admin

Dec 102009
 

I mentioned it in my dissertation. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Smarter folks than I say it all the time. That great idea you have? Your obsession with secrecy? Yeah… It’s not that cool really. Your idea might become cool. But that will be pretty close to the time you release it. It is going to undergo so many changes and interesting twists and turns as you go about making it that being all Black-Ops about it right now is just annoying. Game developers, and I include myself here (academics are bad about this too, by the way, so my ire is aimed your way too…), we have got to stop being such doofs about this. Seriously. Your XML parser? Not that freaking cool. That super duper new game mechanic? Yeah, jumping was pretty ground breaking too. My dog jumps. Up high. Seriously, like as high as my head. It’s not a secret, but it was pretty awesome when Super Mario Bros. came out. But it wasn’t cool until it played. Jumping isn’t really a secret. Nor is ducking, but it was likely covered under the NDAs surrounding Gears of War. Kudzu isn’t a secret either. I drive by it all the time here in Georgia.

So to prove the point, I had two really cool (I thought) ideas the other night at the local game developer meeting here in Athens. I talked about two game mechanics, one in search of a game, and another in search of some implementation. So here we go. I don’t care if you “steal” them. By the time you finish it, it wouldn’t really be my idea any more would it?

  1. I randomly hear this song the other day. The way the music layers on top of itself is really interesting. It made me want to design a game around the idea that one could add/remove layers of music as you play. My initial idea would be that levels would be designed in such a way that you were forced (to “beat” a level) to build up to the crescendo. I wasn’t sure what the game would look like, but it captured my brain for a good three days. Take that book proposal.
  2. The second idea, linked to this was a game based around fireworks. Spiral fireworks. The idea would be that you are a spark lighting firework pinwheels. As the pinwheel gets going, layers of music are added. Finish when it goes off. Take too long and parts go out.

The moral of the story? Just chatting with that group of developers resulted in at least four other ideas of games that could plug into the overarching concept of layered music. For me to really think that these ideas are so fundamentally ground breaking is kind of egotistical. I’m sure numerous others have thought of them. In some ways its derivative right? Guitar Hero / Rock Band do this to some degree by cutting out tracks when a player goofs up. Sure I’m building on it, but it surely in conversation with those games and ideas. It is even linked to Peter and the Wolf if you think about it. But right now its an idea. By the time I make anything it will be different.

Defy the cult(ure) of secrecy.

Dec 102009
 

Anyone familiar with me, or my work, knows that I spend far too much time looking at the patents that come out of videogame companies. Why? Because they’re interesting and they index what these companies really value as innovative. It is also often the only real information available about how their devices function, at least that aren’t covered by non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Since game industry ethnography often involves the researcher (me) being covered by NDA, I am constantly looking for public information that can triangulate and corroborate the observations made in the corporate setting. Thus, patents and SEC filings tend to be critically important resources.

But all of that is really beside the point. I was recently reading an interview between Iwata and Miyamoto where the topic of patenting “jumping” as a game mechanic was raised. I have of course discussed this with my students on numerous occasions, but this offhand comment brought that particular rant back to the foreground in my mind. What if Nintendo had patented jumping? Boxes that contained power-ups? Levels hid within levels (“pipes”)? Side-scrolling gameplay? So, certainly there is “prior art” in many cases here, but would the patent office have been smart enough to notice that? I don’t really want to enter into the software patent debate at the moment, what interests me here are the implications widespread game mechanic patenting could have on the game industry and the indie game development scene in particular.

Imagine a game industry where mechanic patenting was widespread. First person shooters? Third-person perspective exploration? 2D Puzzle? At what point would the pain stop? Certainly it might encourage innovation in game mechanics, but at what point is something so trivial or so fundamental that it is unacceptable for it to be patented? Would the patent office be familiar enough with game development to identify and deny applications for those mechanics?

One idea I’ve been considering is a Public Game Mechanic Patent non-profit organization, with the goal of funding new and innovative game mechanics. This organization could provide grants to developers that submit proposals for investigating new mechanics who then help patent them and assign ownership to the non-profit. This company licenses mechanics to major game studios to provide funds to continue the grant giving process. Perhaps not ideal, but placing the emphasis on enabling developers to protect a collective intellectual space is truly important. How best to do it while encouraging new development? That seems to be the key challenge.

Dec 012009
 
blog (feed #1)
twitter (feed #3)
Returning to old interview transcripts… Delightful. [caseyodonnell]
twitter (feed #3)
Haven’t you always wanted to be a monkey? http://bit.ly/Uh8Zl [caseyodonnell]
googlereader (feed #2)
Shared 2 links.
twitter (feed #3)
What is wrong with me? Can’t… stop… listening… http://bit.ly/6I2kRj [caseyodonnell]
blog (feed #1)
twitter (feed #3)
Waiting on "the Aleatory." [caseyodonnell]
twitter (feed #3)
To person with "NOPRIM8" license plate, anti-Darwin sticker, and Support Autism Research sticker: Science Understanding FAIL. [caseyodonnell]
Nov 292009
 

Early last year, after I learned my wife was pregnant, I sat down and did a great deal of planning for how to organize the next year of work – conferences, essays, course development, etc – in order to figure out how to best balance work and family. Of course I’m sure that my best-laid-plans will be laid to waste by, “the Aleatory,” a phrase stolen from Mike Fortun.

