|
Today I donated my Xbox 360 Elite to Goodwill. It represented a time in my life as a developer that I'm not overly proud about living.
I worked for a couple years designing games at Microsoft. It is honestly difficult to say the exact group I was in since the organization was hit regularly by massive reorgs and general management failure.
This was the era right before Kinect and there was yet another effort underway to broaden the audience to extend beyond the 'big black boy box' brand that so defined the original Xbox. Ultimately, the anemic outcome of this great leap forward was a handful of resource starved trivia games and gameshows. But the dream of bringing socially positive games to more people really appealed to me.
I was an outsider. Intentionally so. On the rare occasions I used a console, it was likely to be one built by Nintendo. Instead, my earliest influences stem from the Amiga and early PC titles, not the regurgitation of a roller coaster known as Halo. As such, my design direction tended towards non-violence and cuter, gender neutral designs. I still design original mechanics and will trade cutscenes for gameplay in a heartbeat.
The capital of the console ecosystem In many ways, a gig at Microsoft was a career peak for many developers I worked with. Since childhood, they had played console games, worked at console companies and then finally _made it_ to the platform mothership from which all their life's work was originally born. The repeated mantra was "The things we do here will impact millions." The unsaid subtext was "gamers just like us."
It was also a cultural hub. You worked there because you were a gamer. People boasted about epic Gamer Scores and joked about staying up multiple days straight in order to beat the latest release. The men were hardcore. The management was hardcore. The women were doubly hardcore. To succeed politically in a viciously political organization, you lived the brand.
You got the sense the pre-Xbox, 'gamers as bros' was a smaller subculture within the nerdy, whimsical hobby of games. Over two console generations, a highly cynical marketing team spent billions with no hope of immediate payback to shift the market. In an act of brilliant jujitsu, Nintendo was slandered as a kids platform, their historical strength turned against them. Xbox put machismo, ultra-violence and chimpboys with backwards caps in the paid spotlight. Wedge, wedge, wedge. Gamers were handed a pre-packaged group identity via the propaganda machine of a mega corporation. For those raised post-Xbox, Microsoft was an unquestioned Mecca of modern gaming culture. Dude. They made Halo.
Cognitive dissonance I'm okay with not fitting in. Over the 17 years I've been part of the game industry, I've gotten comfortable being an alien floating in a sea of Others. There weren't a lot of computer-loving digital makers in rural Maine in the 80s. I spend most of my days dreaming of an intricate systemic future where things are better. It is a state of constantly being half a second out of phase with the rest of the world.
Still it was a challenge being in an group that knew intellectually they had to reach out to new people while at the same time knowing in their heart-of-hearts that just adding more barrels to a shotgun was the fastest path to gamer glory. Talking with others in the larger organization would yield a sympathetic look. "Someone has to deal with those non-gamers. Sorry it has to be you. Bro."
I am not actually a bro. Don't tell anyone.
We made adorable hand-drawn prototypes and watched them climb through the ranks only to be shot dead by Elder Management that found cuteness instinctually revolting.
Correct games There is a form to modern console games. If you've played the recent Bioshock Infinite, you can see the full glory of the vision. These are great games, especially if you know and appreciate the immense skill that goes into their creation. Each element serves a business purpose.
First there is a world rendered in lush 3D. This justifies the hardware.
Next are intermittent dollops of plot. These are voice acted because it is a quality signal. They feature intricately modeled characters on a virtual stage. This gives the arc narrative momentum and lets you know you've finished something meaningful.
Filling out the gaps in the 7-12 hours ride are moments of rote game play with all possible feedback knobs tuned to 11. Blood, brains, impact. Innovation is located at 11.2. This makes you feel something visceral.
Each element of this form is refined to a most perfect formula. There are crate-raised critics who make subtle distinctions between the 52 historical shades of grey. There are documents and research. If you are a creative working at or within a publisher, your higher purpose is to judge games based off their adherence to the form. The game is a product and consistency, much like that found in McDonalds fries, results in repeat purchases. As a publisher designer, you are someone with taste.
You police the act of creation. It is a job. It is a set of orders that come from above. It is your childhood dream.
