Recently, I found myself wondering about whatever happened to the game designers that designed (and usually programmed) some of my favourite computer games from the 80’s.

By following my nose (and a few quick Google searches), I ended up at James Hague’s website, www.dadgum.com/halcyon , where he has generously posted his book, Halcyon Days: Interviews with Classic Computer and Video Game Designers and Programmers.

Interviews included 8 bit game luminaries Bill Budge (Pinball Construction Set, Raster Blaster), Danielle Berry (formerly Bill Bunten; M.U.L.E., Seven Cities of Gold), Eugene Jarvis (Defender, Robotron 2084), Dan Gorlin (Choplifter) and Warren Robinett (Adventure), amongst others.

His interviews crossed game designers of many different platforms, including the Apple II, Commodore 64, Vic 20, and Odyssey 2, although he seemed to have a special affinity for Atari 2600 and 800 game designers.

The interviews were so comprehensive (twenty nine game developers were interviewed in all), that I began to get a sense of the times from the perspective of an 8 bit game designer, and could see clear patterns that may still be relevant today.

I’ll try and cover a few off the top of my head, so here’s my 8 bits worth:

The Game Designers frequently shared a common motivation… 

Almost all game designers spoke of “pushing boundaries”, using new techniques and technology, and almost all spoke of trying to capture a certain quality or spirit in their games.  Virtually none were content to just rehash the “same old, same old.”

Many eschewed huge profits by not rehashing a quick sequel, and when some did do a sequel to a successful title, they would frequently develop it much further, e.g. Jon Freeman and his Archon title.

… And a Common Gripe

As an obvious corollary, many game designers bemoaned the industry’s tendency, even at the time the interviews were conducted (1996-98?) to copy successful titles instead of innovating.

Many though were philosophical about why the game industry does this though, understanding that the industry does need to make money, and if this is what it thinks it needs to do to make money, then that made sense at least.

Risk-taking is essential to a good title

Another corollary of the above motivation to “push boundaries” is that they incorporated a degree of “business risk” into their games.  One game designer I recall, put his finger on it precisely.  To make a successful, breakthrough game, you need to take risks.  The same goes in film to some extent.  You can, and should minimize risks, but you can’t do the “same old”.  You have to take a risk somewhere, because part of what the audience comes for is a surprise.   By copying another successful title (unless it was your own, earlier successful title), you are setting the audience/gamer up for disappointment, and worse, you are trying to dip into an ever-diminishing pool of human interest.

Making Computer Games is a Risky Business

Many of the computer game writers interviewed were not financially successful from their games, except in a very modest way or for brief periods of time, usually lasting less than 12 months.  Many were forced to leave the industry they loved because of financial hardship - and these were game writers that had programmed classic games that are still loved and played today (usually through emulators - software programs that emulate the characteristics of the old 8 bit processors).

It was evident to me that the Computer Games Industry is subject to two forms of volatility:-

1) It is a “creative” industry.  Like filmmaking, writing, visual art, architecture, graphic design, photography etc, the game industry has far greater supply than demand, and is volatile because it is at the whim of public tastes.  It is not an essential good and as such rides highs and lows far greater than a normal commodity business.

2) It is also a technology industry:  Frequently a game designer’s fortunes rose and fell according to the platform for which they programmed/developed.  Many game designers rose and fell with the fortunes of Atari, Apple, Commodore etc etc.  As these platforms fell out of favour, frequently the game designers were out of a job, never to be back in games.  Technology is prone to booms and busts, and computer games are no different.  What focused risk back in those days was the small number of platforms.  Thus when Atari failed, it precipitated a huge crash in the computer games industry in ‘83-’84, which was also felt by non-Atari game developers. (I don’t know the reason for this but surmise that when Atari collapsed so did cross-platform licensing from other platforms.)  Nowadays, we can see the games industry is still concentrated and prone to platforms burning brightlyfor a few years before burning out. E.g. Sega, Playstation 2 , PSP (See this article for an analysis of the diminishing PS2 and PSP), Nintendo Cube(?).  And still we have a concentration of game platforms now in Xbox 360, PS 3, Wii, and more recently the iPhone.  It is salutary to realise these platforms don’t last forever.

The Computer Game Industry is “Discrete”

By this I mean it’s small, and granular.  The key people that drove the industry back then were finite and could be counted on one hand.  The big captains of the games companies, be they developers or publishers could basically make or break, and sometimes remake a game designers career.

