Ludologically Speaking

Long Live High Definition: MS and Sony Drop HDMI Cables

2009-09-09T21:44:00.006-04:00

It was welcome news to many when both Sony and Microsoft recently announced price drops on their game consoles (actually, MS snuck in a price hike on their low end unit, likely as a means to get consumers to choose the better, but more expensive elite system). The interesting news, however, was that these price drops also included removing HDMI cables from the box. MS still includes component cables, which are capable of carrying an HD signal, although converted to analog (can you tell the difference?), but Sony now only bundles composite cables, which are capable of carrying only a standard definition signal. Yuk!

Some commentators find all of this odd. Over at gamesindustry.biz, Rob Fahey wonders if this signals that "all is not well with the HD transition" (see here). While it may be true that the industry thought (wished for, tried to force) a quick (and consumer-costly) transition to HD, I'm not sure that the lack of HDMI cables in X360 and PS3 boxes supports his argument. In fact, MS still includes cables that carry HD. Why bother use HDMI?

Okay, HDMI can carry multi-channel audio (up to 8 channels), and it allows for fancy remote control stuff (not sure this has been implemented by anyone). But, one of the driving forces behind the development of HDMI as an interface wasn't to make for fewer cables or fewer remotes. It was to create an interface that could handle copy protection. HDMI supports HDCP, High bandwidth Digital Content Protection, which can prevent the copying of data traveling over HDMI. So, while convenient, HDMI is also part of the evil, scary beast known as Digital Rights Management. Perhaps we should be applauding MS for not unnecessarily bundling an HDMI cable.

That said, Sony's decision to drop the HDMI cable seems odd (by the way, I don't recall my PS3 coming with an HDMI cable ... this must have been something added to the bundle after I bought). Sony's Blu-ray technology, as we all know, won the HD war. And in order to watch most (some? all?) Blu-ray movies on your PS3, you need to use an HDMI cable (please correct me if I am wrong). If this is the case, then why wouldn't Sony include an HDMI cable to encourage faster adoption of the Blu-ray format?

I guess it all comes down to money. Ever since the economic collapse, Sony has been losing lots of money and, as a result, has been very reluctant to drop the price of its highly overpriced PS3. So, perhaps the decision to drop the cable has nothing to do with Sony's thinking the transition to HD is slow, but is purely and simply to give the perception of a large price drop, but then promote HDMI cables so that users can watch Blu-ray (and thereby reap back some cash lost in the price drop). It's akin to "bait-and-switch".

Either way, Sony is invested in HD technologies far more than MS. So it seems ironic that MS includes component cables that can carry HD while Sony completely drops any HD cable at all.

But this is how technology gadgets have (almost) always been sold ... invest in the gadget, but if you want the best experience, you need to upgrade the cable. Every console I've bought in the past ten years (all but the Xbox 360) has come with composite cables, and so I had to go out and buy S-video or component cables to get a higher quality picture. And I remember my surprised joy when I opened my Xbox 360 to find high quality component cables! So, this is by no means a new marketing strategy.

So, while I agree with most people that it sucks that the PS3 no longer includes an HDMI cable (did I mention that mine didn't ... did yours?), I fail to see this as a signal that HD is in bad shape. I think it more likely suggests that Sony is in bad financial shape, and desperately needed to drop the PS3 price by a nice, even $100 (and not $60), to gain market share.

Game Delays

2009-08-05T20:15:00.003-04:00

For anyone who follows the daily business news around digital games, a common headline of late has been "Game X Delayed Until 2010." Just today, Blizzard made just such an announcement about the highly anticipated StarCraft II. I'm sure there are many fans with tears dripping onto their keyboards as I type.

It's no surprise that the games industry is feeling the effects of the economic downturn, just like almost every other industry. But perhaps the news is ultimately good. Just imagine if a new game came out without bug fixes and new content following shortly on the heals of its release? And maybe fewer crappy games will be be financed.

The downside, of course, is that some publishers might hide even deeper behind the protection of successful IP rather than take the risk of introducing new IP.

However it turns out, the news isn't all bad, although it could mean that the days of pre-Christmas floods of big name games is behind us. Indeed, maybe we won't see another Christmas season as in 2008 for a long time. But maybe that will mean a more even and constant flow of big game releases. Then again, I'm no entertainment market analyst, so I'm still going to look forward to October, when I'll neither have the cash nor the time to buy lots of cool new games.

Digital Distribution: Why it Sucks

2009-07-30T11:55:00.004-04:00

There's been lots of buzz about digital distribution replacing storefront distribution of console games. Digital distribution of PC games is nothing new. In fact, it goes back to the very early days of gaming when games were distributed primarily via networks. Indeed, id Software made a huge splash when it games like Doom were distributed primarily over the Net. And the three console manufacturers have all set up networks where players can buy and download little games.

