I'm Serious.net

Concerns of a Wavering Fangirl

It's not that my relationship with Apple has been without its shaky moments before, of course. You would expect rocky patches in over a quarter century of being together. We've managed to survive Steve I, Lisa, John, Jean-Louis, and Newton. We quickly agreed to put the episode with "the luggable" behind us, never to speak of it again. And, we've agreed to disagree on the "to license or not to license" question.

The past few weeks have been a bit much, however. Apple's pre-occupation with taking out Adobe has the ring of a spurned lover on The Jerry Springer Show. It makes us who are fans of both companies feel like we're watching our best friends' marriage break up in front of us. Will we still be able to be friends with both, or will we ultimately have to pick sides?

But, there is a more pernicious worm eating it's way toward Apple's core. Censorship. 

In order to gain "shelf space" within the closed system that is iTunes, which is the only content distribution platform available for Apple devices, a developer must submit an app for review - and approval. Or rejection. The review process itself is mysterious, as are the criteria for evaluating an app. Apple's interest seemed to be in ensuring technical quality, which was great; Apple could put an app through its paces far more rigorously than a garage-based developer ever could. Everybody wins.

Then, Apple started getting interested in the content of apps. First, they were getting too many "pull my finger" submissions. Then, they announced they would not sell or rent R- or X-rated movies. Next, they started quietly eliminating apps that were already selling on iTunes, either because they contained offensive content (says who? using what standards?) or were developed using unauthorized development tools (read, Adobe tools).

This week was, for me, the pièce de résistance. Louisa Hearn reported in the Sidney Morning Herald that Ellen Degeneres had made a spoof iPhone ad wherein she lampooned her own texting inabilities. (Watch it. It's very funny. You'll think you're watching me, without the cursing.) 

Apple's corporate feelings got hurt, and they insisted that she apologize to them on air. AND SHE DID!

What kind of corporate-backed, ham-handed threats must Apple have made that would convince Ellen Degeneres both to apologize and to endorse Apple and the iPhone? What would compel Ellen to ignore her own free speech rights? Why did she feel obliged to submit to their demands?

Apple, and its astonishing CEO, Steve Jobs, continue to make masterful contributions to technology and culture. But that doesn't give them the right to squelch other corporate citizens - nor does it excuse them when they bully others who might make a joke at their expense.

Grow up, Apple. Enfant terrible just isn't cute anymore.

I'm serious,

Anne

Psst! Serious gamers - Can you keep a secret?

  This is a really big day for me, and I hope for serious games in general. Today, I'm going to let you in on a secret, but I have to ask you to keep quiet about it. Pinky promise?

We have partnered with Pragmatic Solutions to launch the first (no disrespect to our friends at SGI and the Serious Games Exposed project) portal and distribution site for serious games! Pragmatic, you will remember, is the brains behind America's Army, providing all the back-end infrastructure, the hugely complex real-time analytics engine, and worldwide distribution.

The portal (we'll take name suggestions) provides access to a catalog of games from developers around the world and handles all the e-commerce components for buyers. The deep analytics are available to all serious game developers who join our network. The social networking component enables users to share learning experiences, join game groups or teams, and recommend helpful titles to other users. The advertising network generates co-op revenues that will be shared with developers who opt-in to this feature. Best of all, this service is FREE to game developers/purveyors.

Right now, we are provisioning the system with two things: a massive competencies engine against which we match games; AND, the game system itself.

What does this mean to you? If you are a developer/purveyor of serious games anywhere in the world and have one or more titles that you offer for commercial distribution - even if you offer them for free - we want to hear from you! We are loading the system with as many games as we can during the next six weeks - in preparation for our less-secret announcement coming early this Summer.

Interested parties should contact [email protected]. Let us know about you and your game(s) - title, subject matter, learning objectives/outcomes, kind of game, number of players, your contact information. We are vetting many titles right now, so don't miss the opportunity to be part of the big announcement.

I'm really, really serious,
Anne

GDC: Not a Banner Year for Serious Games Summit

  I've been trying to put into words the flat feeling I was left with after the Serious Games Summit.

