Denis at Innovation Cafe

[Hawk280]

First off I'm not sure if this goes here but if not I'm sure it'll get moved.

Second I was looking around the SK website and saw this video on the home page and I was just wondering if anyone has seen it?

If not its a pretty good video with Denis talking about video games being the new art form and it show one of the video dairies for TH.
After the video dairy he goes on to talk about how interaction makes video games a different style of art compared to music and TV.

Its a good watch and Denis gets up and starts talking around the 2 or 3 minute mark.

Heres the link: http://www.ghbn.org/detail.aspx?menu=9&app=205&cat1=620&tp=2&lk=no

Edit: Oh and by the way its the first video in case you don't know what he looks like.

[samski]

Nice find.

samski

[setlord]

its funny they did all that research and still the game is predictable and i dont think its difficulty scales well will a maxed character i know they didnt expect all the duping but even with the 7 piece epic set the game is way too easy

[samski]

try athe game without epic pieces at lvl 50.

samski

[Castrum]

its funny they did all that research and still the game is predictable and i dont think its difficulty scales well will a maxed character i know they didnt expect all the duping but even with the 7 piece epic set the game is way too easy

If people played the game long enough to (legitimately) attain all 7 pieces of their Elite set, I would imagine the game would be ridiculously easy.

And that begs the question: after attaining said ridiculously-rare items, why would you be concerned about the game being too easy? By that point, you should either be content with the tedium of the game itself, or you should have little to no interest left in the game.

[Redenbacher09]

its funny they did all that research and still the game is predictable and i dont think its difficulty scales well will a maxed character i know they didnt expect all the duping but even with the 7 piece epic set the game is way too easy


If you put over 200 hours in to any game and it hasn't become easy yet, more often than not you should stop playing. I've yet to see a game remain challenging after that mark that doesn't involve playing against human players.

[Azsnas]

If you put over 200 hours in to any game and it hasn't become easy yet, more often than not you should stop playing. I've yet to see a game remain challenging after that mark that doesn't involve playing against human players.

I would give a virtual cookie to anyone who could find a game that starts and stays challenging after 200 hours of play time that does not involve human players!

I probably would pay to see that, lol.

[Lykathea]

Denis goes on and on about how selling used games destroys the industry and hurts developers. However he fails to recognize under law the first-sale doctrine which gives consumers the right to sell a legitimately obtained copyright object without the permission of the author. This applies to more than just videogames--from books to music to movies etc.

It is an extremely important consumer right that needs to be recognized and upheld, which is why I am wary about digital distribution since the point of this is to eliminate the ability for a consumer to re-sell their legitimately acquired copyright objects, effectively negating the first-sale doctrine.

[theALLseeingEYE]

Perhaps I should re-watch this, but for some reason I didn't remember Denis mentioning used sales during his segment.

But either way, you definitely have a point. Not being able to sell your games, after the fact would be a huge issue for me.

I think that as long as online distribution services keep to par with Steam, and offer the same value, such as being able to re-download and access your account from any computer, then I'm cool with it. With Steam you can sell your account. So that is a parralel to selling a used game.

With stuff like EA and securom I think its more worrisome.

I also sympathize with game developers though. In the case of EB Games, I think the used game thing is a very serious threat to sales.

EB is essentially turning into a Pawnshop, and employees are forced to push used games on people. They even made more money off used games last year than new product. I read one letter to the editor in EDGE magazine from an EB manager who himself outlined how bad he thought it was. As an example, he mentioned that his store only ever sold 2-3 copies of Rocky, but that the store had sold and resold the same copies upwards of thirteen times. Rockies developer ironically enough, is now defunct.

On the other end, I think new game prices are ridiculously expensive, and the profit margin on new games is so small, it probably forces companies like EB to get into the used games buisness.

[PLOWKILL]

Perhaps I should re-watch this, but for some reason I didn't remember Denis mentioning used sales during his segment.

But either way, you definitely have a point. Not being able to sell your games, after the fact would be a huge issue for me.

I think that as long as online distribution services keep to par with Steam, and offer the same value, such as being able to re-download and access your account from any computer, then I'm cool with it. With Steam you can sell your account. So that is a parralel to selling a used game.

With stuff like EA and securom I think its more worrisome.

I also sympathize with game developers though. In the case of EB Games, I think the used game thing is a very serious threat to sales.

EB is essentially turning into a Pawnshop, and employees are forced to push used games on people. They even made more money off used games last year than new product. I read one letter to the editor in EDGE magazine from an EB manager who himself outlined how bad he thought it was. As an example, he mentioned that his store only ever sold 2-3 copies of Rocky, but that the store had sold and resold the same copies upwards of thirteen times. Rockies developer ironically enough, is now defunct.

On the other end, I think new game prices are ridiculously expensive, and the profit margin on new games is so small, it probably forces companies like EB to get into the used games buisness.

