11/23/2005

Game Developer's Bill Of Rights

Hot off the IGDA presses, I wanted to share an important concept:

The Game Developer Bill of Rights

This was penned by Eric Zimmerman, CEO of GameLab, and presented recently at the Montreal International Games Summit. I had the pleasure of meeting Eric back in October during State of Play III, when he gave a tour of GameLab's H.Q. in the Tribeca area of Manhattan.

As I was just talking about bringing power to the developers in my last 'blog entry, I feel it's great timing.

Zimmerman's "Game Developer's Bill of Rights":

1. The right to full ownership of what we fully create.

2. The right to be billed as the game creator in marketing and on game packaging at least as prominently as any mention of the game publisher.

3. The right for every individual involved in creating the project to be given accurate and prominent credit within the game.

4. The right to move freely between publishers on new game projects.

5. The right to a fair and equitable share of profits derived from a game.

6. The right to full and accurate accounting of any and all income and disbursements relative to our work.

7. The right to promote and the right of approval over any and all promotion of our games and ourselves.

8. The right of approval over means for distribution, as well as for licensing, merchandizing, and other derivative versions of our games.

9. The right to a publishing arrangement that reflects the iterative nature of game development; one that recognizes that changing a game as it is developed is part of creating a game.

10. The right to a publishing arrangement that results in a process that conforms to accepted standards regarding work hours, compensation, and labor practices.

11. The right to acquire publishing rights to a game if the publisher has stopped distributing the game.

12. The right to employ legal representation in any and all business transactions.

13. The right to final say in creative disputes regarding the game.

Read More...

11/15/2005

Power To The People

Users Creating Content Implies a Need for Power

Second Life is a unique virtual world environment because of the ease and possibility that the common user has to create his or her own objects and environment. For a platform like SL to focus on making this the primary goal leads to a fairly simple idea of features leading to creativity. The means to these features, and the protection of our our creative works resides from the same source - raw, unadulterated power!

Okay, so, minus the raw and unadulterated parts. (Who ever heard of "adulterated power" though, seriously?)

Government: Communication Outlet, But Not Effective at More


When someone hears the word "power", government is usually the first thing that person imagines. It's hardly the only thing, though, and in SL, it's far from being sufficient at achieving developer goals. There have been a multitude of attempts at governing bodies in SL, and each with a small range of success and creative ability generated.

Let's examine a few categories of approaches at government in SL.

Groups

Groups are the most basic form of government in SL, with simple voting and powers over land and objects given to officers. It allows the sharing of resources and control, and have been an ideal setup for small projects. They are generally only successful when a strong leadership is maintained, and clear roles defined. They are completely lack the features needed to be sufficient for complex forms of government, such as democracy.

Committees

On occasion, a few residents will get really infuriated with Linden Lab and form some Justice Democracy League entity. These groups gather to talk out issues, and wind up the loosest form of governance in SL, because they inevitably distrust government in SL - even though they are one form. They are ideal for discussing issues and sharing ideas. Since they lack organization, they are completely inadequate for getting anything done.

The trick of one of these groups is to get some power-users involved, and then the meetings serve as a venue to persuade the power-users to do the bidding of the group. Usually, power-users already realize that they have the power, so they are often not persuaded away from their original sentiments. Should like-minded power-users come together, they can coordinate their efforts, and that's about the best result a Committee-type group could hope to accomplish.

Governments, with a capital "G"

There are attempts at making governing bodies that span all of SL; folks have made stabs at creating legislative bodies, dispute resolving systems, and representative bodies. These all have failed and will continue to fail. The main problem is that the very nature of SL is that of doing what you want - and that would include not being involved with any government, or be subjected to their rules. The secondary problem is that we're talking a worldwide community, and there's simply too many opposing viewpoints and agendas to reconcile.

In Summary ...

So, in conclusion for governments, I don't foresee any sort of governing body really empower residents of SL, and such I see little creative value in pursuing them other than from a simple communications channel. I don't want to understate the effectiveness of this, though; spreading the word about issues and getting people to voice their opinion to LL is a very power thing.