Perhaps it's the word "summit" that generates expectations too lofty to be achieved. I had dreams of heated conversation about the challenges within and for the serious games industry. I envisioned impassioned discussions about learning design/game design mashups. I was yearning for all the new game concepts that would fuel and challenge us for another year. Such was not to be.

Rather, it was a bit stale and under-attended. Sure, a few more corporate initiatives have been funded, but not for any novel purposes. There were a couple of new tools on the market that claim to make it easier to author/script/develop learning games. But all in all, it was same old same old.

This leaves me with vague unease about where serious games are going - or, better, where the conference is going. My sense is that the company that puts on GDC keeps going to the same people to help them with their programming for serious games. This inevitably self-referential approach effectively eliminates new ideas or new entrants to the discussion.

I raise this point because I've wondered for some time whether a conference focused on the ways technologies for entertainment are used for learning and productivity should be co-located with a conference for game developers. There are great benefits, to be sure, but so many topics get left off the table. Important topics, like achieving the right balance between learning and game play; or, cross-cultural play styles and their impact on serious game design; or, whether music enhances learning equally well in story-driven games as in strategy games.

If you are a serious games professional, are your professional development needs being met? Your professional networking needs? If so, how and where? Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm serious,
Anne

Women and (Serious) Games

  One of the few general sessions I was able to attend at last week's GDC focused on the lack of women in games, both on the player and the creator sides of the equation. As the panelists were speaking about this wretched state of affairs, a silent slide deck ran behind them. The deck was created by Merrilea Mayo (one of the panelists) and Julie Becker, both of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and offers their analysis of the problem along with their tongue-in-cheek prescription for fixing it.

Download Kauffman

My solution is a bit more pragmatic. Focus on the part of the industry where there is a huge gap to fill: serious games.

What is the gap? There are not nearly enough learning designers involved in the creation of serious games (for the umpteenth time).

But there are many, many female learning designers, an unquantifiable subset of whom are interested in games and game technologies. By drawing on their learning design expertise while introducing them to game design and production, we are likely to see many benefits: new job opportunities; higher-quality games; and, a stronger industry all around.

So, go ahead. Start talking amongst yourselves. It's for (y)our own good.

I'm serious,
Anne

GDC: Game of the Day (Tuesday)

Several months ago, I drew readers' attention to what promised to be a "game-changing" game called Spore. Today, I heard Margaret Robertson offer a critical review of the game. It was a great presentation, and Margaret's insights offer valuable lessons for all game designers, whether entertainment or serious.

Spore, as you will remember is massive - massively multi-player, massive in scope, and massively ambitious. Players start with a single-cell creature that is nursed through many stages of evolution, 

ultimately achieving space exploration technology and abilities. The appearance and attributes of the creature are purely user-generated content; every aspect of the little dude is controlled by the player with the Spore Creature Creator. Along the way, your creature discovers other creatures that may or may not be friendly. Don't worry, though, everyone survives, and along the way, new worlds are colonized and societies flourish.

But even with all those new worlds, Spore is not gaining the traction that game design house, Maxis, and the publisher, Electronic Arts, had anticipated. One of the sub rosa goals of the Spore design team was to provide a platform to explore - and teach - biology. In fact, since the game launched, no one has been identified as using Spore to teach science.

In part, this is due to the windstorm that kicked up shortly after launch. Members of the science community took the game creators to task for their science, for the game's inattention to important details and nuances of biology and evolution, and for the cute-sy approach to graphics. Creationists took umbrage at the entire concept of the game, and intelligent design proponents felt equally digruntled.

Other design issues have posed barriers to adoption. The game has been called "too slow," "too long," "too complicated," and "too soon" (in other words, teachers haven't had enough time to be exposed to the depth and breadth of the game, and so haven't yet figured out how to fit the game into the rest of the curriculum). And of course, there's the little-referenced, although greatly considered, metric : TTP (time-to-penis, or the time it takes students to start creating sexually-explicit content).

