The Week In Games: Gaming Ain't Easy

The Week In Games: Gaming Ain't Easy

"Some of those sharp edges are sometimes the very thing that makes the game compelling. Games aren't really supposed to be easy at all times." — Former Blizzard chief creative officer Rob Pardo, talking about how to get the right balance of frustration and reward in games.

Elsewhere in the business of gaming this week...

QUOTE | "I think we can have a completely magical experience if we limit it to a living room." — CastAR's Jeri Ellsworth, talking about why she thinks Augmented Reality (AR) is going to reach a larger audience than VR.

QUOTE | "It was just this epic slug-fest between MTV and Activision ... They both wanted commanding market share ... Thinking about that, I still have PTSD from that." — Harmonix creative director Alex Rigopulos, talking about why the studio took a break from doing Rock Band for five years.

QUOTE | "The Escapist, notwithstanding Cloud Imperium Games' notice and posting, stands by its coverage of Star Citizen and intends to continue to investigate the developing story." — Statement by The Escapist, explaining their stance in their controversial ongoing coverage of Cloud Imperium Games' Star Citizen, after CIG sent The Escapist a letter threatening a lawsuit.

QUOTE | "We're out of our league — by far — but I think we've been out of our league for a while." — tinyBuild's CEO Alex Nichiporchik, talking about how the small developer is forging ahead despite the "indiepocalypse" some indies declare is near.

STAT | $US3000 — Price of the first Microsoft HoloLens Development Edition, scheduled to ship in the first quarter of 2016; Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella stated he wants to "push a lot more of the enterprise usage" rather than gaming at first.

QUOTE | "The big indie boom we've seen has reminded everyone that what we're doing is very simple." — Ubisoft Toronto studio head Alexandre Parizeau, talking about his philosophy of how to make great games.

QUOTE | "At Zynga we believe the next wave in mobile advertising will be Sponsored Play." — Zynga VP of sales Julie Shumaker, talking about the company's new unit designing custom levels for advertisers within games like FarmVille.

STAT | $US1.8 billion — Amount that competitive gaming will bring in by 2020, according to analyst Colin Sebastian; last year, eSports brought in $US200 million from tournaments, ads, sponsorships, broadcasting, betting and fantasy eSports.

STAT | 30 per cent — Percentage of the League of Legends audience that is female, according to a survey by research firm EEDAR; this compares to the less than 25 per cent female audiences of games like Dota 2, Counter-Strike: GO and SMITE.

Top image via World of Warcraft


Comments

    Seems Derek Smart supplied Escapist with at least some of their sources, contrary to Escapist's claim that they all contacted the publication of their own accord. Considering Smart's reputation as a failure and a troll with connections, and Escapist's reputation as tabloid trash riding on a once-respected name, I'm inclined to take the allegations with a grain of salt.

      I think Star Citizen is one of the most ambitious concepts for a Video Game ever.

      They could have made a classic simple Space Fighter Sim with a little bit of customisation and a set mission structure. And in a lot of ways I think that would have been a fantastic launch pad for Star Citizen. But I will say there is obviously a market for Star Citizen.

      Derek Smart had a grand vision of a game, and neither the skill or drive to get anywhere with it, he seems upset that people inspired by the same things as him with similar visions are being taken seriously and are coming closer than he can.

        Yeah. I mean don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible Star Citizen may fail. It is very ambitious. But what Derek Smart is doing is trying to trigger collapse where it might otherwise not have been an outcome by trying to manufacture controversy and deliberately tarnish the company's name.

        If his objectives weren't s obviously ulterior, he would have made his concerns public and left it at that. The fact he's actively trying to sabotage things just to ensure his predictions come true paints the picture of a man driven by overinflated ego, someone who desperately needs to be right. He also has this childish complex where if he thinks he's been messed with, he has a compulsion to retaliate disproportionately and then make sure everyone knows he's "not the kind of person you fuck with".

        All in all the picture is one of a sad man who didn't get the accolades he thinks he deserved in life so he wants to ensure nobody else gets those accolades either.

          I admit it could go totally wrong with Star Citizen. But Derek Smart is like a kid who tried to end the game by taking his ball to go home and than got upset that somebody else had a ball and now he's trying other methods to end it.

          Thankfully none of what's happening hinges on your personal opinion of the plaintiff.

            Thankfully I'm well enough versed in what's happening currently, as well as Smart's history and his self-confessed interest in trolling, to know that he has minimal to zero chance of success in terms of the particular legal proceedings he's pursuing. But then that's not what my comment nor the article was about, so I'm not sure what relevance your reply has.