Residents Banding Together to Ensure Legal Protection

One of the quickest ways to lose creative ability is because of angry people with lawyers. SL is still flying under the radar, but lawsuits like Marvel's attack on City of Heroes makes gives me pause to wonder when SL will be in some corporate crosshair. Issues such as copyright, trademark, user-disputes, even large scale griefing could become nightmares for using both on the giving and receiving end of lawsuits.

If the idea of SL is to enable individuals to create, explore, interact, and generally merely exist in SL without being hassled, what's the biggest hassle out there? How about being tied in court for years on an issue?

Richard Bartle, MUD co-inventor, brought up the issue of developers banding together recently in Terra Nova. It got me thinking again, that a big way for SL developers to secure power would be to protect ourselves from the constant threat of creative disenfranchisement.

Does the average SL user have the ability to fight off a big corporation? No.
Does the average SL user have the ability to stop copyright violation in sl? Yes, through LL's intervention, but this is an unscalable solution.
Does the average SL user have the ability to collect money for damages done in a copyright theft of their product, or griefing interference of their business? Absolutely not.

Rewind to: State of Play III, "Law In Virtual Worlds" panel. You can check out the video here. At the end, you can watch me stand up and ask the panel if they could envision some way to provide scalable, affordable legal representation to the average SL user. I got shrugs and "that's tough" consolidations.

I believe there's a mentality out there, even in fellow residents, that only big game companies should be allowed to make money. Maybe that's why the overwhelming majority of news articles on SL focus on "Wow, OMGzors! Some individual is making money!" It's such a big deal to people that individual developers can turn a profit, because the game industry has become such a Hollywood-like industry.

If anything acts as a barrier between entrepreneurs and success, it's doubt in one's own ability. Many people think "Oh, I can't compete" and give up. When the mentality is that independent content creators really shouldn't / can't make money, it just acts as a repressing agent.

We have to change this mentality that only big game companies are allowed to make money. It's holding us back, both directly, in the financial sense, and on a larger scale, when we talk about the power we could wield with the wallet.

Money is Power, Too

Perhaps everyone's favorite form of power is the almighty (Linden) dollar. When LL thinks about changes to their platform, naturally they need to think about how it will affect their paying residents - their investors. It doesn't take long to figure out that LL listens to someone like Anshe Chung because she is the equivalent of a major investor in the SL world. Having holdings, and making money makes you a business partner with LL, whether you realize it or not.

The second aspect to making money in SL is that by running an established business, you stand out as a person worth consulting. Anyone who can make a living in SL is clearly determined, talented, and self-motivated, with a great deal of belief in self. Since LL is pioneering SL, they are making things up as they go along. In the same sense, so is the successful business owner in SL. I get a strong sense that LL looks at these people as a model of what things are possible in SL.

Last weekend I wound up at the 2005 Machinima Film Festival. I wound up sharing a cab with Pathfinder, Ryan, and Eric Linden on our trip from the Museum of the Moving Image to our dinner locale (Big Nick's, in Manhattan). A major topic brought up was whether Linden Lab could ever sponsor start-up businesses in Second Life. It came up that LL had dabbled in the idea of how to do this.

Perhaps it's time we stand together and ask that they dabble a bit harder. :)

Raising Questions

Rather than a formal conclusion, I'll pose some questions that I hope you can consider and respond here or elsewhere.

  • How can independent developers form an organization to offer legal services to members at affordable costs?
  • How should indie developers band together to create a union or association for communication, training, and negotiation purposes? (Or is IGDA sufficient?)
  • How can we, as developers, set our goals to bring in more spending into SL? (More spending = more of us that can make a living off of SL.)
  • What objectives and features of SL are truly critical to our success, as indie developers?
  • How can we better empower not only ourselves, but casual players to back our goals?

Read More...

11/04/2005

New Look & Chat Upgrade Ideas

Shiny!

Like the new look? Jacqueline Aubret was the designer. She was friendly, was easy to work with, and was able to take my rough description of what feeling I wanted and turn it into a shiny new site. Thanks, Jacqueline, for moving my 'blog out of standard template banality!

Chat Upgrade Ideas

I grabbed the notebook I scribbled in from State of Play last month, opened it, and rediscovered the conversation I had with Lyre Calliope about chat in SL.