Recently, the big games have joined in, and both Microsoft and Sony have been experimenting with digital distribution of full-sized console games. Microsoft has been focusing mainly on its archive of older titles, which some suspect is partly motivated by used games sales, which brings MS no profit. Sony has been playing along too by releasing a few disc-based titles, including War Hawk and Burnout Paradise.

So, as the speculation goes, soon we will all be downloading our games rather than going to the local Futureshop to browse and buy.

There are many things I can appreciate about digital distribution: it would be darned convenient to buy a game whenever the mood hit me; I wouldn't have to drive to the Futureshop; all games will always be in stock (unless we see the iTunes movie thing happen where movies mysteriously disappear from availability); and we should see a price drop, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. The entire motivation for digital distribution is to increase profits, which would come from reaping back the 20% margin made by stores like the Futureshop.

But in my mind, the bad outweighs the good. Here are a few reasons why I think a digital-distribution-only system would suck:

1) As a professor who researches and teaches about digital games, I worry about how I will view and show games if I can't simply take them from machine to machine. And because I can't depend upon all consoles being hooked up to the Internet, I can't depend upon being able to log into Xbox Live to recover my damn account all the time (I find this a major annoyance ... PSN scores a point).

2) I also worry about how we will archive games and make them available for people to view who are interested in studying digital culture.

3) Why the heck should we have to have accounts, that provide all kinds of information to companies, in order to buy and play games?

4) Why shouldn't players be allowed to sell off their old games to help finance buying new ones? A digital distribution system would, no doubt, remove this possibility.

5) Given that ISPs are starting to charge for data download beyond a specific monthly limit, this will increase my monthly bill to my ISP. And really, the last thing I want to do is give my ISP more money.

A lot of these concerns apply to movies too. If we remove the hardcopy, then we run the risk of removing other things too.

Now, I could be accused of being like a luddite, fearing new technologies of distribution and how they will affect the traditions. Well, so be it. Until I find some reason to believe that Microsoft's and Sony's proprietary networks won't be used primarily to suck out every possible penny from consumers, until I see some reason to believe that these networks will become places for user creativity free from the agendas of major corporations, until that time, I guess I'll just risk being called a luddite (and other things too).

Managing Player-Created Content on the Xbox 360 and PS3

2009-07-29T08:42:00.006-04:00

I have always admired that many games developers provide players with the means to create and distribute their own game content, a practice known as modding. In a chapter I wrote for A Companion to Digital Literary Studies (Blackwell, 2008), I map the history of modding within the context of social, cultural, and economic systems within which it operates. One of my main concerns was to examine how games developers have sought to nurture, but also to manage, the production and distribution of player-created game content.

At the time I wrote the piece, both Microsoft and Sony were promoting their proprietary console networks as distribution channels for player-created content for the Xbox 360 and PS3. Adopting system-specific networks provides both Microsoft and Sony far greater control over content distribution and, as such, provides a much stronger means for managing player-created content than PC games developers have on the Web.

In the chapter ("Licensed to Play: Digital Games, Player Modifications, and Authorized Production"), I expressed concern about the level of control both MS and Sony have over the distribution of content on their game networks. This becomes all the more concerning when we consider that console gaming has essentially killed off the PC as a gaming platform. Modding flourished on the PC because the Web is a relatively unrestricted network. My worry was that the days of open creation and distribution of player content were coming to an end, or at least were changing radically for the worse.

Since that time, I have been proven both wrong and right. Sony's release of Little Big Planet has proven just how hungry game players are to create their own games; as of July 23, there were over 1 million user-created levels available on the PlayStation Network (PSN). And Sony will be releasing Mod Racing Nations later this year, which will give players the tools to build and circulate their own race tracks. So, on the one hand, Sony sees the potential for user-generated content and is beginning to provide a means for circulation.

Microsoft's Xbox Live also supports the distribution of player-created levels for some of its games, but it also supports the distribution of games created by independent developers. This is terrific, if you can make it through the extremely stiff competition to have your game selected.

According to Jason Hill over at Screen Play, Microsoft is now limiting the number of independent titles it will publish on Arcade Marketplace to 35/year! I can understand the urge to avoid a glut in titles and the resulting problem of finding good games. This is the problem we're seeing with the plethora of games being developed for the iPhone/Touch. But 35 seems rather extreme and will likely have the effect of dissuading indie developers from the Xbox platform. So much for promoting indie games on the Xbox.

