Know Thyself
This is going to be an interesting decade.
You may not have noticed, but we entered a new decade this past January 1 (our current calendar lacks a year zero — no doubt due to a lack of experienced programmers in the Scythian monkhood). We are now living in the 202nd decade by modern reckoning, and well on way into the 21st century. Year transitions are typically times for reflection and making resolutions, but entering a new decade inspires more forward thinking. How will this decade be different from the last? What will my life be like 10 years from now?
As an arm-chair futurist, I spend a lot of time thinking about the near-term future; I think it's something we all need to do if we are to stay competitive in our industry. I won't lay out all my predictions for the future, but I will share with you one of my bolder prognostications. I think this decade will be notable for elective human augmentation becoming mainstream.
By "human augmentation," I mean any process or device that overcomes some biological limitation of the human body, specifically via technology. By most accounts, human augmentation has been around for well over 50 years if one includes applications such as artificial pacemakers. Advances in the field of therapeutic implants have been proceeding at an astounding pace, with recent developments just in area of vision, including a retinal implant to give sight to blind patients and an implantable miniature telescope for end-stage macular degeneration.
Estimates for the global market for human augmentation place it in the $877 million to $1 billion range by 2020. These estimates largely focus on functional augmentation rather than diagnostic ones, however, and I think they are missing out on what will become the game-changing part of the market. As Thomas Goetz of Wired points out, we are becoming the new Tamagatchis, with wearable biometric devices popping up everywhere. In other words, it will be devices that gather data on our collective human biomass that will define this decade. The global market for weight loss is expected to reach $586.3 billion by 2014, and only minor technological barriers are keeping this from spilling into the augmentation market. The next step in gathering data on our bodies is the transition from wearable to embedded, and it's already underway. It turns out one of the biggest problems — how to power the devices for extended periods — might not be that hard after all, since the human body can already power flexible nanogenerators.
Where is all this leading us? Are we doomed to being quantified, reduced to our individual eigenvalues for broadcast on all the social networks and subsequent regression analysis by marketing department and actuaries? Must we cry out, like The Prisoner, "I am not a number, I am a free man!"?
Or is there value in this culture of personal data? Can feedback loops make us more self-aware, and in the end, better humans? The aphorism of the Greek Sages, inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, was "Know Thyself." Self-knowledge is held up as our highest goal by many spiritual belief systems, for awareness of our own flaws is a catalyst for growth. The 21st century model for self-efficacy is gamification — applying knowledge of our predisposition to engage in games to alter human behavior. As game developers, we have a chance to help people better themselves, all while having fun in the 202nd decade.
Post your comments |
Peter Freese Conference Director LOGIN Conference |
What 'Traditional' Video Game Designers Need to Learn From Social Games
Two years ago, it was understandable to wonder if Facebook gaming was a sustainable business. In October 2008, Lil Green Patch was the most popular game on the platform. Zynga had two games in the top 10 and a total of about 17 million monthly active users. The No. 8 game, Mob Wars, quaintly listed its developer by name — David Maestri.
Two years later, it's a bit harder to imagine the form simply evaporating. In December 2010, Zynga held six of the top 10 spots — one through six — and had a total of roughly 270 million monthly active users. And instead of individual names, the top 10 developers each have well over 100 employees.
And I think there's some money being made, too.
Despite all that, frequently when talking to developers and designers working in the "core" game industry, they discount the notion there are lessons to be learned from social. Or let me rephrase — if there are lessons to be learned from social, they're not game design lessons. The perspective I've sometimes heard is that social game designers have perfected not an art, but a system. Whether it's a system for tricking players into acquiring additional players by leveraging social pressure, or one for forcing them to continue to play with deplorable little Skinner boxes, or one for separating them from their money through disingenuous offers, the system is positioned as the reason for the popularity of social games.
Whether or not one personally enjoys Facebook games, the question should be, what can we learn from designers of social games that might apply to what I'm doing today? So, hold your nose if it makes you feel better, and consider the below. These are just two common design tropes made popular in Facebook games that are, in the opinion of this humble writer, worthy of serious consideration for your current core game project.
Asynchronous Gameplay
One of the key components of many popular social games is asynchronous multiplayer gameplay. Defining it simply, it is turn-based multiplayer, sometimes on a massive scale and in which turn order is frequently irrelevant. The best example, in my opinion, would be the Facebook classic Parking Wars (developed by Area/Code, which was recently purchased by Zynga). In the game, a player parks their car on their friend's street. The longer the car is parked, the more money it earns for its owner. Cars parked illegally can be ticketed by the street's owner, and cars can be moved any time. It's worth noting here that asynchronous gameplay and asynchronous interaction aren't exactly the same thing. Parking Wars is a great example of asynchronous gameplay — the direct interaction between players has a meaningful impact on both of their games, unlike simple asynchronous interaction, in which I can water your crops or feed your pet, but that interaction is not substantially impactful on my game experience.
One can argue that asynchronous gameplay was a natural adaptation to the fundamentally asynchronous nature of Facebook itself and that it is therefore a gameplay mechanism relevant primarily on that platform. But consumers of all media seem to have shifted to asynchronous consumption patterns. TV has moved from broadcast to YouTube, AppleTV or OnDemand, and similar shifts have occurred in music and film. It seems logical that game players would be attracted to play patterns that enable similar consumption patterns.
Appointment Mechanics
So if the assertion is that players prefer asynchronous, "convenience" gameplay interaction, what's with all of these gameplay appointments? Why can't I harvest my carrots whenever I want?
Appointment mechanics — events in the game, usually user-initiated, that require user interaction at the conclusion of a real-world time interval for resolution — are clearly an important part of many social games. They provide clear and achievable goals for the user and an obvious payoff for achieving those goals. Further, since they're user-initiated, they are convenient — the user will set their appointments in such a way as to accommodate their real-world schedule and play pattern. They allow you to grind, just like you do in most traditional MMOs, without having it feel like a grind. The player winds the clock, leaves the grinding to the game, and comes back to collect when it's done. It's a satisfying way for the user to feel like they're staying on top of the game without spending hour upon hour in it.
Clearly there are examples of both of the above mechanics in many games outside of the social space. But I think the evolutions of the above within the social game space are interesting and worth noting for everyone interested in game development. And not as trickery. Setting aside the substantial value the above mechanics can provide to a free-to-play game business in terms of retention (socially driven in the case of asynchronous gameplay and game-driven in the case of appointment mechanics), they're satisfying for players.
If you're lucky enough, spend a few minutes with smart creative folks, and it's easy to imagine how these, and many other, social design tropes could work well in many core games. It's worth considering, if not simply because they can drive business results, then maybe because people just might enjoy them.
 |
Dan Fiden |
