Hey all! So THIS SUNDAY (March 4th) at NOON is the Bartlet Jones/Game Memorabilia raffle!
Location:
The Bartlet Jones Supernatural Detective Agency
I certainly did not see this coming- what fun! :)
Jaffe
Been pecking away at the great bio WALT DISNEY-THE TRIUMP OF THE AMERICAN IMAGINATION by Neal Gabler for a long while. When I read I do read fast but I don't read often, so finishing up books takes me some time.
Have you seen this on today's HUFFINGTON POST?
AKA Stuff I Doodle While On A Call With My Lawyer And The Game's Producer And Company COO
This fantastic article about the rough financial state of internet journalism (and game internet journalism specifically) from the always great Ben Kuchera got me thinking:
Let's vote on the top 10 game journalists that we feel genuinely offer us great reporting and- more importantly- great game criticism.
There are more than this for sure, but off the top of my head I'll throw the following names in the ring: Ben Kuchera, Garnett Lee, Adam Sessler, Jim Sterling, and Brian Crecente. Are there more, fuck yeah. But it's just a start.
Hell, let's throw in Leigh Alexander as well. I can't stand the woman but to show that this should not be a popularity contest and that we should do our best to pick the reporters who genuinely seem to care for the medium of interactivity. Much as I don't care for Leigh, I do think she cares about the medium and offers a valuable voice to some gamers.
Oh and I gotta throw in that guy who does the fantastic podcast A LIFE WELL WASTED- that thing is amazing!
Ok so anyway- we get a bunch of names of people doing great work in game journalism and then we- as a game community- vote and whittle it to 5 names.
Then we do a yearly Kickstarter to raise 175K.
125 K goes to pay 1 of the 5 reporters (pulled randomly from a hat or voted on by the folks who contributed to the Kstart) a yearly salarty. The remaining 50K goes to pay for expenses (games, travel).
The reporter posts whatever they want on a blog. There is no editor, no advertising/sales group to worry about, and they can update when they want and write about whatever they want. The only harm for doing a bad job (and I define a bad job as simply filing way too few stories) is looking terrible in the public eye that funded them and wiping out their chances of being included in next year's list.
Every time we raise another 175K, we pull another name from the hat/vote on the next reporter. Ideally every year we can raise enough that all 5 reporters get to work.
I think good reporting is important. And good criticism is crucial to move this medium forward.
And given that I've offered over and over to pay a subscription to great gaming sites, they never seem to want to offer subscriptions/paywalls, this seems like a possible good solve.
Or am I fucking high?
Seriously, I'm in for 500 bucks if the rest of y'all are.
Thanks for reading-
David
ps. I have zero idea if game reporters make well over 125K and if they do, they may scoff at this. I don't mean them any disrespect- 125k seems like a good salary to me is all :).
I was asked by a guy who follows me on twitter what I thought about this article that just went up on Kotaku. It's written by someone calling themselves ANONYMOUS GAME DEVELOPER* (AGD) and the gist of the piece is that game developers- and thus games themselves- suffer because of the current power of the game publishers.
I figured I'd share my response here as a topic of discussion:
I agree with a number of AGD's theories about why modern games are tough to get right (i.e. AGD's write up on game's desire to be film vs. games was pretty spot on) but I reject the tired accusation that it's the publisher keeping game developers down. And I reject that accusation because of the classic line that I am sure you've heard before: you are worth what you can negotiate.
Period.
Don't like the way a publisher treats you?
Don't sign a contract with that particular publisher. Or if you do, make sure you have what you will and won't tolerate written into the contract.
And if your studio is not good enough to demand better deals and is not clever enough to secure alternate forms of financing (thus allowing you to bypass the publishers all together) then you deserve what you get.
I am very sympathetic to the article's core (it can suck being a dev when you feel your failure stems from forces out of your control)** but that is very much the whole 'every kid who plays gets a trophy even if their team loses' thinking.
AKA: This is business.
You want to be treated better? Sign a contract demanding it.
You are not able to get such a contract? Then improve your team until you can demand in the real world what you think you are really worth in your mind.
Because at the moment the real world is making something very clear to you. And that is this:
For the time being anyway, you are not as good as you think you are.
The people who fight against this and complain that the world is not fair are spinning their wheels and wasting their time. The people who embrace this truth can then decide to either get out of the business or put the effort into getting so good that they can pretty much write their own ticket. ***
David
* It would not surprise me if this was written by one of the editors and attributed to AGD. I have no inside info, just saying I could see this being the case.
** The idea that 'if it just wasn't for the stupid, interfering publisher we woulda had a hit/we woulda made something more artistic' is pretty tired. I'm not saying this is not the case in many instances. But in many other cases- as a guy who has worked for the publisher and for the developer- I can tell you that at least 50% of the time the developer just isn't good enough to make the great game they think they are capable of making, regardless of how much creative freedom they have.
