Time flies when you have too much to do.

June was a busy month, both personally and professionally (although sometimes it seems difficult to distinguish one from the other). My calendar is covered in all sorts of red marks noting events that occurred throughout the month.

On the professional side, the month started out with an IGDA meeting on Sunday, June 5th. Despite the calendar (meeting at MSU, out of session), the turnout was excellent. Patrick Shaw, formerly of Maxis (Electronic Arts), gave an excellent presentation on a game production technique based on “squads”, rather than the more traditional command hierarchy. Valeta Wensloff gave an introduction to Thief 2X, a fan-based update to the popular Thief 2 from the now-defunct Looking Glass Studios. The most amazing fact about this product is that Valeta and the others on the team managed to complete the free project over the course of years, with no compensation, while working remotely. This is the exception that proves the rule.

At the start of the meeting, I was introduced to Andy Nwoye and his colleague Jillian Caywood. Andy arranged for them to interview me for a documentary that they are creating, tentatively titled, “Beyond Games“. The film is about people who so enjoyed video games that they (we) turned it into a career. They interviewed me at my home office on Friday, June 17th, which was a very interesting experience. We discussed my career, several of our games, and issues affecting independent game developers. Afterwards, I played Midtown Madness 3 with my son for “B-roll” footage, in addition to some shots of my 1973 Williams Fun-Fest pinball machine that resides in my office. More information about the project is available in their production diary.

The following week I had a meeting with Ward Makielski from Ferris State University, Grand Rapids about their game development curriculum. As it turns out, we both worked on Legacy of the Ancients, albeit not together (different time, different SKUs), back in the late 80s. He went into education, while I continued to work in the game industry. FSU Grand Rapids is on the forefront of the movement for local colleges and universities to provide skills to students who want to pursue a career in games or related multimedia arts.

Back in the present, this week I travel to Denver, Colorado for the Shareware Industry Conference. Unfortunately, this means that I will be out of town for Lansing’s Common Ground Festival, which features a full week of popular bands on a couple of main stages, and we usually go to them all. This year, I have to miss them all. Tonight, I will be missing Journey (although I saw them at Common Ground previously).

The game and multimedia industry is alive and well in Michigan.

On Tuesday night, I attended a joint meeting of SEMAFX and the local IGDA chapter. SEMAFX is the local chapter of ACM/SIGGRAPH, and the acronym stands for (the cumbersome) Southeast Michigan Animation and Special Effects User Group. IGDA is the International Game Developers Association, and ours is the Michigan South chapter. We were hosted by Schoolcraft College, which offers Associate Degrees (and Post-Associate Certificates) in Computer Graphics Technology, as well as many other programs.

Despite being held for two hours on a weeknight, the turnout for this event was fairly impressive. I counted over 60 attendees before the lights went down. There was interesting content for the solid two hours, with minimal organizational pitch.

A professor from Schoolcraft College described their program briefly, and then he gave an interesting presentation showing how he wrote a simple catapult game in flash with only two explicit variables. The game is used by The Learning Channel in conjunction with their Roman Catapult feature, and apparently the actual name of the game is Play the Flippin’ Game.

A group of students from Lawrence Technological University in Southfield (Detroit area) showed off a game project, named “Larry Kart“, which they completed during a school year in which they also managed to graduate. They gave themselves the name Gym Class, an inside joke regarding the lack of such at Lawrence Tech, and the site also reads Rut Row Studios.

A Canadian animator showed an impressively rendered video for a game mod project as a prelude to displaying his own animations using characters, from existing 3D models, entering and exiting various vehicles at speed and at rest, as well as scaling a wall. It was impressive to know that these animations were not done with motion capture, and more so because the compact cockpit of one vehicle combined with the chest measurements of the female character left precious little maneuvering room.

Another Canadian from just across the river in Ontario gave a quick overview of flash game development, cramming lots of information into a reasonably short period of time. This skill must be a necessity when he teaches groups of 15-20 youngsters (ages 9-15) the basics of game development in only five days. This is done as a summer program given in association with the University of Windsor.