Whilst this is true of many specialised areas, it adds to the volatility of the computer game industry, and stresses the importance of good networking ability and maintaining good relationships.  With the increasing size of the games industry, perhaps there is more flexibility, but there is still a concentration of platforms.

Game Designing was (and probably still is) a male-dominated industry

There were only two females interviewed.  One had previously been a man (Danielle Berry) - more on this below, and the other, Anne Westfall, was strictly a programmer and not the game designer.

Good Game Design is an Iterative Process

Most game designers describe a process where there were many tweaks, lots of trial and error and sheer persistence in trying to get a game element right.  This also implies they had an inner aesthetic “ideal” that they were trying to get their game to live up to.

Most Game Designers “Cut their Teeth” by working out how to program games they liked.

It seems obvious, but many game designers started out trying to program the games they liked, and from there looked for new challenges.  Programming the games they’d seen and liked probably gave them a good insight into how to make a new game that they would like or others would like.  Hmmmm.  That’s a good idea!

What Differentiated the Financially Successful Game Developers from the Unsuccessful Ones?

Platform choice

As mentioned above, a game designers choice of platform was extremely important.  Choosing to write for a platform that boomed in popularity meant you tended to ride that wave of popularity

Where a game designer chose to work for a successful platform, they would normally be paid well, although they were still generally employees and this would amount to modest to good income, but still roughly a good salary, and not a “fortune”.  As described in more detail below, generally it was the game designer that took some degree of proprietary/entrepreneurial risk that could make big money.

Seeing the Writing on the Wall and Acting on it

Many shrewd game designers saw the writing on the wall e.g. a declining platform or a new hot upcoming platform, and the most shrewd ones acted on the signs they saw by jumping ship or leaving the industry.

Piracy - the bane of digital content makers

The “popularity” of a game was not sufficient to make a game designer wealthy.  Unfortunately, then, as now, the industry was rife with piracy.  This meant that many game developers who made what are now considered classic games and were loved in their time, did not make that much money from their games.

Thus, one key determinant for success, along the lines of one of the “risk factors” outlined above, is whether the game platform was resistant to piracy.  For example, games that used cassette tape drives (remember them?) and floppy disks (whose write protection was easily bypassed) were extremely vulnerable to piracy and almost always ate a big chunk out of sales.

The flipside was also true.  When the platform had proprietary controls, such as tailor-made cartridges (some Atari models, and some games for the Commodore 64), this would reduce piracy.

Passionate Programmers

Many of the early game designers were passionate programmers, with only a few exceptions.  Jon Freeman was a clear exception, in that he was a game designer and only did a little programming.  There were others who were reluctant programmers, but were nevertheless driven on by an inherent perfectionism to make a game good that they suffered through it.  Upon reading their interviews, even these self-described “journeymen” were probably objectively speaking quite handy programmers - it’s just that in their company they were surrounded by many brilliant programmers.

Early Adopters (“Right time and right place”)

Being programmers at that point in time meant they were in the “right time”.   Personal computers were booming, and software for them, even entertainment software was booming too.

Many were in the “right place” by the mere fact of being in the US.  Very few of the early 8 bit designers were non-American.  Further coincidences frequently helped game designers, but in some cases, people made conscious decisions to be “in the right place” e.g. David Fox, who stayed on at Marin County because George Lucas ran his studios there.  Eventually, he got a job with LucasFilm ‘s games division (now LucasArts), although he had to work a lot harder for it than his dream where George Lucas wandered into his computer store, said that he liked his work and gave him a job on the spot.  The reality was he received a tip-off from a LucasFilm employee who can into his store and he applied for the job.

Contacts, Relatives and Friends

Many of the game designers used friends and relatives and contacts to help them get a start in the industry.  Admittedly though, most already had great programming skills, so when they did pester their contact/family/friend, they were able to take advantage of the opportunity.

Making a Great & Innovative Title

Surprisingly, this was not always required (writing rip-offs of arcade games or other successful titles was reasonably lucrative in the early days and probably still is…), although it provided a good starting point.

Nevertheless, many did write great and innovative titles and many pioneered new genres, e.g the adventure game, the God game (Peter Molyneux - not interviewed here because he came in the 90’s), the pinball game (Bill Budge with Raster Blaster), user-created content (Bill Budge again, but this time with Pinball Construction Set - and note how he’s also giving more on the same theme that made his first audience happy.)  Eugene Jarvis also pioneered the side-scrolling action game in Defender, but modified and improved Berzerk to make Robotron 2084.  Dan Gorlin hadn’t even seen Defender, and made Choplifter (Gorlin “copied” the idea of picking up humans like you do in Defender when a neighbour’s kid who was a big fan of Defender suggested it. The two games are nothing alike save for being loosely classed as “side-scrollers”.)  Marc Goodman invented a new genre with Bilestoad (top down one-on-one combat gore fest - still unique from what I can see), Sid Meier (not interviewed as Civ came a bit later in the 80’s). etc etc.