*** In the majority of cases, when it comes to super expensive $40-$60 retail products, no matter how good a dev you are, you will still not get the best deal in the universe. This is because at that high price point marketing and brand still rule the roost because the number of people who follow quality over the siren's call of a flashy marketing campaign are not near enough to turn the tides. And a vast majority of game consumers would rather- understandably- have the comfort of knowing what they are getting for their $60 (i.e. sequels) rather than take a chance- at that same high price- on something that sounds interesting and has great reviews but is unknown. However, when you are talking digital games for $14.99 (and ideally less), talent can begin to demand amazing deals if they have the track record to back up their demands because core gamers- as always- will continue to follow the talented teams and average gamers will take chances at those lower 'impulse buy' price points. We will see this more in the coming generation of games as getting core games digitally stops being something that only the core gamers do and -with each passing year- becomes the normal way for all gamers to acquire new content.
Terrible Parent Award Goes To...ME!
AKA I woke up sicker than yesterday and thus cranky. So I not only yelled at the kids (for no reason*) AND at the dog (who is as sweet as the day is long** so he had NO idea what he had done to deserve my wrath), but I was also too tired to make the kids a proper, healthy breakfast.
Because I was dealing with all of that- and because being sick made me sluggish and thus made me run late in getting the kids off to school- we went thru the McDonald's drive thru and got biscuits and hashbrowns for breakfast.***
So yes, I suck much.
Ok, guess I should get to work and try to at least do SOMETHING right today...:)
Later y'all!
David
All I Want For Chrismukkah is:
Adam Orth: great friend, great designer, and all around bad ass!
Adam and I worked together on and off over the years and two of the games we worked on were HEARTLAND and CALLING ALL CARS.
He shot me some pics from some of design docs yesterday and I thought I'd share.
Been super busy so no time to dive into too much context at the moment, but figured they prob speak for themselves anyway. So here ya go :)...
HEARTLAND: Was going to be a return to more old school, opened up single player (and co-op) Goldeneye/Doom II style level design. Plus a little Deus Ex thrown in, in terms of multiple solves, as much emergence as we could intentionally create (not the mention the happy surprises):
I'm really looking forward to the new reality show Start Ups: Silicon Valley that hits the Bravo channel next month.
When I was checking my daily dose of Aint It Cool News today, I noticed that Megaforce hits DVD this week and so my nostalgia machine got to running full blast and I felt the need to share! So here we go! :)...
Man, as I kid I was CRAZY EXCITED for this flick! Stayed up nights just thinking about it, DYING for the damn thing to open! I mean, what 10ish year old boy would not go ape shit for this? I mean, just look at it the Godamn'd movie poster:
Summer is racing to a close :(.
Dear movie studios and companies that deal in digital download rentals of movies and television shows:
I have a more than full time job. I'm trying to raise 2 kids. From time to time, I'd also love to work out, leave my house, and see the world. Oh, and I really want to fly home to Alabama before the end of the summer to see my parents. It's been a while and they are getting older. Ralph and Barbara Jaffe, from Birmingham? Perhaps you know them?
It doesn't matter. Anway:
I also spend lots of cash on your products, both at home and in theaters. And I mean a LOT of cash. Hell, I just ordered the JAWS Blu Ray off Amazon this morning. I mean, seriously you guys: I love the stuff ya'll make.
Oh, and the last thing I pirated was a port of the Super Mario Bros. arcade game for my Apple //e back in the 1980's (85 I think it may have been). Happy to send ya'll a check for that act if that is what this is all about. But assuming it's not:
For the love of God, PLEASE stop with this 'once you hit PLAY on a movie/show download you only have 24 hours in which to watch the whole thing' bullshit.
I will be paying for THE HUNGER GAMES- great, great movie so far, by the way. Nice job, movie making people! I'm just at the point where she gets her rating and that's a really good part, you know?!?- at least 2 times and probably 3 before I reach the end of the film. Do I really need to be paying you guys for 3 different downloads? How about you track what I've watched so far so I can't rewind to a part I've already seen after 24 hours? How about you charge 1-2 dollars more for a longer download period for those of us with busy lives? How about you do SOMETHING?
Thanks,
David
Hey ya'll!
I was waiting on some meetings to start so I threw out the following to the folks kind enough to follow me on twitter:
UPDATE:
1. It was pointed out to me last nite that this sentence could have been causing some confusion, and actually allowing some folks to think I was ok with the term 'girlfriend mode':
'It would be nice if we could correctly acknowledge that the term 'girlfriend mode' is sexist, offensive to a lot of folks, and long past ready to be put out to the 'shit we will be embarrassed to admit we ever said' pasture while also having the stones to admit there is a still valid reason the term was coined in the first place.'
I assumed the opening of the paragraph makes it clear that's not the case, but I can see this individual's point that the last sentence is poorly written. So allow me to adjust for clarity:
'It would be nice if we could correctly acknowledge that the term 'girlfriend mode' is sexist, offensive to a lot of folks, and long past ready to be put out to the 'shit we will be embarrassed to admit we ever said' pasture while also having the stones to admit there is a still valid reason the play mechanics-that gave rise to the offensive term- were created in the first place'
I stand by that. I'm sorry the first crack was poorly worded to the point that some of you felt I was in favor of the term. To be 100% clear, I am not.