In addition to all of the schools mentioned above, there are also thriving programs being taught at Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and Ferris State University, as well as opportunities at other educational institutions and community colleges around the state. The field of games and interactive media is really growing in this area and it bodes very well for the future.

After the official meeting, which was just the presentations, the real business started in what SEMAFX calls the “afterglow” party. Everybody involved retires to a restaurant/bar to schmooze and network. We had game designers, programmers, graphic artists, musicians, and other interested parties discussing all manner of topics, all in a spirit of cooperation between the groups.

The next meeting for the Michigan South chapter of the IGDA is scheduled for June 5th in East Lansing, and the next SEMAFX meeting is scheduled for June 14th in Berkley (Michigan). Both should prove to be informative and entertaining, and one does not need to be a member to attend.

Three products on which I have worked garnered SIA 2005 nominations.

Each year, the Shareware Industry Awards Foundation (SIAF) presents awards to “honor some of the best software available that uses the shareware model of marketing”. These are the most prestigious awards in the industry, as products are nominated and recognized for the award by other shareware professionals. A parallel set of awards, the SIAF People’s Choice Awards, are voted on by the general public (i.e., our users). All of these will be presented at the awards banquet during the Shareware Industry Conference (SIC 2005) this July in Denver.

Action Solitaire was one of four products nominated in the ‘Best Action/Arcade Game‘ category. I did all of the coding and much of the design for this product, which was first released in 2003. We released a significant update, Action Solitaire 1.1, back in April, to add 18 new games to the product (for a total of 52).

Pretty Good Solitaire was one of four products nominated in the ‘Best Non-Action Game‘ category. This is its third nomination in a row, and in previous incarnations, has won the award in 1999 and 2001. Since its last victory, I programmed the library that now does all of the card drawing and animation, including the ability to load custom card sets and backs and to resize cards. The latest version, Pretty Good Solitaire 10.2, contains 610 different types of solitaire and was released in February of this year.

SnagIt was one of three products nominated in the ‘Best Graphics Program or Utility‘ category. This nomination is a testament to the longevity of this product, developed and published by TechSmith, a local company. Although I claim little responsibility for its success, I did program version 2.1 when I worked for them briefly way back in 1992-93. The current version, SnagIt 7.2, is also a PC Magazine Editors’ Choice winner.

Click here to see the complete list of SIA nominees for 2005.

As they say, it is an honor just to be nominated. However, we would really like to win, too, so I would certainly appreciate your votes. (I still think that Pretty Good MahJongg would make an excellent People’s Choice selection.)

The Southeast Michigan chapter of the IGDA just released the following memo:

Local Game Developers Protest New Legislation

Game developers in Southeast Michigan are voicing their complaints over some new legislation making the rounds in the state senate. Bills sponsored by Senators Hansen Clarke and Alan Cropsey prepare the state to take a much firmer stance on the sale of video games to young people. A number of hearings regarding these bills will be held this month to discuss them further. The next one is scheduled for May 6 at the Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, from 6:00pm to 8:00pm, where representatives from local and national game developers are expected to testify against this pending legislation.

Specifically, the bills criminalize the sale of games rated ‘M’ for mature by the Entertainment Software Rating Board to anybody under the age of 17. Under one of the proposed amendments to the Michigan penal code, any individual who is found selling one of these games can be put in jail for up to a year and even fined up to $5,000. The idea behind these bills is that they are designed to protect our youth from “those who poison the minds of our young people,” Governor Jennifer Granholm said.

But Michigan’s local game development community contends that the proposed legislation is flawed on a number of levels.

“The bill indicts the game development industry on the whole,” said Cristopher Boyer, CEO of local video game publisher Variant Interactive, Co.

“When compared to other entertainment mediums which produce similar products, game developers are considered to be these villainous deviants with no moral compass,” Boyer said.

Currently, there is no law or legislation regulating the sale of movies, music or books containing questionable content.

The bills would also put unnecessary burdens on independent software developers, who would have to spend thousands of dollars more to have their game rated when they are only distributing their game on the Internet to credit card-bearing consumers.