There is promising news about Spore's utility in education, however. A number of education applications have been devised by clever educators, among those: creative writing; introduction to 3D modelling and thinking spatially; teamwork, particularly among those with developmental difficulties; and, emotional literacy for autistics.

As a result of her recent evaluation of the game, Margaret offers several "learnings" from which we can all benefit. I have taken her ideas and liberally elaborated on them, and so ask for her forgiveness if I misrepresent her thinking.

1. Marketing and advocacy are key to adoption, particularly within the education community. These activites should focus both on subject matter and on teaching.
2. Games being primed for the education sector should be marketed with lesson plans, model learning modules, and other teacher-assistance materials that make it easy for the educator to get on board.
3. Publishers need to learn how to sell to the education community, which is not at all the same as selling through retail channels or to the corporate world. This includes the ability to do education pricing and institutional licensing rather than seat licensing, just for starters.
4. Free is the best price of all in education. Of course, it's difficult to sustain a non-revenue business, so rather than giving it all away, consider "compartmentalizing" your game so that you can seed the market with the freebies while still charging for other components.
5. Make sure that your technology threshold is as low as possible to account for the aged equipment available at many schools.
6. Ensure that it's easy for players to collaborate.
7. Be as flexible as possible in the format of your outputs. User-generated content assets should be downloadable and exportable.
8. Practice patience. The education market moves much more slowly than business. Adoption and uptake happen on academic year cycles, not on a quarterly basis.

I'm serious,
Anne

GDC Anyone? Taking meetings...

  I'm excited - GDC is almost here. All you folks partying your hearts out in Austin better rest up, 'cuz the real action's coming up next week. Honestly, if you're interested in designing games or using game technologies in the service of learning and you aren't planning to be in San Francisco, you need to re-think your priorities for next week.

I'm finalizing my conference schedule now. I have a few slots available, and would love to meet people who have projects to share or work to discuss. Please let me know immediately - EMAIL ONLY, please ([email protected]) - if you would like to arrange to meet.

I'm serious,
Anne

"Keep going"

  Things are looking scary out there. First Electronic Arts, then Sony, now Microsoft - not to mention tens of smaller studios - have all moved forward (?) with plans to cut back, even eliminate, game studio personnel. Projects are being mothballed, titles have been removed from catalogs.

This is not the time for those of us on the learning and productivity side of the map to waver. The solutions our industry offers are precisely what is called for in this era of diminished resources and changing priorities. We bring people together; we foster communication, collaboration, creativity and efficiency. We advance "green" initiatives by reducing, if not eliminating, the need for travel. We advance knowledge, and the application of knowledge and know-how to everyday problems, large and small.

Rather, now is the time to heed the words of the great abolitionist, Harriet Tubman:

    If you are tired, keep going; if you are scared, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going;
    if you want to taste freedom, keep going.

I'm serious,

Anne

It's Back to School - Unless You Want to Be a Game Designer

  Richard Bartle (I include his book, Designing Virtual Worlds, in the Reading List <- for serious game designers) spoke this week at the Edinburgh Interactive Festival (poorly scheduled for the same time as SIGGRAPH). You will, of course, remember Dr. Bartle for being co-creator of the first ever multi-user dungeon (MUD); Bartle is currently a Principal Fellow and Visiting Professor at the Department of Computing and Electronic Systems at Essex University. I'd say all that adds up to some chops - at least when it comes to game design and higher education.

You can imagine, then, how thrilled I am that Bartle is echoing my clarion call for more and better game design and development programs at the university level. In an amusing twist, he laments that public money in the UK is going toward games-as-anything-but-games program(me)s as a means of legitimizing the industry, but I digress.

Most interestingly, Bartle notes that only "modern" UK universities, those that used to be polytechnic or vocational schools, are offering degree programs in this space. The implication of this is that those who are entering the world of game production will do so without benefit of any particular liberal arts or philosophy education prior to receiving a degree.