Branding

If you could somehow get your name associated with the title (generally a prerequisite to this was to have written a successful title in the first place) and it was successful, then this frequently led to financial success, as was the case with Bill Budge and Sid Meier.

Cashing In - Making a Sequel or similar style of game

A more important consideration was if the game designer followed up with a title that cashed in on the earlier breakthrough title with something similar e.g. a sequel, or that developed the original idea more e.g. Archon II.  Bill Budge followed up Raster Blaster with Pinball Construction Set.

Keeping Intellectual Property (IP) Rights

This looked to be a pretty important factor, although again, whilst it appeared almost necessary, it was not, of itself sufficient to guarantee financial success.  Just because the game developer owned the rights didn’t mean that they had any bargaining power.  They would still have to go to the publishing house or game platform, and try to sell their wares.  Many game designers, after successful initial games, found the platform they were writing for was dying by the time their new games were finished.  This is a manifestation of the earlier point, “Platform Choice”, and is one of the many hazards to consider in taking on entrepreneurial/business risk.

Vertical Integration (Controlling your destiny; In-house Sales & Marketing, Starting your own company)

Probably more important than just owning the IP to your game was whether or not you had taken the entrepreneurial risk to start your own company that would not only develop your games, but sell and market them.

This meant you cashed in on a successful title rather than just getting a salary, or getting squeezed out of a decent percentage.

Even this had its risks though, although not all of these were financial.  In the case of Jon Freeman, who co-founded Epyx, he found the office politics of running a company too much to bear.   It doesn’t seem surprising that many game developers, who are excellent at spending long, lonely nights programming, didn’t adjust to a larger team environment.  Jon Freeman wasn’t even the main programmer though, but the game designer.  He just preferred small teams.

Many who did set up their own company did not avoid the inherent risks of the games industry either, with many backing the wrong horse, or backing the right horse but thinking it was a “stayer” when it was only a “sprinter”.

Getting into the Game Programming Zone/Flow/Rhythm

Almost all of the game designers spoke of highly productive and happy periods in their game designing life, where they were so productive that some were churning out a title every month or two months (Ah! The 8 bit era!)  They were working 10-16 hours per day but more important than the sheer quantity of hours, they were in a happy rhythm.

From my own perspective this is a sign that they were doing the “right” job.  A job where they found their “bliss”.  If you can find this type of “bliss” or “flow” in computer game making, then I suggest it is your profession.  And if you don’t find it in computer games then it is probably not the profession for you.

Instead, seek out that task where you do find “bliss”.  For me, right now, I’m just noticing that I find writing in-depth articles about subjects I’m interested is a “blissful” experience.  I churned out 4 pages in an hour and slowed to 2 pages in the next hour as my anti-allergy pills kicked in and made me drowsy.

Are there any lessons we can learn from the 8 bit era?

Whilst some things have definitely changed (such as typical team sizes for games development, the games biz is no longer just the US of A), others still stay remarkably the same.

For one, the games industry’s platform concentration is still quite severe.  Some would argue that this creates stability of sorts, which gives game developers something to aim at.  Nevertheless, it’s important to be watchful about the platforms you develop on.  Get in early on the hot platforms, and be prepared to move early too.  It takes months if not years to develop a game, and by the time you’re finished, the new game technology/environment may make your game irrelevant.

It’s still male dominated, and from this, it shows there’s probably room for more female-oriented game development.  It’s interesting to read Danielle Berry’s comments about how, now that she is female, she can’t program anymore like she used to when she was a man - although she thinks a small part of this is attributable to her age and motivation.  Even still, her insights back at the time she was interviewed by James Hague, over 12 years ago, are stunningly prescient.  For one, she thought there would be room for more games where you interact with others, anticipating MMORPG’s, and Web 2.0, as well as sandpit alternate realities like Second Life, The Sims, and user-created content to some extent.  She also anticipated that games that came from other disciplines would be the types of games that would break through.  Can’t think of any computer games that come from the other arts?  How about Guitar Hero, Sing Star and Dance Dance Revolution?  She may not be able to program anymore, but she can sure predict the future of gaming!