So, while MS and Sony continue to support user-created levels, it seems that there is very little room for players to take the next step and develop their own games for the Xbox and PS3 platforms. This is unfortunate, because it severely limits player creativity and essentially moulds it to support game sales rather than to promote the creation of new and interesting games.

G-ScalE: Meeting with Architects

2009-07-21T15:49:00.004-04:00

My research team and I met with the architects yesterday who will be designing our new lab space at the McMaster Innovation Park. The lab will be situated on the third floor of MIP, facing north, which will give views of the 403 highway, Westdale High School, and lots of trees. It's not a bad view at all. Of course, there's the possible construction of a hotel that will block much of the view.

The G-ScalE lab will be around 2200 sq. ft. and consist of five rooms: one main development space, four games rooms and one observation room. There was lots of discussion around sound insulation to make sure we don't disturb our neighbours. We also discussed the goal of making some of the space visible to passersby to maintain a high profile. To this end, it looks like we will have lots of glass looking into the main development room.

G-ScalE, or Gaming Scalability Environment, is a project that will research the effects of scale of player experience and then apply these findings to the development of games that scale. It has received $725,000 in funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, and McMaster University.

Overall, I am quite pleased with what I think think this space will look like. I am looking forward to its completion, so that we can start populating it with hardware and people. At some point, I'll post some photos here.

BBC's Planet Earth and Technological Pleasure

2009-07-01T15:07:00.017-04:00

This post isn't directly about digital games, but it applies nonetheless. It's about the effect of technological performance on screen pleasures.

Sometime last year, I bought a large flat panel LCD TV. It complemented my PS3 and Xbox360, and helped me to think about the effect of visual scale on the experience of gameplay. But the TV was good for other things, too. Movies looked better, and sports ... well, what can I say, but hockey has never looked so good. And falling asleep to golf on Sunday afternoons has never been so visually stunning.

But what really blew me away was watching the blue ray edition of BBC World's Planet Earth. Now, before I start sounding like a fanboy, I want to preface my following explosion of enthusiasm with a few qualifiers (it's hard to leave behind the academic imperative to present a balanced opinion). I've watched the series several times now, and I get a little annoyed with the occasionally contrived narratives. And the sound editing is often troublesome. Ironically, the visual technology that makes the series so beautiful to watch sometimes draws attention to the sound's artificial post-production. Shots that begin close up, and that include the sound of animals, sometimes zoom so far back that no microphone in existence could have captured the sound.

But let me leave criticisms behind and talk a bit about the visual splendor of Planet Earth, and some of the techniques that contribute to an aesthetic response to the documentary.

Planet Earth is a delicious feast for the eyes. Gloriously shot in high definition (1080p on blue ray), the documentary has the most remarkable footage of the most remarkable places, animals, and natural events on the planet. From close-ups to beautiful panoramic shots to remarkably detailed satellite shots, perhaps the most striking feature of Planet Earth is its visual beauty, and the manner in which it performs as a visual spectacle. This performance is made all the more spectacular when viewed on high-end technology like high definition screens and blue ray players. In other words, Planet Earth is a performance of technology, and a performance that is all the more impressive when viewed on high-end technology.

The producers of Planet Earth perform technology through techniques that foreground technology. For instance, one of the common techniques performed throughout the series is to start a shot relatively close to the subject and then slowly zoom back to a very wide angle shot. Not only does this expansion slowly reveal a more magnificent scene, but it also highlights that the shot is being taken from a great distance, meaning that there's a very powerful zoom lens and an extremely accurate image stabilization system at work. Anyone who's ever shot a home video knows that, as you zoom closer to your subject, camera shake is magnified. Well, magnify the zoom range of a typical home video camera by several times, and you can imagine the challenge of shooting an absolutely still close up shot of mountain goat from a few kilometers away, all while in a helicopter, which is anything but motionless! So, mixed up in our astonishment at the slowly revealed scale of the scene is a similar astonishment at the technology of the shot: "Wow, that's beautiful! How did they do that?"

Add the viewer's admiration of the viewing technology ("Gee, that looks so good in blue ray on that flat panel tv), and you can begin to see that the pleasure of viewing Planet Earth is a complex mixture of elements: the subject of the scene, the shooting techniques performed in the scene, and the presentation of the scene on specific screen technologies.

This might be all the more obvious for people who have watched Planet Earth on different screens. My first introduction to the series was a standard definition television broadcast. I thought it was beautiful on my 27" CRT television! And while I might have admired the scene subjects and the shooting techniques, I didn't experience much astonishment over the technological performance of my standard definition tv. When I bought the flat panel LCD TV and watched the series through my blue ray player, my experience was very different. Scale, clarity, sharpness, colour ... these qualities stood out and became an inextricable part of the pleasure of watching the series.