Away, away I no longer work at Microsoft. Instead, I started up the independent studio Spry Fox and spend my dreamy days making odd little games. Easily the best career choice I have ever made. My current games barely have plots. They focus on player agency and more often than not sport cute 2D graphics. Very few can be won. None come in boxes. We don't need to spend billions, because people love playing them without the crutch of traditional marketing or press.
As part of my personal journey, I've found that I'm driven by ideals that fit poorly with a highly gated console monoculture: What if games can connect people? What if they can improve the world? What if they bring happiness and joy to our lives?
Hardcore gamers, women, men, children, families, bros, feminists, and wonderful people that play no other games...they play these intimate, quirky games of ours. Yeah...if you count up the numbers, we impact tens of millions. Deep down, I'm not sure if any of them are people like me. My job as a game designer is to make beloved games, not fit some limited corporate definition of a gamer.
So far, none of our games have been released on the Xbox. There's been little economic or cultural fit with the artificially propped up tribe residing in that cloistered warren.
So goodbye, big black box. I never really liked what you stood for.
take care, Danc.
|
Many classic games were born there.
I don't know if it's worth remaking any of them for mobile.
I did play Triple Town a few times; it was fun for a while.
But I generally enjoy deeper or more cerebral pursuits.
2D is fine for me; I find that 3D often doesn't work well on mobile.
But then, I'm not the target demographic on this platform, and most of it's games don't appeal to me.
And so the cycle begins anew..
It would then take another 6 months for them to finally offer me the job which I turned down. So thanks for saving me from a perpetual crunch hell working on the latest iOS "village" game.
Also, if they release a free-to-play Pokemon game sometime in the near future... that was probably my fault for mentioning "Outernauts" which has just launched at the time.
If you define success in terms of ARPU, I doubt Triple Town makes as much as those spammy F2P games per user. Meaning it's probably unprofitable to pay for installs in Triple Town, instead Triple Town needs to rely on quality/originality and organic word of mouth to acquire users. It's different design strategies really.
It's not clear why you wrote this article, when your other articles are focused around a keen insightful observation about the industry. It's this kind of polarization that makes plurality hard to uphold in the game industry.
If other developers can take some small lesson from all this, great. If not, no worries.
Well, you also get the benefit of the doubt for being generally awesome. But still, it sounds like the kind of venting you do when you type up a harsh post, and then delete it once you get it out of your system.
I've said it before...there may be creative value in harboring isolated islands of developer cultures. Like how the solitary Galapagos Islands produced interesting lifeforms that could not happen without isolation. But it can still be hard to stomach.
Following in the same vein as Sony before them (and Sega before them) they fostered the male teen gamer, into the male adult gamer, trading on most teen boys' 'mature' fascinations with blood/gore etc. (there's nothing really wrong or unnatural with this - it's a facet of our evolution) - but at the same time that Sony expanded the industry by tapping this audience like never before, they left behind a generation of what we sometimes refer to as lapsed gamers - sisters, very little kids, parents from a previous generation (literal generation, not console one) - all potential business left at the table - building ever more self serving 'mature' titles.
It's fair to look down on DudeBro culture, because they look down on everyone else. The players of games like Loaded and Postal in the 90's have become the developers of today, and they absolutely did not give audiences outside of their own a fair shake. Instead they made FPS the focus (the fact the S is even in the genre description should ring alarm bells - cinema just calls it POV), amplified the visceral, realistic and violent aspects to the enjoyment and nichification of their 'most reliable' audiences and celebrated the creation of an exclusive rather than inclusive competitive online culture they left festering under a weight of casual racism and sexism. NB Most of it is not meant seriously of course - the DudeBro can largely make the distinction between gamer life and real life, but has no problem with the aversion they put in place for everyone else. Mario Galaxy games just as Pixar movies can largely be enjoyed by everyone. Gears of War games just as Saw movies largely cannot. When we praise Nintendo for championing decent 'kiddie' games, it's because nobody else did for 15 years. The development community should have been ashamed. As we now know from a flux of developers leaving the big houses for indie, many actually were.
And when the wealthiest company in the world embarks on a negative publicity campaign about their embattled secondary competitor's universality (and they're clever enough to do it indirectly) rather than putting that effort into positive campaigning for their own merits, you can't help but feel cynical about their sentiments.