I guess used games is more complicated than I ever thought... With any product that I have bought and have gotten tired of I have sold or given away. I have sold many, many, many games since back in my Nintendo days. Ive never thought how it would effect devs by players doing this in mass quanities together.... What I do know is that im so hungry I could eat an old toohuman game... :o

[Batou079]

Wow, i did not know the SK video blogs were so clean cut.
The fact that SK has such a thought out framework for game design gives me hope.

Makes me feel like their games can only get better and better via the forumula they abide by. Seeing as their current track record, the games are already getting better and better, TH being the best thus far. Repitious yes, linear yes. But everything has to have a beginning and an end. They touched on so much other detail in the game its highly forgivable and is no doubt a huge learning curve that will serve to greatly improve their next game. Their attention to a games lore, art detail, storyline is quite impressive.

Not sure how the talk about the gaming business and used games market came into it but, i really don't think the gaming industry as a whole is hurting moreso then the general world in terms of our current economy.

First of all, the *PC* gaming industry is slightly; and i mean very slightly seeing a downturn compared to the console market. In total though, the gaming market is continueing to exponentially grow. Albiet a slower rate (economy, duh!), but still growing. The used gaming market may dull the growth but it will never completely stagnent the growth. Used games only enter the used game market *after* they were bought as new. So multi millions of copies still need to first get sold as new from the distributers before they can get into the hands of used game traders/sellers.

Much like the music industries popular cry out against the free-share communities, gaming is following such a path. Free-share may keep companies from attaining millions, but from what i know the % of sales that it hurts is an incredibly marginal number... Much like i don't think the used gaming market will ever have that much of a negative effect on the gaming industry.

I do agree however that the initial price on new games is completely inflated. Because of how many hands a game must go through to get new copies on shelves, the price must be so for the dev to get even a fraction of profit. I think part of the problem is this system. Dev, publishers, multiple publisher variants, distributers, marketing, etc etc just saps the profit out of every sold copy... Much like the over-inflated music industry. A big reason why many artists go independant. An already successful band like Radiohead did this with their latest album... tired of giving such a massive percentage to their label i suppose.

Anyway, just a loose parallel. Nonetheless applicable.
I just hope SK can weather the times so that they can apply their growing talent.
cheers

[Lykathea]

ASE, he didn't mention it in his section but I recall it coming up in the question period toward the end.

Steam sounds like a model that I could get behind for digital downloading though, since it allows that 'flexibility' (it is only flexible compared other constrictive services) you mentioned.

[Denis Dyack]

Denis goes on and on about how selling used games destroys the industry and hurts developers. However he fails to recognize under law the first-sale doctrine which gives consumers the right to sell a legitimately obtained copyright object without the permission of the author. This applies to more than just videogames--from books to music to movies etc.

It is an extremely important consumer right that needs to be recognized and upheld, which is why I am wary about digital distribution since the point of this is to eliminate the ability for a consumer to re-sell their legitimately acquired copyright objects, effectively negating the first-sale doctrine.

Selling used games is hurting developers and publishers. It is not the consumer side that is the problem but retail side. It is complex and not as straight forward as you may suspect.

Here is a piece a wrote that some may be interested in:

http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/23/guest-editorial-denis-dyack-of-silicon-knights-muses-about-cloud-computings-impact-on-games/

The commentary below the article is interesting.

Enjoy!
Denis

[AKAtheMilkman]

I will agree with you on the fact that the used games market is hurting developers and publishers. Even it is not that much money( which I'm sure it is especially these days) every little bit helps devs make ends meat. I personally never buy used games anyway because you don't know what happened to it before, I'd much rather have a brand new disk, and quite frankly the entire used games industry is a big ****ing ripoff and I think they should all be taken out back and shanked to death.

I was afraid this subject would eventually come up because I whole heartedly disagree with the implamentation of a completely cloud computing dependant system when it comes to video games. Thatswhy I kept changing the subject on live a few weeks ago :p. The premise is sound and it would help out a lot for people who don't want to pay for there games or for the whole gamefly crowd. I can see where it is a very good idea in the eyes of developers. It completely takes away the option of reselling games and taking your profit out of the equation.

There is another side to this coin though. While it takes away from people who would effectively steal money out of devs pokets it also takes any real ownership of the game away from the end user and I am against anything that takes away my video games. I have an original nintendo that I break out and play duck hunt on from time to time. How am I supposed to do that with TH3 if I have payed my subscription fee in 30 years? What if the company goes bankrupt and takes my games with it? What if the world ends and I'm all by my self? I could find a generator to power my nintendo but I don't see me maintaining the entire cloud network that holds my games hostage(rofl, ok I might have went overboard with that one;))

There is a happy medium with this technology that could be worked in some how. though it doesn't really fix your end of the industry Denis. It has more to do with games themselves. There is no reason why you could not have a system where you buy a game in the stores or over live, then have it put on your harddrive. You could then have the system as it is now but agmented with the cloud computing system to speed up gameplay and even allow for better graphics. You could have a hybrid sys. Where the cloud runs important time censitive data while at the same time the home console can handle the background information and details on the graphical side of things. That is just my own little dream I guess.