“For independent developers, the cost of having your game reviewed could be more than what it costs to make the whole game,” said Gregg Seelhoff, Technical Director at Sophsoft, Inc. — a game development company in Michigan who makes solitaire games to sell on the Internet.

“It could put some people out of business,” Seelhoff said.

Local developers are also apprehensive of the bills when it comes to the growth of the industry, especially in Michigan. There is growing concern that such an attitude by the state’s legislators would create an inhospitable environment for game developers, making it harder to bring more members of the industry to the state. And as an industry that boasts domestic revenues of more than $7 billion per year and growing, local enthusiasts believe that it’s an industry Michigan can not afford to ignore.

“Rather than spending time trying to figure out how to censor games and put our young retail workers behind bars, I think it would be more appropriate for our State government to focus on generating new high-tech jobs by attracting the industry into the State,” said Brian Winn, a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University, and one of the coordinators of Southeastern Michigan chapter of the International Game Developers Association.

“I think its just another example of the politicians being out of touch with younger and college aged kids,” said Jay Semerad, another coordinator of the local chapter of the IGDA and founder of Red Leader Audio, a music composition studio based out of Ann Arbor, focusing on the game industry. He, like many others, believe that the state’s reluctance to better involve themselves with the game industry will cost them more than just economically.

“Why are they surprised when the kids want to get out of Michigan after graduation?” Semerad said.

# # #

Note that this is not an official press release, as our chapter cannot fully represent the whole organization nor the entirety of its position. However, this statement does not conflict with the IGDA position, and it properly represents the stand of the chapter leadership.

Goodsol Development released Pretty Good MahJongg 2.2 today.

This version of Pretty Good MahJongg adds 40 new tile matching layouts, bringing the total to 215 layouts (including a dozen large layouts that use more than one set of tiles) and 55 solitaire games. As the programmer, I did not have much to add for this version, but there were a few changes not mentioned on the ‘What’s New in Pretty Good MahJongg‘ page.

Basically, all of the programming changes were minor tweaks that make the game easier to use and more enjoyable to play. For example, in several of the solitaire games, we changed the quick move (hint) feature that is invoked by right-clicking on a tile. Now, these rotate through all available moves, rather than just selecting the first legal move discovered. We also disable the AutoPlay when the [Ctrl] key is depressed, since it is occasionally beneficial to suspend this feature temporarily. With so many tile matching layouts, we decided to sort the games on the ‘Favorites’ tab (in options) alphabetically, instead of using the natural order, to make games easier to add and remove.

The best feature, as far as I am concerned, was the elimination of the “sudden death” rule from the Great Wall game and its variants: Hard Wall, Easy Wall, Waterfall, Cumberland, and Wall Pairs. These games are based on the Same Game, and in the new version, if a player gets into a position where there is only a single tile of one type, instead of getting an immediate loss, the ‘stuck’ dialog appears (sans ‘Shuffle’ option), allowing one to back out and try to find a correct solution. Also by player request, we added an option to Pelmanism and its variants to disable a confirmation click after each guess, making the game play more quickly.

This version is a free update for all registered users of Pretty Good MahJongg (including 1.0), and there is, of course, a free 30-day trial version available for everybody else. The one characteristic that this version shares with all previous versions is that it remains the only game that I have developed which did not require me to take a break after shipping. I continue to enjoy playing this game (almost daily).

Goodsol Development released Action Solitaire 1.1 yesterday.

We are the developers of Action Solitaire, and more to the point, I am the sole programmer on the project. This new version is, ostensibly, just an update that adds 18 new games, for a total of 52 (a very nice number for card games). There are no changes to the artwork or major functionality within the game, and the only marketing change was actually the removal of an ineffective dialog. This is a free upgrade for all licensed users of Action Solitaire, so even the registration information did not have to change.

