I’ve been sitting on this material for a while. Many of my informants would recognize it as coming from back in 2006 when I was passing the PDFs around Vicarious Visions. Starting in 2008, the essay has been reviewed well and reviewed poorly and still not accepted. One interesting thing has been that despite good reviews it has even been rejected, told to go to something more “New Media” or “Game Studies.” So while I’ll continue to push its publication through, the empirical material is simply too interesting to keep closed off from view as I await further feedback. Thus, some excerpts from an as-of-yet unpublished manuscript, “Whither Mario Factory?” after the break.
Its not that I don’t code any more… I do… Just not so profusely.
But it is strange when code that you wrote a long time ago continues to live on and run a life of its own. wxCURL is precisely one of those projects. The project started back in 2004 (and if the file’s time stamp is to be believed 09/18/2004 to be exact) because as much as I loved wxWidgets, its networking layer left a good deal to be desired, especially with respect to retrieving web content. At the time libCURL was by far the best (and fastest) URL retrieval library that also supported all the platforms I was developing for using wxWidgets.
The application was wxSync, which I wanted to support the WebDAV protocol. [I think I was also monitoring the “up and down” of sites like Penny-Arcade, which back then wasn’t as stable or well known…] Thus wxCURL was born. In 2007 I transitioned wxCURL from Sourceforge all alone to part of the wxCode-wxCURL project, in part because I was in graduate school and couldn’t devote the time to its maintenance.
Its funny. I have no idea how many projects have used wxCURL, but I suspect that it is more than I know. At least four to five times a year I am asked for “releases” from folks unable or unfamiliar with retrieving code from SVN or CVS, but today, that all ends. Along with the help of Francesco Montorsi (the current maintainer of the project) wxCURL reached version 1.0 today. So, happy first birthday wxCURL. Not too shabby for a side project of a side project. Much like wxMD5, which also lives on somewhere… In the words of the announcement:
Description:
wxCURL is a simplified and integrated interface between LibCURL and wxWidgets.As libCURL authors state, “libcurl is free, thread-safe, IPv6 compatible, feature rich, well supported, fast, thoroughly documented and is already used by many known, big and successful companies and numerous applications.”
wxCURL provides several sub-classes for simplified interfaces to HTTP, WebDAV, FTP and Telnet based resources, threads specialized for non-blocking downloads/uploads, stock download and upload dialogs.
ChangeLog
———1.0
– first release of wxCurl since it was moved to wxCode
– new bakefile-based build system which supports all possible wxWidgets build modes and allows an easy-build of libCURL also on Windows keeping a copy in thirdparty\libcurl
– removed #pragma interface for GCC which are not used anymore
– revised the code to make it compile against wxWidgets 2.9
– now EVT_CURL_* macros also take an ID which allows the same event handler to process events coming from different wxCurlBase sessions
– now wxCurlBase do not use anymore a boolean parameter to register if progress/begin/end events should be sent but rather the wxCURL_SEND_PROGRESS/BEGIN/ END_EVENTS symbols which allow users to write more readable code
– doxyfied the documentation of wxCURL
– splitted wxCurlProgressEvent into wxCurlDownloadEvent and wxCurlUploadEvent classes and added more getters GUI-oriented (e.g. GetHumanReadableSpeed, GetEstimatedTime, etc)
– added a wxCurlDownloadThread and a wxCurlUploadThread to ease non-blocking downloads/uploads
– added a wxCurlSizeQueryThread to query file sizes before downloading them
– added a wxCurlDownloadDialog and wxCurlUploadDialog for easier downloading/uploading
– added a wxCurlConnectionSettings[Panel|Dialog] to present stock connection options to the user
I read this a while back. The essay, which looks at how geek/nerd culture may discourage women from studying computer science troubled me. It troubled me because much of geek/nerd culture is precisely what is produced by engineers that go into game development. So are these researchers telling me that because games are rooted in this particular culture that inevitably it will drive away women? I don’t know if I can really let it go at that.
There seems to be a deeper socio-cultural question that simply isn’t being asked. Why is science fiction “stereotypical” of men? I’m also troubled by the assertion that, “stereotype of computer scientists as nerds who stay up all night coding and have no social life may be driving women away from the field.” I don’t doubt it, but I wonder why we don’t examine the stereotype rather than try to drive off the cultural roots of computing, which does come out of a geek culture. Why can’t we celebrate other kinds of geeks or make geekery socially acceptable for women?
The reason I ask the inverse question is because it is impossible for this to not be the case for many game companies. They work on the very things women would be “put off by.” It almost creates an excuse for why women aren’t there. I simply don’t buy it. Look at the demographics of watchers of certain geek TV shows or book series that derive from or are very much part of geek culture. Did they try an office with Harry Potter posters rather than Star Trek? What about WoW posters or The SIMs.
The trouble is that the findings are based on flawed assumptions about geek/nerd culture that point toward strange conclusions that I suspect only exacerbate the problem. I’ve written before that there is a simultaneous problem dealing with the social construction of femininity in the United States and play spaces particularly coded as male. Perhaps some clues about rethinking femininity outlined in this document is a better place to start.
I’ve been screaming about it for a while now, 2007 to be precise. But the proof is in the numbers. More game developers are working on the iPhone and soon the iPad. The DSi’s lack of support for an open SDK is particularly nonsensical, given its reliance on less expensive games for download. But, the same can really be said for any of the new platforms offering digitally downloadable games. These games, to be profitable, must be cheaper to develop than their disk based counterparts. Developers know this and yet manufacturers continue to lock their hardware away, afraid it will go to prom with the bad boy.
Even developers seem to support (and prop-up) the idea that unrestricted this creates a deluge of crap. This does make some sense, but not if you recognize the fact that in the case of Xbox Live Aracade, MS still maintains a great deal of control over what makes it into the official stream. The same could be done for the DSi, PSP and Playstation Network. They still control the means of distribution. They would simply have more people working on games for them. At the same time, the commercial companies also marketing dollars that the amateurs simply don’t. Promote your game on the iTunes App Store. This will inevitably cause it to rise above those other applications.
Closed hardware also prevents the development of open source solutions to common difficulties in the game development process. Again, further reducing the cost of making games for these platforms and increasing the likelihood that developers will embrace them. Especially in the case of the DS, which has a significant engineering learning curve, open source tools would be hugely beneficial to those developers eying the “i” part of the DS.
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?
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shared 3 links.
|
|
Published Game Studies and Game Development Texts.
|
|
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]
|
|
Published IRC is Like Drug Dealing in the Ocean….
|
|
Published PS3s, ICE, and the Cost of Irony?.
|
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.