2. I feel the author of the offensive and out right incorrect piece against me is in the wrong and knows he's in the wrong.
To write this, 'But then he (Jaffe) goes on to say that there’s a valid reason the term is used and that reason is, essentially, that women (or girlfriends) don’t play games.'
when I said this, ' the vast, vast, vast majority of adult women want NOTHING to do with a game like Borderlands 2 (or a game like God of War or Twisted Metal or Gears of War)'
To claim I said anything resembling 'women don't play games' is a new low when it comes to game journalist spin.
3. This original post- see below- was written in a moment of haste and anger. It was an attempt at some kind of aggressive humor but it clearly missed the mark. Instead of the playground insults coming off as intentionally smarmy and somewhat funny (my original hope), it came off as literal (i.e. I really think this guy is stupid; I'm really calling him 'dummy' as a way of insulting him and calling him names'). That's a failure on my part. So I've changed it.
Not trying to whitewash anything. Let's be clear: I think this 'reporter' is bush league and he owes me an apology and he owes me a change in his initial article. I don't care for the guy one bit. And I have no problem saying so. But it's clear I failed at expressing that properly and so I've adjusted the entry below to reflect my intent.
Thanks
David
+++++
The guy who wrote this article should be ashamed of himself. Check it out:
'Jaffe begins well by acknowledging that the term “girlfriend mode” is sexist and offensive and that it’s the type of comment we, as an industry, find embarrassing.'
'But then he (Jaffe) goes on to say that there’s a valid reason the term is used and that reason is, essentially, that women (or girlfriends) don’t play games.'
'Jaffe says that “the vast, vast, vast majority of adult women want NOTHING to do with a game like Borderlands 2.” While I don’t have access to Jaffe’s research in the area, this is something that may well be true. Or it may not. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is utterly beside the point.'
'It’s not about whether or not someone – male or female – would find a game such as Borderlands 2 appealing. Jaffe lumps Borderlands 2 in with similarly violent games such as God of War, Twisted Metal and Gears of War, the content of which will not be to everyone’s taste.
Equally, a term like “girlfriend mode” is not about statistics claiming what percentage of games players are female. So what if the majority of players of games such as Borderlands 2 (and God of War, etc) are male? That’s an aesthetic choice and utterly unrelated to the context in which the term “girlfriend mode” was used.
The term “girlfriend mode” doesn’t say “Hey, maybe you don’t like this type of game, so here’s a way you might like to try.” The term “girlfriend mode” says “Hey, you’re a girl so you must be terrible at playing games, so here’s how we’re going to help you.”
And that is the definition of sexism.'
Of COURSE it matters in the context of my post if women do not play games LIKE Borderlands 2, God of War, Gears of War,etc. If - as you acknowledge it could very well be true that games like BL2, GOW, etc. are played by a huge male majority then it stands to reason that there is a huge majority of women who have little experience with these sorts of games. And thus, it's not about aesthetics (as you wrongly assume), it's about mechanics. PLAY mechanics.
I never said women could not be great at these kinds of games. I think the many amazingly talented women who kick the shit out of men everyday in these kinds of games can attest to that.
But if the vast majority of women have no interest in these kinds of games then the vast majority of women are not going to be INITIALLY as successful as the vast majority of men (who have huge interest in these sorts of games, compared to the women) given that the play mechanics of these games are not easy for either sex to just pick up and play without having learned and practiced similar mechanics from similar action/shooter games over the years.
This has NOTHING to do with the ability of one sex over another. This has EVERYTHING to do with experience and the fact that- because men are much more into action games than women- men have much more experience playing action games and thus the majority of folks without experience with games like Borderlands 2 will be women. That's no more sexist than saying the majority of folks who choose reading as their primary for of entertainment are women and because of that, women would do much better than men when playing a trivia game where the topic was 'fiction from the last 50 years'.
It would be nice if we could correctly acknowledge that the term 'girlfriend mode' is sexist, offensive to a lot of folks, and long past ready to be put out to the 'shit we will be embarrassed to admit we ever said' pasture while also having the stones to admit there is a still valid reason the term was coined in the first place.
We should be able to embrace and push forward a change in the way we talk about games in the interest of inclusion,fairness, kindness, and respectability for ALL gamers (and all people) while still being able to openly acknowledge that the vast, vast, vast majority of adult women want NOTHING to do with a game like Borderlands 2 (or a game like God of War or Twisted Metal or Gears of War). Anymore than the vast, vast, vast majority of men have any interest in watching a show like Project Runway or reading a book like The Notebook or Twilight.
Political Correctness has been 90% fantastic for our society because before you know it, it stops being 'politically correct' and -rightly so- simply becomes folks being treated with respect. But the remaining 10% has really done a hack job to our culture, neutering the fuck out our ability to acknowledge things as the way they truly are.
David