One of the conferences that didn’t make the “last conference until post-baby will be prior to the start of November,” promise was the Digital Labor conference at the New School in NYC. Nick Montfort has a nice write-up, though.

I am also happy to see that other academics are beginning to take seriously the performative aspect of presentation. So props to Hector on his “stunt,” a title I wont give the staging and instead call it simply, “academic performativity.”

I’ve had a great deal of success taking the performative seriously lately with my talks. My recent 4S talk in particular, which spoke to many of the themes discussed at the D.L. conference. It was presented using a Nintendo DS Emulator running a program developed using DS Homebrew tools (a DS running the software on an R4 cartridge also was available for a “play along at home” version as well), was very successful. That talk, which examined the relationship between “software/firmware” and the ability for hardware/technologies to now participate in hegemonic discourse was recieved well. Too often when we talk about “hegemony” as academics, we fall into a tired-and true diatribe about static domination. For me it has more to do with “ruling relations” as Dorothy Smith calls it or Omi and Winant would talk about hegemonic projects. Ultimately it about negotiated dominations. The empirical aspect of the talk dealt with groups of DS homebrewers, and thus the materiality of the talk dovetailed well with the material it examined.

What Nick indexes as the “oooh, shiny!” syndrome is something I’ve written and thought a great deal about in the context of the game industry as well, as it seems to be a major factor between any kind of organizing within that field, well, that and a rampant vein of Libertarianism.

Sad to miss this particular gathering, but happy to hear that it seems to have been successful.

Digital Labor, NYC, Nov 12-14

At conferences on digital media, there are too few critical perspectives about large-scale hegemonic systems that are increasingly coming to define the computer and Internet experience. At some events, people exhibit general awareness of the complexities and problems that such systems pose, but they still turn and say oooh, shiny! when presented with Google Wave.


Scholz will run two more conferences on related topics. This conference on digital labor was a great start, advancing the discussion of how we work and play online and of how we can thoughtfully approach technologies that have been made to generate profits in a certain way, even if we want to use these technologies for political, aesthetic, or other purposes. I hope that this conference’s critical approach to digital systems and online communication will be carried over into other digital media contexts, which desperately need this perspective.

Nov 242009
 
blog (feed #1)
googlereader (feed #2)
twitter (feed #3)
Students have thrown a baby shower. http://pic.gd/fdbc0f [caseyodonnell]
googlereader (feed #2)
Shared 2 links.
googlereader (feed #2)
twitter (feed #3)
Disconcerted by opening dictionary app this morning to find "apocalypse" waiting for me. Not sure what I was working on… scared of self… [caseyodonnell]
blog (feed #1)
googlereader (feed #2)
googlereader (feed #2)
googlereader (feed #2)
Shared 3 links.
Nov 192009
 

I have an essay up over on the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing titled, “Production Protection to Copy(right) Protection: From the 10NES to DVDs” talking about how many copy protection schemes also have roots in controlling the ability create content. Simply put, copy protection retains an inherent interest in also controlling the means of production, which makes it particularly troublesome when you start talking about first amendment rights. Here is the abstract:

Much of what modern digital rights management (DRM) systems attempt to accomplish was actually forcefully implemented on videogame consoles beginning with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and SEGA Genesis system in the early 1980s. Examining the links between modern DRM mechanisms and these early production and copy protection systems can help contextualize the future of media production and access.

Nov 172009
 
googlereader (feed #2)
googlereader (feed #2)
Shared 3 links.
blog (feed #1)
twitter (feed #3)
Irony: ICE must use old PS3 instead of new for password cracking. No Linux on the new, maybe they should MOD chip them: http://bit.ly/47MhiL [caseyodonnell]
blog (feed #1)
blog (feed #1)
 Posted by at 5:12 am
Nov 162009
 

Saw this post about ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) use of PS3s for the cracking of child pornographer’s passwords. I’m not even going to get into the debate surrounding that, because it isn’t really what I’m interested in here. What I am interested in is that ICE is using PS3s for this job. However, they’ll have to use the OLD PS3s for this job rather than the newest ones. Why? Because the new PS3s wont run Linux, which is what they’re running on these boxes to run their software.

But, I have to wonder what happens when ICE wants to add some new hardware, which they mention they want to do, and they realize the latest PS3s cannot have Linux installed? Will they go to Ebay and buy old PS3s? Will they get some special firware update from Sony (this is what I actually suspect) that re-enables the installation of Linux? Will they crack the devices like I’ve cracked my Wii and DS in order to homebrew for them? Unlikely, but I’d love to see them forced to resort to the mechanisms that us normal people have to to enable the functionality that should be built into our devices.

Or will they begin to realize that some of this is just double standards being placed on citizens versus corporations and government officials. Had some very disturbing conversations a couple of weeks ago in Washington D.C. with several people who said that my concern over things like the DMCA, copyright, encryption, and patents are nothing compared with the wide sweeping citizen-porking changes made in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was made significantly worse with the US PATRIOT Act. Which, by the way seriously needs to have its name changed to the US FASCIST Act.

But, ICE will never ever have to face the cold hard reality that the rest of us hacker geeks face all the time. But they should. And the irony will likely be lost on all but those being jacked by the changes, me for one.

Nov 162009
 

Wait… What?

It’s how people (“hackers”) talk when they don’t want to be overheard? You mean like unencrypted straight text? Yeah, I mean, um… No. Just no. And 733t on IRC would likely get you banned. Ugh. Stupid television I’m glad I don’t have you.