3 ms·

@bane, that's quite the fear. Games are at its core, a subset of experiences. The vast majority of games also reflect the attitudes modern society has: competi

by hosh 13y ago

@bane, that's quite the fear. Games are at its core, a subset of experiences. The vast majority of games also reflect the attitudes modern society has: competition instead of cooperation, a fixation on leveling up, an obsession with generating enough realism to impart PTSD, a whole host of dysfunctional dynamics. I say this as one who have enjoyed shooters and strategy games. It is only in indie games you might find something different, something beyond: the upcoming Spirit game, DepressionQuest, Wild Divine, etc. And look at the kind of nerdrage DepressionQuest generated when the creators tried to get it on Steam. I will tell you, all the games out there don't have anything on the kinds of lucid dreams I sometimes have, for both the clarity and vividness as well as the insights gained from having experienced them. The impetus to create a game comes from the a deep, likely unconscious desire, to create non-ordinary experiences, and they are still pale imitation of the real thing. I don't mind that. However, the form in which those experience typically manifests are ... let's see, "tremendous money making opportunities". But thank you for writing what you did. It gave me an insight into why gamers and game dev feel so much rage over this. This dynamic is not about FB or Oculus; it is not about privacy; it looks like it is really about power and control. Games -- or at least, the typical games we have -- create an non-ordinary experience in which the gamer feels more control or power, and this buyout looks like it hit a big nerve with that, like it is taking that away.

bane 13y ago
You bring up excellent points. I hadn't really as much considered the vibrant indie scene. One of the things that I think people who are passionate about games understand is creating and sharing an experience, and there's a kind of generosity involved. Of course as a game maker you may want to get paid for your time, and maybe make a little profit, but people make games because they love it (the working conditions are generally pretty poor compared to other places they could be using their skillsets). There's recently been a kind of pervasive over-monetization of games that's been happening more and more. The kind of small-experience, indie games and the like really aren't much more different and complex than the freeare and shareware games of the past, but all these free-to-play (with large in-app purchases) or digital only monthly subscription games and similar really set the hairs on the back of my neck on edge. I think the idea of games-as-art wasn't really understood until recently, and now that it is, it's being forgotten as quickly as possible in the big development houses. At the very least there's a few decades of unspoiled retrogames, emulation and the indie scene to keep it alive. I was very excited about a renaissance of this games-as-art vibe with the rift, with some as-yet-unknown dev in their basement building some quirky world or experience to explore (maybe not even in immersive 3d!) but I guess I have to wait now. So I'd add it's about power in both directions. Power for the gamers, but power for the game makers to craft the world of their vision as well. It's all been taken away.
- hosh 13y ago
  Deus Ex 3 was the last AAA title I bought, and that was because I considered it a work of art, on the strength of Deus Ex 1 being art. These days, I mostly just look at what's on Kickstarter and kicking in a few bucks. I have not paid much attention to AAA games. Well, that and I no longer have a Windows gaming rig, so that is also a big part of it. I'm not so sure that what FB is doing will mean that power is being taken away. My friend and I had discussed this. His original theory was that it was a "vanity buy", something Zuckerberg wanted because it looks like a good trophy on his shelf. We talked about it more and came up with some key indicators on whether that is what is happening or not. The most important one is whether John Caramack sticks around for more than six months after the merger. Based on what we both know, and what I have read in the John & John history of id, if FB sells out, it's likely that Caramack won't stick around for long. A day later, we saw the article with Abrash joining Oculus. That kind of confirmed it for us. Instead of people leaving, there were more people joining up. It's early days yet, and it remains to be seen whether FB will let Oculus have free reign or not. Early indicators, despite the fear among gamers and game devs, seems to point to Oculus being able to do a lot more with the technology now. I am not sure how that stacks up with the open nature of the hardware -- we'll see. If FB is indeed looking at this as the next generation of social networking, they might try to seed the hardware into the mainstream by keeping it open and available, and focus instead on creating experiences for the platform. In the meantime, I'm hoping more people try to sell FB stocks so I can pick it up at a discount. Speaking of monetizing.

by hosh 13y ago

bane 13y ago

You bring up excellent points. I hadn't really as much considered the vibrant indie scene. One of the things that I think people who are passionate about games understand is creating and sharing an experience, and there's a kind of generosity involved. Of course as a game maker you may want to get paid for your time, and maybe make a little profit, but people make games because they love it (the working conditions are generally pretty poor compared to other places they could be using their skillsets). There's recently been a kind of pervasive over-monetization of games that's been happening more and more. The kind of small-experience, indie games and the like really aren't much more different and complex than the freeare and shareware games of the past, but all these free-to-play (with large in-app purchases) or digital only monthly subscription games and similar really set the hairs on the back of my neck on edge. I think the idea of games-as-art wasn't really understood until recently, and now that it is, it's being forgotten as quickly as possible in the big development houses. At the very least there's a few decades of unspoiled retrogames, emulation and the indie scene to keep it alive. I was very excited about a renaissance of this games-as-art vibe with the rift, with some as-yet-unknown dev in their basement building some quirky world or experience to explore (maybe not even in immersive 3d!) but I guess I have to wait now. So I'd add it's about power in both directions. Power for the gamers, but power for the game makers to craft the world of their vision as well. It's all been taken away.

hosh 13y ago
Deus Ex 3 was the last AAA title I bought, and that was because I considered it a work of art, on the strength of Deus Ex 1 being art. These days, I mostly just look at what's on Kickstarter and kicking in a few bucks. I have not paid much attention to AAA games. Well, that and I no longer have a Windows gaming rig, so that is also a big part of it. I'm not so sure that what FB is doing will mean that power is being taken away. My friend and I had discussed this. His original theory was that it was a "vanity buy", something Zuckerberg wanted because it looks like a good trophy on his shelf. We talked about it more and came up with some key indicators on whether that is what is happening or not. The most important one is whether John Caramack sticks around for more than six months after the merger. Based on what we both know, and what I have read in the John & John history of id, if FB sells out, it's likely that Caramack won't stick around for long. A day later, we saw the article with Abrash joining Oculus. That kind of confirmed it for us. Instead of people leaving, there were more people joining up. It's early days yet, and it remains to be seen whether FB will let Oculus have free reign or not. Early indicators, despite the fear among gamers and game devs, seems to point to Oculus being able to do a lot more with the technology now. I am not sure how that stacks up with the open nature of the hardware -- we'll see. If FB is indeed looking at this as the next generation of social networking, they might try to seed the hardware into the mainstream by keeping it open and available, and focus instead on creating experiences for the platform. In the meantime, I'm hoping more people try to sell FB stocks so I can pick it up at a discount. Speaking of monetizing.