Internally, however, this was a major update which actually resulted in rewriting the 34 previous games to use more common code and less custom code for each game. This took a relatively long time to accomplish, compared to just starting to add games in the previously established way, and also added an element of risk, honestly. The payoff once finished, on the other hand, was the ability to add new games quickly. The resulting game code was also easier to understand and much smaller. The entire code base (excluding resources) was reduced by more than 20%, from 1.34M down to 1.05M, despite adding many new games.

The flip side of design and development is game balancing and testing, and in a game like Action Solitaire, this is a significant endeavor. Now that we can quickly add new games, we have to be able to balance them for greater enjoyment. Unlike a casual game such as Pretty Good Solitaire, where one plays each deal individually, Action Solitaire combines the results of multiple rounds, with both timing and scoring being factors in the final score. This means that games must be played to conclusion to determine the difficulty level and make balance adjustments.

For this version, we used a target of 15-20 rounds as an intended length of game for an accomplished player, so with a (roughly) average round time of 2-3 minutes, one could easily spend an hour on a single game. This is a decent playing time for a user, especially since the game design allows/encourages a break between rounds. However, when developing the product in a small team, it can prove rather inefficient. It only takes a few extra attempts at balancing the game before the testing time has exceeded development time, and this is before it ever leaves our studio en route to the beta testers. (The game actually includes code to support 78 games, but 26 variants are not displayed, at least partially for this reason.)

Now that this project has been redesigned internally, the individual game source code is more flexible for use in other ways, just as the interface code portion (not redesigned) is mostly shared with Pretty Good MahJongg. Speaking of Pretty Good MahJongg, one can expect another update of that successful product reasonably soon as well. We are definitely keeping busy.

On Saturday, I went to see Game On: The History, Culture and Future of Video Games.

Game On is a temporary exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and as the name indicates, it is all about video games. The exhibit consists of 16 “levels”, each of which explores a different area of the topic, starting with Level 1: Early Games, which covers the history of the invention of video games. Each level is “hands on“, with games that can be played and experienced, in addition to various placards that give more static information.

The approach of Game On is interesting, in that a ticket to this exhibit gets one in at a specific time, but then one can stay as long as desired. I went early to be sure to have enough time to see and read everything and to still be able to play games that were interesting. As it turns out, most of the patrons were there for the latter aspect only. Despite a courtesy request to limit time on any game to five minutes, it was probably worth it for access to such a variety of games (and systems) for less than the cost of renting a single game for a week.

As an experienced game developer, I found that there was very little to Game On that was actually new information for me. The most relevant area was Level 4: Making Of, which had some interesting behind the scenes information such as concept sketches and storyboards. There was a video showing the progression of golfer animations in Golden Tee, from hand drawn through video rotoscoping to fully rendered 3D and motion capture. Also, the original concept/design document for Tomb Raider showed that our own documents for new projects are of very similar scope and level of detail.

On the other hand, as a player who literally grew up with video games, this exhibit was an excellent nostalgia trip. I remember playing Pong when it was brand new, and I proved that I still had the skills, beating my son (age 16) by a score of 11-2 in a shortened game. However, I could not recall the earlier, and less successful, Computer Space; alas, the two cabinets were for display only, and were not turned on. Unfortunately, there were some gaps in the history, skipping directly from Pong (1972) to Space Invaders (1978), and then to Pac Man (1981). It seems that Breakout and the other early digital games were a significant omission.

In the end, I actually played very few of the games, but I was there for a couple of hours just reading and perusing. The only portion of the exhibit to which I had a direct connection was at the very end, where some different technology was shown. Neither of the VR headsets that I worked on were there (only the one from the Atari Jaguar), but there was an old Nintendo PowerGlove on display. I had written drivers for the PC PowerGlove, as well as some that worked with the PC conversion box for the original glove. How that project turned out (or not) is the subject of a future posting.

After leaving Game On, I visited some of the other exhibits around the museum. Of the newer exhibits that I had never seen before, ToyMaker 3000 was particularly noteworthy. Although I did not take enough time to fully explore this exhibit, it was actually very relevant to game development. The automated manufacturing area was interesting, but the other (less traveled) portion dealt with planning the entire development of a product (using toy balls as a model), from initial idea through market research, sales and marketing, accounting, and even quality assurance. The complete project flow chart on one wall was magnificent, and if it were available in poster form, I would have purchased a copy on the spot.