One of the elements of the series I keep mentioning is scale. In a future post, I'm going to focus more specifically on scale, which I believe is a central component of the technological performance of works like Planet Earth, not to mention movies and digital games.

Motion Control: Shaking Things Up

2009-06-18T22:45:00.008-04:00

Motion control is the latest big buzz in the gaming world. Both Microsoft and Sony presented their own motion control devices at the latest E3 gathering in early June. Microsoft's Natal seems to be a little ahead of Sony's motion control device, but rest assured, they will both be busy trying get something out for Christmas ... whether it's this Christmas or next is yet to be seen.

I doubt that Nintendo is shaking in its boots (maybe that should be the next Wii device ... WiiBoots, WiiShoes, or better yet, WiiSlippers). That said, the motivation for these devices is more likely to appeal to family gamers rather than hard core gamers. Nintendo's success has largely been based upon the family market, where swinging the Wiimote like a tennis racquet is something the whole family can have fun with, until someone pokes out the new LCD TV by throwing the Wiimote at it. It's all fun and games until ...

Microsoft and Sony haven't been as successful in attracting this "family" or casual gamer demographic. So, it will be interesting to see what kind of games MS and Sony launch with their motion control devices. Sony has had the EyeToy, so they have some experience with motion control games that might give them a slight "experience" advantage over MS. They EyeToy wasn't remarkably successful, but the most popular games for it were family fun games that were almost as fun to watch as to play.

My thinking is that they will both try to develop a "killer" app, a must-have motion-control game that is as popular as Wii Sports. They probably won't (at least they shouldn't) launch with some Wii Sports copycat game like MS Sports or Sony Sports. It's more likely they'll create something a bit more dazzling with a bit more "wow" factor. The Natal demos at E3 certainly show some potential for "wow". But I doubt that either MS or Sony will put all their motion-control eggs into a shooter game, or some other genre that would appeal mainly to hard core gamers. That's not the market they're after (or should be after) with these devices.

That's not to say that God of War IV or Halo 227 won't offer motion-control options. I'm sure they will, and that they'll be encouraged to. But, as I see it, the real goal of these new motion control devices is develop playful experiences to expand console sales to those who don't really have much interest in shooting aliens but do have an interest in fun, playful, and technologically pleasurable virtual environments. And if you can include some utilitarian element into the mix, like exercise, well then you get a little closer to the simple brilliance of the Wii.

UPDATE (June 22, 2009): Apparently, Sony plans to release the PS3 motion controller in Spring 2010.

Violence: Germany Seeking Ban on Violent Games

2009-06-07T14:22:00.006-04:00

Germany's Interior Ministers have united to seek a ban on the production and sale of violent video games in Germany. This comes three months after a 17-year-old went on a shooting rampage in Germany, killing 16 and injury many others. It was reported in the Times about a week after the tragedy that the shooter liked to play first-person shooters such as Counter-Strike and that he played Far Cry 2 from "7:30pm to 9:40pm" on the night before the murders. (Would it have been different if he'd played for only half and hour?)

While it is conceivable that the murderer used the game Far Cry 2 as a model for planning his attack, this doesn't mean that the game caused the act. It is equally conceivable that the teen would have committed the murders regardless of his experience with violent video games. Claiming a causal relationship between Far Cry 2 and the killing spree is akin to saying that The Catcher in the Rye caused Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon. Yet, rather than see The Catcher in the Rye as the problem, we see Mark Chapman as a deranged killer whose psychological state was reflected by his obsession with the book. Indeed, rather than ban The Catcher in the Rye, our high schools often include it in their curricula. Hmmm, maybe games like Counter-Strike and Far Cry 2 should be made mandatory "reading" for our teenagers.

For many people, I'm sure this proposal sounds silly, and a part of me is using a glimmer of shock to point out the danger of seeing a direct linkage between a specific game (or genre of games) and a specific act. (As an aside, I support the inclusion of an intelligent and creative engagement with these games in our high schools.) Isn't the issue less about the consumption of a genre of game than it is about the angst our teenagers are feeling, why they're feeling it, and why some see extreme violence as an option? Isn't the question more about why teens are drawn to violent games? Yes, video games might be part of the larger atmosphere that portrays violence as an option, but they are only one element in a diverse and complex environment that clearly does not provide our children with enough of a safe, secure, and creative world. The popularity of violent games is a symptom, not a cause.