            Last edited 12/10/15 6:33 pm

              But what Derek Smart is doing is trying to trigger collapse speculation. You can be well versed in whatever you wish, just don't present it as fact. Its not.
              trying to manufacture controversy and deliberately tarnish the company's name. speculation
              If his objectives weren't s obviously ulterior, speculation
              he would have made his concerns public he did, CIG did not respond appropriately
              he's actively trying to sabotage things speculation
              to ensure his predictions come true speculation
              paints the picture of a man driven by overinflated ego, speculation, irrelevant. Derek is launching a legal case. Your Narrative here is irrelevant to that.
              someone who desperately needs to be right. speculation
              He also has this childish complex where if he thinks he's been messed with, he has a compulsion to retaliate disproportionately and then make sure everyone knows he's "not the kind of person you fuck with". citation needed, speculation, defamatory/slanderous, speculation, irrelevant. Regardless of previous actions, the legal case will be decided upon its own merits.

              All in all the picture is one of a sad man who didn't get the accolades he thinks he deserved in life so he wants to ensure nobody else gets those accolades either. speculation, irrelevant

              Last edited 13/10/15 5:02 pm

                You seem to be confused. I'm not a reporter, my post isn't an article on a journalistic news site. This isn't a news site at all, it's a blog. My comment expresses my opinions based on the available facts. I've followed Smart's years-long crusade in detail and have made informed conclusions on that basis.

                You should look up slander and defamation when you have the opportunity. There's nothing slanderous in my post. His ego and interest in trolling is well known:

                Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble

                for as long as I've been around, the one thing I've learned is that one day you will poke the wrong bear. I'm it.

                As I always say, there is always that one time when you go poke the wrong bear

                Listen to me u assholes. My name is Derek Smart. You'd be wise to PICK YOUR TARGETS with better precision

                Plenty of others along those lines too, making a clear evidence-based case for disproportionate retaliation and a fixation on revenge.

                This is a comments section, where people share their opinions and have discussions on the content of the article. An opinion on the article is absolutely relevant, and you're naturally welcome to share yours as well.

                Once again, I don't know why you're mentioning the legal proceedings. I didn't mention them in my post, and the article didn't mention them either. I'll draw your attention to the last sentence of the post you just replied to:

                But then that's not what my comment nor the article was about, so I'm not sure what relevance your reply has.

                Last edited 13/10/15 6:02 pm

                  Except you don't express an opinion. You are stating your opinion as fact. That's what I was pointing out. They aren't facts and have no bearing on what is actually happening.

                  Quoting out of context does not mean anything. Someone knowing that those quotes are in response to antagonistic tweets attacking him personally succinctly contradicts your supposed "informed opinion".

                  You brought up Derek Smart yourself. Erroneously, since his involvement in the Escapist and CIG's response is tangential at best. As a public figure proceeding with legal action against CIG, he's an obvious choice for disgruntled employees to contact.

                  @234oufablrha987

                  My comments here describe the facts as I see them; an informed, evidence-based assessment of the events and details. As you can see, others concur with that assessment, both here and elsewhere. I am confident of its accuracy and stand by it until such time as evidence suggests an different narrative. Your responses have contributed nothing to that end.

                  I brought up Derek Smart because he stated in his own words and of his own accord that he supplied the Escapist with sources for their article. There's no error in mentioning the connection on my part, he drew the connection himself.

                  Last edited 14/10/15 7:37 pm

                @zombiejesus

                So no problem with me pointing out that they are opinions, that you haven't actually cited facts.

                Good talk.

                  I've cited several facts, you simply don't accept them as sufficient. There's a difference.

                @zombiejesus

                When you provide evidence to support a reasonable assumption, then we can proceed. Your current biased rants, no point discussing further.

                  I've cited several facts, you simply don't accept them as sufficient. There's a difference.

                  Evidence is defined as the body of facts supporting a belief or proposition. The facts I gave you support my proposition.

                  @zombiejesus Pro tip: Just saying it on a gaming blog doesn't make it a fact, or evidence. And I think you may have meant supposition. I'm not comfortable with you propositioning me.

                  Once again, you're mistaken as to the definition of common words.

                  From Oxford dictionary:
                  proposition: A statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false.

                  I've provided facts as evidence, direct quotes from Derek Smart from tweets and interviews that support my conclusion. Unless you're arguing that somehow someone else has been using Derek Smart's Twitter account or that the interview with him where he made his statement was in fact with an impostor, then these are plainly facts. As I said, the facts aren't in dispute, only your interpretation of their relevance.

