The
Restaurant Experiment: uWink
How
is uWink going?
NB: Great... We're on a path to build the
largest customer casual game network in the world. Last week, we served almost
150,000 games at one restaurant.
Are
you going to tie this in with the advertising?
NB: Oh yeah. See, a lot of people say,
"What are you doing in the restaurant business?" And I said,
"It's all the same thing. If I can control the last 18 inches, I control
the vertical." Pretty soon through franchisees and licensees I'll have 200
or 300 stores, each serving up 20 games per person, serving 10,000 people a
week. All of a sudden, it's real numbers.
You're
talking about world domination?
NB: Always.
TL: But you'll be surprised. Gaming
obviously is not just an American phenomenon. At NeoEdge we just launched
yesterday with one of the two largest social networking sites in Great
Britain, PerfSpot, as their
lone game channel on their site. Because they know it's a medium. And this goes
back to what you were saying about how you figure out demographically. Well,
PerfSpot knows who's coming through the door, thus we know who's coming through
their door, and thus we match up the advertising that's appropriate.

uWink's third location, situated in downtown Mountain View, California
Makes
sense.
NB: I actually think uWink is a social
site. (laughter) With actual alcohol!
Remember, advertising across the board, if
you target it well, is less offensive. I'd love to see Bud Light commercials,
and I'm not big on Tide soap.
The
Industry Today: "A Paucity of Innovation"
What
do you think about the current state of the gaming industry? It's a very broad
question, but...
NB: You know, I think everybody's making
money, or at least most people are making money. I still think that there's a
paucity of innovation, I think there's an awful lot of rehash and me-tooism. I
think the most interesting games have yet to be designed. There are some
massive, massive holes in the market that you could drive a truck through. I
always like to quote my dad, who used to say, "Tomorrow will never be as crappy
as it is today." (laughter)
What's
your take on the crash of '84, and do you think there's any danger of it again?
NB: The '84 crash was predictable, and it
was absolutely orchestrated by what I'd call massive incompetence on the part
of Atari. It was really geared around trying to sell too much into a legacy
product.
Remember, the 2600... we started marketing
that thing in 1977, so in 1984, a significant amount of the money was still on
that game which was based on technology that had been obsolete and should've
been buried in '78 or '79. We made so many tradeoffs, yet Warner actually
thought they were in the record player business, and that it was all about
software.
So it was just... it wasn't homicide. It
was absolute suicide. I can remember the day we shipped the first 2600, I told
Manny Gerard, "Okay, that's obsolete. Now we've got to do something
right." Because it was two years in development, we'd made assumptions
about memory that weren't correct anymore, and we would've been ready, had
Warner not had their head up their butt to come with the next level of
machines, which was actually part of the Atari 800 series.
The Atari 400, with joysticks, is actually
a pretty damn good game player, so it was meant to replace the 2600 with
something that was stronger computers, better... it introduced sprites, and a
lot of other things that just made it easier. So yeah, the whole thing was
absolutely avoidable.
It
seems like we're almost getting to the point where it could just be software,
because the hardware is starting to...
NB: Plateau.
Plateau,
yeah.
NB: Yeah, I've said that I believe that the
hardware wars are probably over, or close to it, in terms of processor and
MIPS. It's ridiculous to talk about how my photorealism is better than your
photorealism. Who cares? I think there will be one more round of hardware, but
I don't think it's going to do very well. I think it's going to be highly
risky.
|
Even if it was impossible to reproduce the whole program and make it not require a license, it is still quite possible to trick the program into thinking it is got a license. One could think of countless ways, at the end of the day, Treacherous computing only limits the box in which the program is running, but it won't really have a way to know the signals it is getting from what it thinks is the server are legit. You could just get a router that fakes the ip/dns giberish from the site.
Even if you truly had a way to 'secure' a system against it, you'll certainly have the graphics, the music, the data, the scripts. Reproducing the engine is actually a doable thing, there are countless of clones out there.
I wonder though, if this madness really gets to work Like Bushnel is predicting, what prevents the Chinese from making their own games? Or their own computers without these issues? I think underestimating them is not a great idea.