At the end of the day its a good idea and definitelyhas its advantages especially for the so called casual gamer but there are still to many hurdles to overcome for me to jump on the band wagon yet. One day we may get to a point where it'll work out but I'm not so sure we're there yet.I'll leave this really long post with this; I do think onlive is a good idea, if only as an experiment to see how america reacts to it. Either way it is an important first step towards to future of gaming.

[DemonAcid]

Selling used games is hurting developers and publishers.
Denis


Thats why it's nice to have some DLC available, used copy owner buys new add on content and developer makes some lunch money...Mmmm cheeseburger

[Sevens]

There are reasons for why physical objects and property are so... popular. DLC can be convenient and it's a very nice way for the respective owners to control their intellectual property. The picture naturally isn't as rosy for consumers. Whatever the owner retains the lincensee doesn't get. There's not much of a win-win situation in this proposed scenario. DLC is the next step, Cloud's probably the last. Unfortunately I neither like the path nor the ultimate direction.


P.S.:


There is a happy medium with this technology that could be worked in some how. though it doesn't really fix your end of the industry Denis. It has more to do with games themselves. There is no reason why you could not have a system where you buy a game in the stores or over live, then have it put on your harddrive. You could then have the system as it is now but agmented with the cloud computing system to speed up gameplay and even allow for better graphics. You could have a hybrid sys. Where the cloud runs important time censitive data while at the same time the home console can handle the background information and details on the graphical side of things. That is just my own little dream I guess.

This isn't very happy or medium. It appears to be the same principle as far as it matters, with a pointless complication added to it. Seemingly, you are suggesting a system that still requires Cloud. You just "own" 90% of the data instead of zero. Or, perhaps more precise, you have hardware compontents that have 90% of the capacity required to play the games in question.

[samski]

Selling used games is hurting developers and publishers. It is not the consumer side that is the problem but retail side. It is complex and not as straight forward as you may suspect.

Here is a piece a wrote that some may be interested in:

http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/23/guest-editorial-denis-dyack-of-silicon-knights-muses-about-cloud-computings-impact-on-games/

The commentary below the article is interesting.

Enjoy!
Denis

I've always wondered whether you understood that yourself Denis.

I'm glad you do. Some Developers choose to punish the consumer to avoid it, but they really need to see that people ARE going to resell their games. Because people need money.

I'll give it a read soon.

samski

[Sevens]

I've always wondered whether you understood that yourself Denis.

Did you understand it?

[AKAtheMilkman]

P.S.:



This isn't very happy or medium. It appears to be the same principle as far as it matters, with a pointless complication added to it. Seemingly, you are suggesting a system that still requires Cloud. You just "own" 90% of the data instead of zero. Or, perhaps more precise, you have hardware compontents that have 90% of the capacity required to play the games in question.

I didn't mean that the new system would have to take a step backwards with there technology. I meant that the curent systems that are already in place could use the same form of data caching that the cloud systems uses to improve the gaming experiance.

Right now the stand alone system that onlive uses sends all the graphics data in a compressed package(that's the whole point of the system) doing this allows you to see the game on the other end yes, but not at the same quality of HD that the current generation consoles offer. It's like listening to an mp3. Yes it sounds good, but if you've ever heard the same song on a vinal record then you'd think the mp3 sounds like crap. This is the same way that netflix streams there videos in HD. But if you watch the same hd film on blue ray you'd think netflix was streaming SD.

If the current network could stream time censitive data the way onlive wants to send everything it would greatly improve the lag time of games without sacrificing the graphic end of the equation.

[Sevens]

Sure. I was talking about the "other side of this coin", though.


There is another side to this coin though. While it takes away from people who would effectively steal money out of devs pokets it also takes any real ownership of the game away from the end user and I am against anything that takes away my video games.

[samski]

Did you understand it?

Sure, as a customer I understand that I'm going to always trade in games that I don't want or if I need money. We shouldn't be punished for doing that. It has nothing to do with the consumer, it is between the developer and retailer, as Denis said.

sasmki

[Sevens]

Sure, as a customer I understand that I'm going to always trade in games that I don't want or if I need money. We shouldn't be punished for doing that.

But retailers should be punished for us doing that?

[samski]

Currently, developers are being punished by the exploitation from the retailers. Let's face it, retailers will always exploit when given the chance. So, Developers need to make the change. It may require a whole shift of how we all do business.