                  "proposition: A statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false." You're ignoring the several other definitions. But full points for trying to challenge the english language.

                  I've provided facts as evidence, direct quotes from Derek Smart from tweets and interviews that support my conclusion. Have not provided any of those actually.

                  interview with him where he made his statement For a start, you haven't provided the interview you are basing this on. And if you believe a quote from the media in this particular situation is evidence, that would be a mistake. Aside from misquotes and lack of context, creative editing/phrasing/framing, the media have a vested interest in promoting the story.

                  As I said, the facts aren't in dispute, only your interpretation of their relevance. And your interpretation also. In addition, past behaviours don't invalidate Derek's present claims pertaining to Star Citizen. You are just demonstrating your bias.

                  You're ignoring the several other definitions.

                  The other definitions are irrelevant. I used the word, I chose the meaning and in the context the meaning is perfectly clear.

                  Have not provided any of those actually.

                  Indeed I have. Here they are again, since you seem to have forgotten them.

                  Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble

                  for as long as I've been around, the one thing I've learned is that one day you will poke the wrong bear. I'm it.

                  As I always say, there is always that one time when you go poke the wrong bear

                  Listen to me u assholes. My name is Derek Smart. You'd be wise to PICK YOUR TARGETS with better precision

                  These are all direct quotes from Derek Smart, the first from an interview and the last three from his Twitter account.

                  For a start, you haven't provided the interview you are basing this on.

                  You're unwilling or incapable of searching the quote yourself? No problem. The interview was in Computer Gaming World magazine in 2001. Not only is it a direct quote from Smart, but he liked the interview enough to link a scan of it on his own company website. Hardly the actions of someone who feels he's been misquoted.

                  In addition, past behaviours don't invalidate Derek's present claims pertaining to Star Citizen.

                  A straw man. This conversation has been about my comment about Derek Smart and his motivations, not about the content of his claims. The facts I've given are evidence supporting the informed conclusions I arrived at with respect to Smart's character, and point to the likely motivation for his actions as described in my second post near the top of the comments section.

                  Last edited 19/10/15 11:20 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  The other definitions are irrelevant. I used the word, I chose the meaning That's not how the english language works. I can't use the word "yellow" and define it as meaning "blue".

                  "Have not provided any of those actually."

                  Here they are again, since you seem to have forgotten them. That's not evidence. I can type anything I like in quotation marks. You need to provide the links if you are claiming these statements as justification for your claims. That's your burden of proof. I have made no claims about Derek Smart.

                  A straw man. This conversation has been about my comment about Derek Smart and his motivations, not about the content of his claims. The facts I've given are evidence supporting the informed conclusions I arrived at with respect to Smart's character, and point to the likely motivation for his actions as described in my second post near the top of the comments section.

                  The thing you missed? You claiming a conclusion as fact. It is an interpretation. An opinion. You didn't phrase it as such, which is why you got called out on it.

                  That's not how the english language works. I can't use the word "yellow" and define it as meaning "blue".

                  You're right, you can't do that. However, you can choose from any of the definitions of "yellow" that appear in the dictionary, just as I did with the word "proposition". That's exactly how the English language works.

                  You need to provide the links if you are claiming these statements as justification for your claims.

                  Feigned ignorance. You already looked up the tweets I quoted because you replied "those quotes are in response to antagonistic tweets attacking him personally", something you couldn't have known unless you validated the source yourself. That said, I will spend a few seconds providing you with links you could have searched for yourself. In order, the last three quotes I provided appear at the following twitter.com URLs:
                  /dsmart/status/646992018179276801
                  /dsmart/status/647069508662894592
                  /dsmart/status/647119186817368064

                  The source for the first quote I've already provided you with.

                  The thing you missed? You claiming a conclusion as fact. It is an interpretation. An opinion. You didn't phrase it as such, which is why you got called out on it.

                  Given the frankly staggering number of times I've had to educate you on the meaning of simple English words, it comes as little surprise that you similarly misinterpreted the content of my initial posts here. The only thing I presented as fact that I haven't supported with evidence thus far was when I mentioned "the fact he's actively trying to sabotage things just to ensure his predictions come true". The evidence supporting that assertion was from a tweet a few months ago that I've been thus far unable to find again. If you like, you're welcome to consider that specific sentence an unsupported allegation until I'm able to quote the tweet in question for you.