Ultimately, the journey to Game On and the Museum of Science and Industry was worthwhile. Chicago is only a 3.5 hour drive from here, and admission prices were very reasonable. On the other hand, if I were to have flown in from elsewhere just for the exhibit, I would probably have been somewhat disappointed. However, a trip downtown to the original Pizzeria Uno for real Chicago deep-dish pizza is a recommended treat (even though parking costs nearly as much as the food).

Unfortunately, this is not an April Fools Joke.

As mentioned in my previous entry, Governor Jennifer Granholm recently held a press conference to support a bill introduced in the Michigan Senate to restrict video game sales to minors. While the sentiment is worthy, the proposed legislation is abhorrent, as is the characterization of game developers as “those who would poison the minds of our young people” (as reported by Gamasutra).

The bill in question is Senate Bill 0249 (SB249), introduced by Hansen Clarke (et al) on February 24, notably without any known consultation with the existing game industry in Michigan. It is actually quite brief, amending the Michigan penal code by adding a section to Chapter XX (Children) as follows:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 143A.
(1) A PERSON SHALL NOT SELL OR RENT A RESTRICTED VIDEO GAME TO A PERSON WHO IS LESS THAN 17 YEARS OF AGE. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “RESTRICTED VIDEO GAME” MEANS A VIDEO GAME RATED AO (ADULTS ONLY) OR M (MATURE) BY THE ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATING BOARD.
(2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 1 YEAR OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00, OR BOTH.

I have neither the time nor the finger strength to detail all of the problems with this legislation in a single post, but I will make just a few quick points.

The first part of the bill specifies that a “restricted video game” is determined by a rating given by the ESRB, which is a private enterprise that (appropriately) charges publishers to rate video games. As currently written, a game developer could write and sell the most vile, disgusting title ever seen and as long as the publisher does not spend the money to have the game rated, it is legal to sell to minors. (I almost said “perfectly legal”, but a game that goes too far could potentially be subject to less specific morality laws.)

The logical conclusion is that there would be an attempt, either in debate or in future legislation, to close this loophole, which could really only be done by mandating game ratings. First Amendment concerns aside, this would require all game developers to spend significant money to have their games rated, which would put an unfair burden on independent developers yet have no noticeable impact on those publishers at which this legislation is directed.

The second part of the bill sets the penalties to be imposed on the “criminals” who would violate the law. It also transfers parental responsibility from those individuals who have the duty to monitor what their children play onto the primarily young people who work the registers at retail and rental stores.

It is important to note that the MPAA ratings used for movies in the United States is a voluntary system which works well, and there are no legal age restrictions on movies in Michigan. In other words (to put things into perspective), a theater operator who allows a seven-year-old child into a violent R-rated movie like Natural Born Killers or Kill Bill is not guilty of any crime, but a college student working at a store could be sent to jail for a year for renting Halo 2 to a 16-year-old.

To be clear, voluntary game ratings, as the ESRB and others are intended to work, are a good thing. They give responsible parents the information they need to begin to monitor the games their children play. However, they are supposed to be a tool, not a crutch. Attempts to legally restrict game sales, no matter how well-intentioned, are a bad idea.

Instead of faulty legislation, our government should be encouraging retailers and rental companies to impose or maintain policies based on voluntary game ratings. Better still, they should be encouraging parents to become more involved with their children, rather than just unfairly presenting video games as a scapegoat for all of society’s ills.

Despite the advance of technology that makes our world seem smaller, it is still important to take action locally.

On Sunday, March 20th, I had the privilege of addressing the Southern Michigan Chapter of the IGDA (International Game Developers Association) on the topic of independent game development and shareware marketing. I spoke about the differences between the retail and online software channels, and I also presented some information about the ASP Indie Games SIG. (A brief summary of the meeting is at http://www.igda.org/smichigan/Reports/Mar05/index.html.)