Maybe, with a different model, retailers are not needed. They are a middle-man, they get credit for almost nothing.

samski

[Sevens]

Let's face it, retailers will always exploit when given the chance.

The same goes for publishers.

[AKAtheMilkman]

Sure. I was talking about the "other side of this coin", though.
i am not sure understand the point of this quote :p or how it made since in regard to my statement.

[TheRallyKiller]

I personally think that the research did them well. I do pity Hod because he was "blind" to the truth and then spent his last few moments coming to grips with the horrors of his true actions. I also empathize with Baldur coming to grips with his existence and the costs of his continued existence.

Difficulty-wise the game still kicks my ***. I may run Helheim flawlessly with a character only to have an insane amount of assault goblins appear where only two did on a prior run - it seems these runs the missiles magically have selective hang-time depending on whether I'm evading or not.

All in all, I consider this game to be similar to Fable in one regard; all the tools to enjoy this game are available to the player. Whether or not they utilize them is up to the individual player (failing to do so is the fault of the player).

No matter what game, there are always nay-sayers and people who disagree whether it's justifiable or not. Too often people look to be spoon-fed everything from story, to emotional reactions, gameplay, and even success in a game, we forget that as gamers we are somewhat responsible for what we experience.

[Lykathea]

Selling used games is hurting developers and publishers. It is not the consumer side that is the problem but retail side. It is complex and not as straight forward as you may suspect.

Here is a piece a wrote that some may be interested in:

http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/23/guest-editorial-denis-dyack-of-silicon-knights-muses-about-cloud-computings-impact-on-games/

The commentary below the article is interesting.

Enjoy!
Denis

I agree that selling used games 'hurts' developers and publishers inasmuch as after first sale you guys (the industry) see nothing in return for the further exchange of your products--clearly in any business context this would be bad (potential revenue is irretrievably lost, in other words).

On your second point, I am not so sure I understand what you are getting at--it seems to me that you are saying that, on the one hand, it is okay for consumers to resell their bought items, but with the proviso that they not set-up 'official' businesses based around exchanging used entertainment products? This 'begs the question' of how are we supposed to take advantage of the first-sale doctrine right if no businesses (brick and mortar or otherwise) exist in which to exchange the used products for money? I guess what I am getting at is that your claim that the 'fault' lies with retailers and not with consumers seems misleading, for consumers are ultimately at fault for wanting to sell their games in the first place, no? And the retailers are simply providing an accessible venue for that to take place. Don't get me wrong I am not standing up for EB Games and the like, I am just trying to understand your position which to me at least seems inconsistent.

On cloud computing, I must also disagree that it is a good technology for it is wholly designed to deny consumers any sort of power by disallowing them access to the actual products they are paying for. It also doesn't seem to fit your criteria for the one console future since the business model it is based on is monopolisitc as well--onlive corporation controls its service, while another service could easily be formed to compete against it in the same way.

[Lykathea]

The same goes for publishers.

The same goes for all exchanges under capitalism.

[Sevens]

I guess what I am getting at is that your claim that the 'fault' lies with retailers and not with consumers seems misleading, for consumers are ultimately at fault for wanting to sell their games in the first place, no?

Yeah, that's what I tried to discuss with samski.

[RuneMaster]

It also doesn't seem to fit your criteria for the one console future since the business model it is based on is monopolisitc as well--onlive corporation controls its service, while another service could easily be formed to compete against it in the same way.

On the contrary, In what you stated, it DOES fit the criteria for "one console future" That console is now the end user's simple device like a micro-console or basic PC. There will still be competition because each service will have different incentives for users. Each one will have their own artists, engineers, or "knowledge makers" to provide the technology that's possible within the cloud.

I believe Denis in his "one-console-future" talks never predicted anything monopolistic of the sort.

One hardware standard [check]
Industry competition [check] (in the cloud, this is already apparent: OnLive, Gaikai Streaming worlds, AMD's supercomputer, OTOY, Steam (maybe))
Great content to the end user [check]
Technology hiccups caused by bandwidth [remains to be seen]

Developers can keep their jobs as well. Presumably indies like SK, Valve, Bethsoft, Epic, Telltale, Oddword, etc. could benefit as well since their content wouldn't be burdened with retail or publishing deals.

[Lykathea]

His talks complained of the current monopolistic structure of the industry (i.e. Microsoft is the only maker of anything Xbox, if you want a hdd for your 360 you will need to buy MS at an inflated price since their is no competition in this closed market). I see something similar happening with cloud computing since, in all likelihood, the onlive controller will not work with another competing service, nor will the end-user necessarily have access to the same games as other services. This is because the business model here is closed and monopolistic as well--developers may be able to develop for a single platform but end users still become stuck within whatever service they choose to have. This is quite a bit different from having an open, industry-wide standard.