                  That out of the way, I'm going to take a moment to talk about your mode of argument. This is a separate subject that doesn't invalidate your lines of argument on other subjects. I've chosen this approach specifically to avoid any chance you could misinterpret my comments as an ad hominem.

                  You clearly have particular expectations of the level of discourse you want to see in comments, a level that I personally believe is grossly in excess of what would be considered typical. You've thus far expected me to cite sources for every claim, avoided acknowledging sources when provided with them, taken issue with trivial or insignificant matters of phrasing, and expected that every statement be factual or explicitly indicate opinion.

                  I have no problem engaging you on that level. I enjoy formal debate, I've written dissertations before and I'm accustomed to conducting thorough research to support claims, but there's a very clear disconnect between the typical context where that level of research and citation is necessary and the context that these comments exist in.

                  There's also the apparent disconnect between the level you seem to expect from my side of the discussion and the level you uphold yourself. You've made a number of comments where you've attempted to present your opinion as fact and made unsupported claims without evidence (eg. your comments on DLC budgeting), and generally given the appearance of being wilfully contrarian, whether intentionally or not.

                  As I mentioned, I enjoy debate, but the tone and content of your replies seems to suggest that you don't. I genuinely mean no offence in saying this, but you don't seem very adept at the essential principles that underpin productive debate, particularly those of logic and language. In what I can only assume is the absence of an actual rebuttal, you tend to resort to pedantry or otherwise fixate on minutia and the structure of an argument rather than its content.

                  You've spent a lot of time and words replying to me across different articles over the past several days, not to mention previous discussions. In at least one case you showed frustration and an apparent distaste for ongoing debate. It begs to be asked, why do you continue replying? What do you hope to accomplish by continuing a discussion you're not enjoying? It seems clear to me that debate itself isn't your objective since you have so often fixated on structure instead of content, and you don't seem to be open to changing your mind given the way you ignore or dismiss evidence, or try to find frankly creative ways to justify why they don't apply. It's certainly not a public service where you attempt to show anyone else reading the thread just how wrong you think I am, since nobody aside from us is going to read anywhere near this far down a conversation as unproductive as this one.

                  Is it a case of the desire to 'win'? If so, you've gone about it the wrong way; attacking the structure of an argument contributes nothing to victory. Maybe your goal is to aggravate me to the point where I'll lose my cool and call you names? If so, unfortunately that's not going to happen. I have years of large-scale community administration experience dealing with people who have that particular goal, it doesn't phase me any more.

                  I reply because I enjoy debate, though the quality of your responses (from the perspective of a friendly debate at least) seems to bee-line toward 'unproductive' fairly quickly and I don't see much value in continuing unproductive debates. I'd much prefer a discussion founded on mutual respect and I've afforded that to you a few times, though you don't seem to reciprocate.

                  You spoke derisively about the fact I continue to reply to you, but that reflects just as much on you. I've given my reasons why I reply. Why do you?

                  just as I did with the word "proposition". Yep. Doesn't mean you choose the meaning. You used an inaccurate word, deal with it.

                  Feigned ignorance. Haven't looked through all his tweets as you apparently have. And it has no bearing on his claims against CIG. I'm fully aware of his history from various articles on him. So no, not feigned ignorance. You made a positive claim, you need to provide evidence to support it. Can't complain about that...

                  See, you are mistaken about your 'evidence'. It doesn't support your conclusion. Your error was in making these statements without prefacing them with phrases such as "I think", "It seems", "I believe". It is a common mistake, and you got called on it. Deal with it.

                  You've made a number of comments where you've attempted to present your opinion as fact and made unsupported claims without evidence (eg. your comments on DLC budgeting)
                  The facts that I state are exactly that. Facts. If its an opinion, I specify that. You have an issue with that? No problem. As in, your issues are not my problem. If you don't like what I post and how I say it, you can just move right along. Anytime. Unlike yourself, I won't make grand assumptions about you and allow that to bias our discussions. You have several times made completely erroneous assumptions about me and used those assumptions to try to invalidate my opinions.

                  The rest of your ad hominem attack, since that what is (saying it is not does not make it so), is groundless opinion. Easily dismissed as such. Additionally, all of your accusations are equally applicable to your posts. Except for one pertinent detail. You instigate our discussions. You specifically seek out discussions between myself and other members of the community and insert yourself into the discussion in opposition to me. Certainly you are entitled to do so, but when you are spending two hours daily specifically responding to my posts, well that is very poor behaviour. Very antagonistic. Definitely not in the spirit of Kotaku community guidelines.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now