My talk followed a review of the 2005 Game Developers Conference, so it was almost a rebuttal of certain points of the GDC. Specifically, there was a call for a different distribution channel for games, without any recognition by the “mainstream” game industry that there already is a well-established online channel for software distribution. I started my speech by reading the absurd claims by one “expert” that such a channel did not exist before 5 years ago. Recommended reading on the topic is Thomas Warfield’s A Shareware Life, and specifically “Comedy at the Game Developers Conference“.

I presented a handout that showed highlights from a member survey conducted by the Association of Shareware Professionals. I drew attention to the fact that, of those who responded, more than 30% made almost all of their income from shareware (question #3), more than a quarter made $50K or more per year on shareware alone (question #4), and that 9 out of 10 had four or fewer people (question #6). Given that the poll also suggests that a large number of respondents were just getting started, these are fairly impressive numbers.

After the introduction and brief discussion of the survey results, I went into a laundry list of differences between retail and shareware game channels, having experience with both. I broke the list into the differences as experienced in development, publishing, distribution (and retailing), and by the consumer. I tried to balance the discussion, which generally comes down to creative control, quality of life, and a larger share of profits (with shareware) versus more funding, larger number of units sold, and greater recognition (in retail).

Before the end of the meeting, the chapter discussed its plans for promoting game development within the State of Michigan. Unfortunately, as if to make such a prospect much harder, our Governor, Jennifer Granholm, happened to make a public statement the following week in favor of recently introduced legislation that is opposed by the IGDA (a position that I strongly support). If nothing else, these events have really energized the chapter to get involved in advocacy for the local game industry, so we will be taking some steps toward that goal in the very near future.

In the context of content delivery, information can be communicated via either “push mode” or “pull mode”.

Push mode is when the publisher “pushes” the information directly to the consumer, and includes such methods as newsletters and direct mail. The publisher controls the content and the timing of the message, and conversely, the consumer has little or no control. It is convenient for the publisher, and it is also convenient for the consumer IF the information is desired. However, it is often inconvenient or, in many cases, downright annoying (“junk”).

Pull mode is when the publisher makes information available to the consumer, who then “pulls” the information from a known resource. This method includes web sites and newsgroups, as well as more traditional media such as print periodicals. It is convenient for the consumer, who controls when to obtain the information and, to a greater extent, which information to obtain or ignore. While publishing is just as easy, it is more difficult for a publisher to get and keep the attention of the consumer.

Both push and pull modes, using the above context, refer to information flowing from publisher to consumer, either the former doing the pushing or the latter doing the pulling. This is a convenient distinction to make when discussing a single service or protocol, but it does not apply so easily to the evolving concept of online communities. In this context, participants are (or at least can be) both publisher and consumer, which is a much more natural social structure. It is “give and take” instead of “master and pupil”.

Looking at this from the perspective of an individual in a community setting, it makes more sense to redefine “pushing” as providing information (i.e., publishing) and “pulling” as consuming information. Except when in a dialogue (or monologue), one is outnumbered. In other words, there are always more people pushing information than the single individual trying to assimilate all the data, which leads to the possibility of information overload.

In just over a decade of using the Internet and the prior decade using BBS forums, plus traditional research and learning throughout my life, I have realized that I have more ideas and plans than anyone could complete in a lifetime, yet I continue to spend valuable time on “pull” activities that are progressively less effective. Most of what I read online, after filtering/ignoring the junk, is information I already have but, ironically, have not found time to properly utilize. More and more, I find the benefits of such activities to be either inspiration to actually do something or just the hope of finding that diamond in the rough.

As an attempt to find a solution to this problem, I am embarking on an experiment with my own version of push mode. For the next six weeks, I will forego all general data research activities in favor of publishing more of my own work, plus utilizing information and implementing ideas I already have. I will still participate in forums where I have an integral role (such as the Action Solitaire beta forum) and in email dialogues, but I am going to greatly reduce the incoming flow of non-specific information. My goal is more tangible results and fewer unrealized ideas.

We shall see…