SL's 1.6 patch brought us chat bubbles - I think to make refugees from There feel more at home. The chat bubbles are impractical - evidenced by the fact that LL initially released them as default, then reversed this decision and put back the old style as default. 1.7 gave us detachable chat windows - which are cool. But there's a host of new ways we think chat can be improved in SL - and we haven't even broken into the idea of voice chat. (Okay, so the ideas are mostly his.)

I'm not sure of any specific order these belong in, so I'll just throw them out there for you:

Floating chat rooms

Imagine chat windows logically connected with geographic locations, on demand. Here's how it works: A group of people are chatting about two topics. One person starts a new IM group titled with the first topic. Another person starts another IM group titled with the other topic. Now people can focus in on the conversations they want without the clutter.

This will be possible because chat is already linked to sims. Also, since the chat goes to IM instead of "say", it gets filtered out sooner from the sim's chat queue, and so scripts listening in will not hear it. This will also enable the same IM security that personal IMs or group IMs have.

Closed chat rooms would require an invite. Invite / kick / moderator buttons would be added to chat IM windows.

Open chat rooms would automatically prompt you if you are in range and speak, and ask you if you want to join. ("Available open conversations: ... etc" with buttons to click to join)

Color Coding

Along with the IM windows, the main chat is now color coded. Your text is one color, regular "say" is another, and each conversation has a unique color. Now you can monitor and take part in all conversations in a more organized fashion.

In addition, throw in the ability to customize colors as you can with the existing chat, and you can have nice looking HUDs and GUIs. (That is, once LL lets us have a customizable GUI.) Best, this can all be done client-side.

Gestures - Filter by Name, as well

In real life, you react differently depending on whom you're talking to. You can put on your "professional business" hat, you can wear a "goofy hangin' out with the buddies" hat, etc - and it affects how you behave including body language. Why not have gestures be able to filter by name or group, and so you may react differently to different people?

Visualizing the Chat

Chat bubbles seem like an okay idea ... but they are sort of impractical because each person has one, and your eyes have to dart from one to the other, which is the exact opposite of traditional chat.

Instead, how about one communal bubble (for the floating chat rooms, above) that appear where the chat room was created? As people speak, the chat window has the point of the bubble point at the speaker.

Chat Nicknames

Let each user put a nickname in profile, and set nicknames for other people. The person's name is now substituted where their full name would normally appear in chat. (Again, done client side.) Absent of nicknames, last names could be truncated as an toggleable option. Nicknames would replace names above peoples' heads as another option, or be in parenthesis as yet another option.

Consider the two (fictional) conversations:

before:
Hiro Pendragon: You need to read my name every line!
Philip Linden: All is well! Chat functions need no improvement!
Jade Lily: Hiro don't anger the game gods!
Torley Torgesson: Watermelons are cool!

after:
Hiro: You need to read my name, but it's much shorter.
Philip: Cool, now I can lose the authoritarian "Linden" in chat, and be "one of da' guys"!
Jade: What about multiple instances off first names?
Hiro Queso: Hello, i just arrived.
Hiro Pendragon: Well, that answers that question.
King Philip: I just changed my nickname.
You: And I'm going to change Hiro's to "Smartass".
Smartass: I don't see it changed.
You: Only I can see it changed, because it's my nickname for you.
Hiro: Well, I just added my nickname to my profile, and that trumps your nickname for me.
King Philip: Cool ideas, Hiro. I'm going to drop Havok 2 from the next patch to fit this, instead.
Hiro gulps.
Hiro: The forum's gonna lynch me!

... as you see, the latter is much more natural, and you can always toggle these nicknames n/off from your properties.

The actual chat channel would still remain untouched, but the client itself would be displaying the edited text. In this way any scripts filtering chat names are still functional.

IRC Style Highlighting

One feature I love in EFNet's IRC client is that when someone begins a sentence with your name (or nickname if that was implemented, too), it makes the line of text bold, so that you don't miss someone directly addressing you.

Embed Links

HTML is coming to SL, right? Well, get with the program and auto-format hyperlinks!

Read More...