Ted Howard

[I will use the term funware to distinguish the new genre of 'social games' from what could be called 'traditional games'. It’s not a well-defined term. It's just to make it easier to write this post.]

Awhile ago, there was a series of posts in the game industry blogosphere regarding “games people” and “web people”. I’m late to the game (yes, pun), but here’s some of my perspective on this. The following is full of obvious generalizations, but most discussion are. Take it all with a grain of salt, please.

I’ve worked at WildTangent on many 3D web games; at Microsoft on Forza Motorsport 2, Hexic 2, and more; and at Serious Business making funware. I’ve seen new IP, licensed big IP, casual & hardcore PC & console gaming, and social gaming (yes, funware). That should qualify me to have a well-rounded perspective on the topic of this post.

I think the most significant different between game and funware developers is the basic motivations that drive them to do what they do. My opinion is stated quite well by Adam Martin. Game developers work from an assumption that "If it’s not fun, it’s a failure." Funware developers "usually only really care that there is some activity going on, and that the users come back to do more of it."

Game developers want to entertain and evoke emotion. In the words of Jonathon Blow, "To touch people; to change their lives." ; "How do you make something that is… Important? Profound? Meaningful?" Game developers often argue that games should be considered art. Do funware developers argue the same? Game developers talk about what they can learn from the age-old occupation of storytelling and from the modern efforts of the film industry to be able to evoke human emotion. I don’t hear funware developers talk of pacing, archetypes, or cinematography.

Funware developers make websites that make use of some types of interactions that are also used in games. The mechanics are chosen not on the basis of an artistic vision but on the basis of whether it will drive higher virality or engagement, both of which are basically ways to say "traffic." Decisions are not made based on the desires of a visionary but on the desire to get more traffic. The end result may or may not be something that people would consider to be a game.

A parallel, that some may see as inflammatory, is that Microsoft delivers polished features to satisfy known customer demand based on customer research while Apple delivers the vision of a few designers. Microsoft meets with customers constantly, measures demand, and allocates resources to meet the future needs of customers (separate post on why consumers don’t think Microsoft cares about their needs). They do this throughout development and have private beta periods to optimize their feature planning. Apple seems to start with a vision from Steve Jobs or from a key designer. They develop a product based on the desires of that visionary designer. When everything is done, they have a press conference and the new product is available at stores.

Funware developers start with something, put it on a website, gather data, and change it to maximize profit. There is an idea of a final product to begin with, but that idea is then altered to fit the measured data to maximize traffic. Game developers most often start with a vision (ok, or licensed IP), spend millions of dollars over a few years creating a product that satisfies that vision, and then releases it to the marketplace. There is little chance of iteration with customers before the game is finalized.

The process followed by funware developers has the tendency to be a race to the bottom. If there are 3 people making "Vampire" games, then the one who abuses social networks the most by spamming others with invites and notifications will win. The "Vampires" application that behaves politely by asking the user for confirmation before sending such spam will languish with far less traffic. In such a competition, you must optimize for traffic to survive. I like Andrew Chen’s phrase for this: "The more simple, stupid, and widely used something is, the better!"

Raph Koster says that the two industries will combine. I do believe that there will be some amount of convergence between the two, especially as the cross-pollination of employees continues.

I am less confident of a full convergence because I see the differences between the two to be deep. I think it is difficult to avoid optimizing for profit instead of for art/fun/vision with a product that derives its revenue largely from traffic and that has also the opportunity for fast iteration based on live user feedback. This combination of feedback does not necessarily lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ in search of more traffic, and there are many examples of it not leading to that. I do fear that it has a strong tendency to do so.

Regardless of any of my pessimism, as Raph says, "In the end, you have to hybridize if you are going to push at the boundaries."