content.
Anyway, long story short, I hope Microsoft can work out satisfactory contracts with both YouTube and Hulu. Those deals could be as sweet for gamers as for Microsoft and advertisers.
HULU
First, Hulu has a different business model than Netflix. Users can view content (TV and films) at no charge, the shows being paid for by advertisements. It includes a number of triple-A and top-notch TV shows (like NewsRadio), and browsing them is simpler than with Netflix. Hulu even has an integrated tool for selecting clips and emailing them to friends. I love Hulu. I much prefer its quick and easy TV-on-demand service with relatively few commercials in lieu of a traditional cable or satellite subscription.
The first complication I see is that Xbox Live currently charges users to rent content which can be viewed for free (through advertisements) on Hulu, such as Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. My gut says Microsoft would screw us and not allow Hulu to show anything we're charged for now, but it's possible Microsoft would take the high road and allow us the paid-by-ads alternative.
Microsoft would almost certainly place its own ads in Hulu's content. That strikes me as the absolute best marketing tool the company would have for reaching XBL users. I bet most users are more likely to watch a good TV show or movie with game advertisements in them than to download trailers and video interviews for every game they might enjoy. Ads in Hulu via the 360 would reach more Xbox users than ads anywhere else.
And contracting with Hulu would be a major selling point. Yes, it's available online, but most people would rather watch free, on-demand shows on their television than on their computer. TVs can be hooked up to PCs, but that's not a mainstream practice (it's common among tech junkies only, who are not that big a chunk of society as a whole).
Hulu would benefit greatly by attracting more advertisers with the 360 user community. Their services would consequently expand and become more attractive to users and marketers. More film studios who currently contract with TV broadcasters might see Hulu as a viable partner. Because Hulu would finally be playing on the televisions of millions, rather than on computers, the company could finally become a direct competitor to subscription television.
Of course, if Hulu was ever big enough to compete directly with them, the Hulu business model would probably change; either they'd gradually increase ad interruptions, as TV broadcasters have over the years, or they'd start charging a subscription of their own. But we can hope their present model would stand for a while.
YouTube
Videos of Halo and other games already cover YouTube. More gamers would watch those sort of videos if it could be done while already focused on games (engaged on their gaming console). YouTube integration would greatly facilitate game tutorials and walkthroughs. It might even make gaming tournaments more viable.
YouTube integration could significantly affect the design of many games. Community and Arcade games would use YouTube most frequently, but I'm talking mainly about the design of triple-AAA titles. And I don't mean like Spore either, which enables players to share their creature creations. No, I'm talking about dynamics. What makes games like Halo and MMOs so popular on YouTube is their room for fresh, personal experiences. It's the ability to still see new and exciting stories months or even years after the game is released. It's the revelation of personal preferences and personal adventures -- stories which are individually representative.
YouTube play-session stories are excellent marketing. Ads are more effective when they're recommended by friends. Videos of unique and exciting experiences encourage lengthy conversations between friends -- conversations which embed the ads to memory, inform, and stoke anticipation. YouTube integration could greatly increase impulse purchases of downloadable content.
Anyway, long story short, I hope Microsoft can work out satisfactory contracts with both YouTube and Hulu. Those deals could be as sweet for gamers as for Microsoft and advertisers.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
military's AI in MMOs
The U.S. military is about to use MMOs as a testing ground for their latest human-simulation AI.
According to the Army's Director of Research and Laboratory Management, these AI characters "think independently, have emotions and speak in slang". In other words, these are far beyond the bots you might be accustomed to seeing in MMOs. These bots don't just grind. They will seem to converse with players.
There's no mention of the extent to which these Army bots will partake in gameplay. The focus is clearly on simulating social intelligence and personality, rather than combat prowess. I'm sure our military has impressive AI for that as well.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Army's test results and strategies will be shared with the game industry, though I could be wrong. If our military perceives such AI has having only training value, then they might share. But if they believe such AI has intelligence and counter-intelligence applications, as I expect, then they will guard their methods against enemy insights.
So don't expect this to lead to gaming progress.
But do feel free to make a mini-game out of identifying impostors! You'll be helping our troops in the process.
According to the Army's Director of Research and Laboratory Management, these AI characters "think independently, have emotions and speak in slang". In other words, these are far beyond the bots you might be accustomed to seeing in MMOs. These bots don't just grind. They will seem to converse with players.
There's no mention of the extent to which these Army bots will partake in gameplay. The focus is clearly on simulating social intelligence and personality, rather than combat prowess. I'm sure our military has impressive AI for that as well.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Army's test results and strategies will be shared with the game industry, though I could be wrong. If our military perceives such AI has having only training value, then they might share. But if they believe such AI has intelligence and counter-intelligence applications, as I expect, then they will guard their methods against enemy insights.