From the above, it should be noted that the age-old lesson of needing to own your IP and take the entrepreneurial risk should be taken with a hint of “get out whilst the going’s good”.  What is more, many game designers may not be comfortable doing the myriad tasks involved in setting up their own company and marketing and selling their wares.  None of the game designers that set up their own company mentioned being in the same kind of happy “zone” or “flow” described above about their days of programming games.

Also “qualified” is the advice that game designers need to innovate or risk never succeeding.  Whilst this is true, it is purely a pragmatic financial step to make a sequel should the first title be successful.

But it is still an even better idea to make a GREAT sequel, that builds upon your existing knowledge and takes it further — erm, with perhaps the exception of Duke Nuke’em.

fallowed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australian director, Andrew Dominik has only made two feature films: Chopper, a film about the infamous Australian underworld figure Mark ‘Chopper’ Read, and The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford (or “The Assassination” hereafter). Spoiler warning:  This article may contain passages that give away the ending or plot points of the above-mentioned films.)

There are some clear thematic similarities between these two films, but this article seeks to elicit a deeper thematic correspondence. 

Obviously, both films are about renowned criminals.  However, those expecting a deep psychological character study of the famed American outlaw, Jessie James  (played convincingly by Brad Pitt) would be disappointed for “The Assassination” focuses more upon James’ understudy and eventual nemesis, Robert Ford, played cringingly well by the then, much lesser known Casey Affleck (yes, brother of Ben, but no relation in acting styles).

In The Assassination, we follow Robert Ford’s journey from fawning fan and accomplice, through to that of reluctant killer, having eventually come to fear Jessie James as a vengeful, cold-blooded murderer.

However, the extended Act 3 epilogue is the telling one.  In the last stanza of The Assassination, after Robert Ford has killed Jessie James, the film follows Ford’s path as he rises to wealth and fame through his book and re-enactments of how he came to kill the legendary Jessie James.  Despite his wealth and fame (or perhaps in part because of it), Ford never lives down the killing of Jessie James, seen by an equally fawning public (fawning to the legend of Jessie James, not Robert Ford) as a cowardly act.

In Chopper, we follow the journey of Mark ‘Chopper’ Read.  Chopper depicts a man who falls in love with his “tough guy” image, part-larrikin, part killer.  The final scene shows Chopper hamming it up before the cameras, only to be locked in his cell, a lonely, pathetic figure.

The thematic resemblances should be clear at this point.  The Assassination is the tragedy of Robert Ford, who tries to build his reputation as a hero, only to find he is viewed and reviled as a coward.  Chopper is the tragedy of Mark Read, who falls in love with his image as a tough-guy/larrikin, whereas the truth is he is just a lonely jailbird.

Continuing the Theme?

What next then, for Andrew Dominik?  It may come as no surprise to some, that Dominik is making his screen adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel, Cities of the Plain, the third of the famous “Border Crossing” trilogy.

Not having read the this book (I’ve only read the first third of the second novel, “The Crossing”) I picked my fiancee’s brain for her thoughts on Cormac McCarthy’s key themes.  Here is her list:

- How does a man work out what’s right?

- Characters don’t explain themselves – they are men of action, driven by some inscrutable internal logic/path/moral code.

- Contrast between the World’s perceptions of the character and the reality.  In Chopper, it was of lead character.  In The Assassination, this misperception was of Jessie James, and how it impacted on Robert Ford.

- Morality and personal codes which are violent/tragic/cruel/irrational

- Lots of violence in general in a tragic, cruel, irrational world.

- Cruel world, nevertheless with a bleak beauty about it.

- Spiritual encounters – Man and his God.

Again, the thematic correspondence between Cormac McCarthy’s work and Dominik’s earlier work is undeniable.  It appears the themes of his material are much more important than any commercial aspects of his work, or he wouldn’t have waited 8 years to make a film after the widely acclaimed Chopper.  Also, he would not have chosen the third book in a trilogy, the first of which, All the Pretty Horses was a box office flop.

Personally, I hope this trend continues.

Good News For Word Nerds

Below is a link to a business analysis by Alan Kohler (Business Spectator) of the new e-book, Kindle, from Amazon.

In it, Kohler calculates that should e-book take up reach 100%, and e-book users pay for their newspaper subscriptions, papers with readership of 200,000 (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald) will just break even, where as others below that will struggle to survive.  The big international newspapers with readership in the millions should remain strong.