When fans become the creators of the content, they tend to get caught in a "genre trap", where they increasingly get limited by what is considered part of the genre and what isn't. Stray from that to the general audience's ire, as they no longer consider it authentic. Over time, the definition of that genre gets narrower and narrower until you end up with a single, super-refined creation and a bunch of copycat imitators.
What Dan's doing is not fundamentally different from what Microsoft (and Sony, and Sega, back in the day) do, too. He's using his voice to argue for a certain kind of game maker and game player identity (or identities). They do that too through their advertising and lifestyle promotion and bro-gamer advocacy and by what they greenlight and by what images they put in movie trailers and on the sides of Burger King cups. That's the whole point of marketing and brands, after all. It works. Go look at Activision's stock price from 1997 to now. That's no accident.
BUT! What is different is that he's attaching a name, and a face, and an explicit moral advocacy to his position, unlike the essentially faceless and invisible bundle of folks that make up whatever it is, exactly, that the multinational that Microsoft is, philosophically. By offering his critique explicitly, and drawing attention to it, and attaching his name and face to it, he's making his argument and himself accountable to every one of you here, to agree or disagree with.
This is a strong contrast to how these giant organizations operate to change the world, with giant piles of money and advertising departments and agencies and accountability only to shareholders, who are broadly speaking deeply disinterested in the future of games as games and game players as game players. And I don't mean to say that like there's any conspiracy or malice - I've been in the guts on the machine. I know lots of us here have or still are. It has its own kind of internal logic that takes on a life of its own. Just because no one is actively driving doesn't mean it doesn't end up shaping much of our community's culture.
So disagree, even strongly, with Dan if you like. But if you feel like responding negatively to his style of rhetoric, at least acknowledge the larger, much louder, conversation that his tiny voice is a part of, and why he might turn to a moral call to arms. He doesn't have access to Burger King cups.
I'd be more inclined to agree if Microsoft and Sony's marketing often made fun of casual gamers, calling them names and building strawmen to knock down. And even then, "but they did it first" is never a good justification. Developers who make artsy family-friendly games should probably take the high road.
Was Daniel Cook being negative? Hell no.
He was being straight up honest.
As a PC and Playstation gamer that spends a little time on Xbox and the occasional Nintendo platform, I find this view incredibly parochial.
For a start, the mainstream PC culture is _just_ as 'bro' as Xbox, but with an added level of tech elitism thrown on top. It's also even more ADHD - most of my PC gamer mates are less likely to actually finish games than my friends on PSN.
Then there's the issue of the actual games on non-Xbox consoles. Is Pikmin a sign of console culture? It's not available anywhere else (beyond handhelds, which are handheld consoles and very much part of the console culture). How about Tokyo Jungle or Journey? Is Limbo or Braid, which started life on XBL, part of console culture? (I do know MS has moved away from indies since, but this is a historical piece, and we have no idea what they're planning for this year, although signs point to it being depressingly mainstream-focussed).
How about Sony's focus on indie developers? I'm looking forward to playing Thomas was Alone on a Vita - is that a sign of 'console culture'.
I know this is a US-focussed site, and it seems that clearly many commentators have been blinded to broader console developments by the pervasive Microsoft advertising in that market, but there's much more to console gaming on Playstation and Wii/Wii U (and even a bit more on Xbox360) than the 'dude bro' form. Similarly, there's plenty of dude bro going down on PC, with a side helping of ugly elitism thrown in!
I think the article is a great insight into the corporate culture at Microsoft, but remember it's _just_ about Microsoft - there are two (soon to be three with Ouya) competing consoles that are very different. The responses here suggest that while many dislike Microsoft's approach to gaming, they remain blinded by its advertising!
There's definitely a lot more on the 360 than dudebro games. In fact, when Dan tweeted that he got rid of his 360, my reply was "But how are you going to play Spelunky, then?" Spelunky was easily my favorite exclusive Xbox 360 game last year, and it's far from dudebro.
Still, the point stands. Microsoft engendered the transformation of console gamer culture into dudebro culture by their product selection and, apparently by their internal culture. I don't think pointing this out is ridiculous because it is true. Neither does pointing it out mean that one is saying "and they did it 100% and all there are playing console games now are DUDEBRO POD PEOPLE." It just feels that way sometimes. =P