So don't expect this to lead to gaming progress.
But do feel free to make a mini-game out of identifying impostors! You'll be helping our troops in the process.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
the Netflix-360 deal
This Netflix-360 deal ain't all it's cracked up to be.
When I first heard its announcement during E3, I was excited. I love to watch movies, and I already stream movies through sites like Hulu. I've been using Blockbuster to rent movies by mail for many months, but I figured I'd gladly switch if I could watch more movies through Netflix via streaming or downloads.
Alas, there's a catch.
I've been trying Netflix for the past month to find out if they're really just as good as Blockbuster; to figure out if I want to switch. It turns out Netflix already allows members to stream movies if the membership plan includes it ($14 per month gives you unlimited streams, in addition to mail rentals).
The catch is only some movies are offered for streaming... and most of those movies suck. Oh, there are some real gems (like The Taking of Pelham One Two Three or The Riddle), but most are shoddy B-movies and stuff you'd probably never watch if it was offered any other way. Odds are, this is the same content that will be available to 360 users.
Screw it. Blockbuster still seems like the better deal to me. They've got an exclusivity deal with The Weinstein Company (Hannibal Rising, 1408, The Last Legion, The Forbidden Kingdom, etc). And they just added their own download program... which is both better and worse than Netflix streams. It's worse because Blockbuster doesn't offer a subscription add-on to download movies, as Netflix does; you have to pay to rent each download. But it's better in that you can purchase movies via download (good movies); and those are cheaper than DVDs, of course. As long as you have a big external hard drive, as I do, that's not a bad deal.
It seems to me that all forms of electronic media are gradually merging. The Netflix-360 deal is a step in that direction, but also shows how far we are from the ideal for now.
When I first heard its announcement during E3, I was excited. I love to watch movies, and I already stream movies through sites like Hulu. I've been using Blockbuster to rent movies by mail for many months, but I figured I'd gladly switch if I could watch more movies through Netflix via streaming or downloads.
Alas, there's a catch.
I've been trying Netflix for the past month to find out if they're really just as good as Blockbuster; to figure out if I want to switch. It turns out Netflix already allows members to stream movies if the membership plan includes it ($14 per month gives you unlimited streams, in addition to mail rentals).
The catch is only some movies are offered for streaming... and most of those movies suck. Oh, there are some real gems (like The Taking of Pelham One Two Three or The Riddle), but most are shoddy B-movies and stuff you'd probably never watch if it was offered any other way. Odds are, this is the same content that will be available to 360 users.
Screw it. Blockbuster still seems like the better deal to me. They've got an exclusivity deal with The Weinstein Company (Hannibal Rising, 1408, The Last Legion, The Forbidden Kingdom, etc). And they just added their own download program... which is both better and worse than Netflix streams. It's worse because Blockbuster doesn't offer a subscription add-on to download movies, as Netflix does; you have to pay to rent each download. But it's better in that you can purchase movies via download (good movies); and those are cheaper than DVDs, of course. As long as you have a big external hard drive, as I do, that's not a bad deal.
It seems to me that all forms of electronic media are gradually merging. The Netflix-360 deal is a step in that direction, but also shows how far we are from the ideal for now.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Partnership of medicine and games
I read an article earlier which referenced the many months of research into biomechanics necessary for the developers of the new Splinter Cell game to achieve semi-realistic, complex character motions. Knowledge of biomechanics is of increasing importance as the industry's bar for animation is raised.
In about a month, one of my little sisters begins an internship with the National Institute of Health as a bioengineering assistant. They'll be using a new MRI technology to study the deteriorating joints of persons with cerebral palsy.
Perhaps much could be gained by a partnership between the medical industry and the game industry in the study of biomechanics. By combining the physiological expertise of medical researchers with the programming expertise of game software developers, it seems both sides could benefit greatly. Game developers might provide medical researchers with improved software and interfaces, while physicians might provide game developers with insights into simulating true biomechanics.
In about a month, one of my little sisters begins an internship with the National Institute of Health as a bioengineering assistant. They'll be using a new MRI technology to study the deteriorating joints of persons with cerebral palsy.
Perhaps much could be gained by a partnership between the medical industry and the game industry in the study of biomechanics. By combining the physiological expertise of medical researchers with the programming expertise of game software developers, it seems both sides could benefit greatly. Game developers might provide medical researchers with improved software and interfaces, while physicians might provide game developers with insights into simulating true biomechanics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