 I think the figures used by Kohler (essentially a 100% ownership of the e-book) are very optimistic as it assumes an enormous take-up of the e-book.  We see even run-away successes like the Apple iPhone struggle to achieve those sorts of number. The following link shows the dominant player in the smartphone market is actually the Research-in-Motion (RIM) Blackberry family of devices with 44.5% market share in June 2008 (anyone got some more recent figures than this?), not the iPhone (which had fallen from 26.7% to  19.2%.):-

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/iPhone-loses-market-share-to-RIM-Palm/0,130061791,339289520,00.htm

Perhaps one could argue that e-books as a class of device will achieve near 100% saturation (just as mobile phones have achieved near 100% saturation amongst consumers). But to my mind, the e-book is too expensive and bulky to achieve that kind of saturation.  Maybe in time though, if they (and it needn’t be one e-book maker, but a host of e-book competitors) can make it lighter, brighter (back-lit screen if required) and cheaper, without losing its durability, then it will take off.  I think an important price point for such a device is firstly under $100 (at the time of writing they are retailing at US$359), and then under $30.  When it hits the first price threshold, it will capture the first 20% of the market and garner some “cachet” or “cool” factor.  When under $30, you will get near saturation like what Alan Kohler’s figures need.

Another good market would be the educational market, especially schools (primary and high school).  Laptops and computers are too powerful, expensive, delicate and prone to misuse (because of their power).  In an environment like primary or secondary schools which may desire some control over its pupils, the restrictions that an e-book has are sometimes desirable.

Links:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Papers-are-more-than-kindling-pd20090514-RZSQ3?OpenDocument&src=sph 

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Device/dp/B000FI73MA 

 

 

 

 

AKA “Show the Love” AKA “Why Jax’s Blog is Better than Mine”

I just learned another lesson in life. I think I’ll call this lesson “A Practical Guide to Blogging.”

Last night I e-mailed out to a few friends that I was blogging.  I also e-mailed to a girl called Jasmine Lord because I had recently received a batch e-mail from a social networking site she had just subscribed to, inviting me to join it too (It wasn’t Facebook or Linked In, but sounded a lot like the latter.)

Anyway, she kindly wrote back and mentioned she too was blogging.  I visited her blog at http://www.jaxfilms.blogspot.com/ and suffice to say, I think it sh_ts all over mine.

As I sat and looked at it in admiration (actually I was wallowing in self-castigation at why mine wasn’t as good as hers), I tried to work out what it was about her blog that made is so much better than mine.

So here is a list of things that make Jax’s blog better than mine:

1) Jax reaches out from the outset.  She does not hide her identity like she is ashamed of what she is doing - nor should she.  She is after all just writing a fresh, honest blog about the things she loves doing.  In reaching out, Jax is sharing a part of herself with her audience. It is her “gift”. By “gift” I refer to a book written by Lewis Hyde (http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Creativity-Artist-Modern-Vintage/dp/0307279502 ) where Hyde likens making art to giving a gift.  It is a selfless or self-sacrificing act. Jax puts up a good photo of herself, presumably taken by a cine-friend of hers, and they are all really good at their job of lighting photos/sets and shooting images of people.  This leads me to another strength of Jax’s:-

2) Jax leads with her strengths - her fresh personality, her photos and her passions - working with great people on set, and learning new things about photography and her calling is what she truly loves and so…

3) You can really sense the love that Jax has for the things she’s writing and blogging about.

4) Jax mentions the things and people that inspire her.  It’s obviously not all about Jax.  She happily links away to people to give her reader a chance to understand better what it is that makes her tick.  There’s nothing forced about this.  If the reader doesn’t want to go to another website to see what Jax is raving about they don’t have to.  This addresses a “fear” I have with blogging.  I feel so small tapping out my little ditties and being swamped by the enormous babble in the blogosphere.  I feel like I am being outflanked by the next technology be it Twitter, Delicious, Technorati or Facebook/Linked In or whatever.  I frequently wonder “What’s the point” (and I’ve only been blogging regularly for two or three weeks now! Well OK, it was a fear that kept me from blogging for years.)  In her humble little way, and perhaps without realising it, Jax addresses how to deal with this issue.  Be open and honest about what it is you’re on about, and engage with the World.  Some of this is an issue of self-awareness.  Jax is very self-aware.  It is one of her strengths.  Being the nerd I am, I have a little bit of work to do on that front.  To summarise this point in brief though: “If you engage in the World with all your heart, then you will not be outflanked or swamped by it.  Instead, you will find you will easily hold your own, stay afloat, and perhaps, no, not perhaps, but DEFINITELY thrive.”

So thanks to Jax I have another blog entry.