This isn't to say that representations of violence are not harmful. If the only response to conflict and challenge we are shown is violent, than that will be how we respond. We need a more holistic understanding of violence in our society if we really want to address it. And we need to see symptoms as symptoms and causes as causes.

So, why is it that almost every time a young man goes on a killing spree, the press reports that the murderer played violent video games? Why don't we hear about all of the other kinds of media the murderers have consumed? Why does so much attention fall on the games and the need to control their consumption? These question require complex answers, but on a simple level, it makes us feel better to name an easily identifiable enemy, and one that has grabbed the attention of youth and, to many adults, is a scary unknown. Rock and roll was once a scary unknown.

Big and Small Games

2009-06-04T13:33:00.006-04:00

I recently bought an iPod Touch. While it hasn't changed my life in dramatic ways, it certainly is one the coolest little pieces of technology I've bought in a long, long time.

For one thing, it's useful! I use it to synchronize my iCal calendar, for web browsing wherever there's a wireless connection (it's not an iPhone), for reading and sending e-mail from my couch, and for a host of other Internet stuff that means my laptop isn't always on my lap.

Another cool element, and the feature that relates to my current research, is the plethora of fun little games for the Touch. There are oodles and oodles to chose from, and many are free (or free in exchange for advertising). So far, I've only installed a dozen or so, but most have proven enjoyable enough to play from time to time. Here's a listing of my favourites:

Flick Fishing
Fieldrunners
MonsterTN
SimCity
Crayon Ball
FlightCentral
Urinal Test (for its silly sense of humour)

I'm sure this list will grow.

What I find particularly interesting is that, at the same time that big games are getting bigger (improvements in graphics, increased resolutions, bigger screens, more use of surround sound), there's increased development of little games. Games are getting bigger and smaller at the same time. And its at the ends of the size spectrum where we see most technological development too. Higher resolution and brighter little screens with touch technology and bigger, brighter, sharper, faster big screens.

On the small side, we've learned that there's such thing as too small (cell phones are giving way to the larger screens of PDAs like the Blackberry and iPhone). And I'm sure we'll soon learn that there's too big (how big a screen do you need in your living room?). But for now, the big advancements are mainly in big and small screens. Perhaps the exception is the slow adoption of LED screens in laptops and some desktop monitors, but this development is (currently) slower than the very quick development and introduction of new technologies in small and big.

What becomes really interesting is the development of new interface design conventions as more people adopt big and small screens. Since games have been doing the big/small thing for a long time (big games being adapted to small devices like the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP), then maybe there's lots to learn from game interface design.

Speaking of which, this will occupy my time for the next five years or so as my research colleagues and I begin our research project called G-ScalE: Gaming Scalabilty Environment (funded by CFI).

First Impressions: Resistance 2 (PS3)

2009-06-03T22:43:00.001-04:00

So far, Resistance 2 (PS3) feels like a blending of Half-Life and Halo, minus the narrative. I guess R2 is meant to be Sony's answer to those genre-defining games, with the exception that R2 doesn't really add anything new to the mix ... at least, not yet. I'm only somewhere in chapter two or three, so I suppose there's a chance that something unique or new will present itself, but to this point, Resistance 2 is simply a good FPS and doesn't deserve the generally very high ratings it received from many reviewers. In fact, I'd have a hard time giving it much more than a B- at this point, but like any good professor, I'm always willing to wait to the end of the assignment to put the grade in ink.

The graphics are good, but not stellar. That said, the graphical style is quite nice. There are times when the world looks far too saturated, but so far that's consistent in every level and it helps to emphasize the dramatic nature of the game's universe. The audio is quite effective and often gets my heart pumping when beasts thump towards me with ground-shaking force. The music is highly cinematic, which is commonplace for this sort of game.

The level design is nothing to write home about. To this point, level navigation is simplistic. Follow the paths, roads, riverbeds, other players, etc., and you'll go where you need to go. There's very little need to explore en route to battle zones. I've only faced a three or four boss monsters, and so far they've been relatively easy to beat. The battles against several less powerful foes are much more intense, interesting and challenging. Weapons are placed strategically throughout, so you'll always have relatively easy access to the right one. Ammo, however, is sometimes in short supply and can mean replaying a fight a couple of times to perfect the one or two shots you have with the big guns against the big monsters.

Speaking of big, R2 is a big game built for big screens and big sound systems. Even though I resist turning down the volume in my office, I do so to keep my colleagues happy. But the sensational impact of the game is attenuated the lower the volume goes. My assumption is that a similar effect would happen if I played on a smaller screen (or the reverse if I played on a larger screen).

If I continue playing R2, I'll add more to this later. The problem is, though, that I got bored with the next level thinking, "Oh, not more of those monsters!"