In recent months, I have had discussions with two public universities and a private/corporate post-secondary institute, both interested in introducing serious gaming into their curricula (each from a different part of the institution: corporate development, journalism, computer science, student placement). In each case, we have talked about the difference between game design and game production, and how integrated these activities are. For the moment, the complexity of the knot that represents the practice of game development together with the complexity that is a university system have derailed these organizations in their progress.

Failing to meet this challenge head-on today, however daunting it may seem, will only make for a thornier problem tomorrow, if Katie Salen is to be believed (she is!). In addition to having co-authored the seminal text for Intro to Game Design and her faculty post at New School (also on my Reading List), she has designed a middle school for the New York Public School system based entirely on gaming. She spoke just this week at SIGGRAPH, where she pointed out that kids don't think of themselves as gamers; the concepts of networks, play, and everyday life are already intertwined in their experience. "Gaming is more collective, not individual," she says. "Kids are learning how to play from each other and mentor from each other."

But to play and mentor together successfully, kids need games that provoke their minds in appropriate ways. They need social gaming networks that facilitate positive behaviors and sideline negative ones. They need games that match both learning requirements and social/emotional maturity. They need a means to use/manipulate/interact with content in ways that they can't otherwise do in their classrooms or homes.

Who will design and develop these games for the next set of middle school students? Who will have the technical skills and the liberal arts knowledge to bring all this together?

Understanding learners' minds, learning content, and learning behavior requires study together with experience in the world. Developing successful serious games requires this understanding. The few programs (<- look left) available to those seeking such knowledge and understanding expose students to a cross-section of the liberal arts together with technical skills. But they are oh-so-few in number.

I'm serious,

Anne

Sometimes Business Comes First!

  As I have begun to write this blog, I have found it somewhat difficult to address serious games subjects that are important without also talking about and citing examples of casual or entertainment games.  It is fun to watch an industry grow and mature, and we can see this happening in the entertainment games arena. Part of that maturation process must be focused on responsible and business-like strategies that will foster success in the casual games sector, which can only benefit the entire computer games industry.

The eLearning Guild's annual “360º Report” has a really great essay by Kevin Corti, CEO and Chief Learning Architect of PIXELearning in Coventry, England, entitled “Demystifying Immersive Learning Simulations – Moving From the Potential to the Practical”.  Kevin articulates some really smart strategy and advice on the “business” of serious games.  He gives excellent examples of several corporate and government applications of serious games, and he has some solid advice on how the “vendors”, must frame their products for the “commissioners” who are the end users and buyers of serious 3D immersive learning technology.  Kevin's business leadership at PIXELearning is helping his company compete by successfully framing and selling their technology and their creativity to build important learning simulations for major clients.  Every company that will compete and survive in our industry will need to heed Kevin's advice!

In a similar vein, Philip Rosedale, creator of Second Life , announced this week that a new CEO, Mark Kingdon, has been appointed to take the helm.  Citing the need for “tremendous business skills and a deep understanding and passion for Second Life and where it is going,” Rosedale noted that “Linden Lab's new chief needed to know how to run a business, not just come up with cool ideas.” Linden Lab is displaying exceptional responsibility to its members and its employees by recognizing that proper and effective management is essential to success.  Obviously, Linden Lab has an eye on going public at some point, and this decision to hire talented business leadership is also an important step toward that goal.

What we must glean from the bits and pieces of written word and firm action, as demonstrated by Corti and Rosedale, is that we must have a sharp eye on the business of serious games.  Success is based, yes, in the “coolness” of this exciting technology, but it is equally rooted in the important foundation of any viable business.  We must frame our industry and its products in a way that helps the commissioners to be comfortable with the technology while also understanding the incredible benefits that come with it.  We must show the buyers of learning technology that they gain efficiency, save money, energize their audience, and enhance their profit margins while embracing innovation for a competitive advantage.  As Corti says, all parties have to be “on the same page”.

The title on that page is “Business Comes First”!

I'm Serious!

Michael

Rant: Companions in Learning???

Pat LaFontaine sure seems like a great guy. He's a Hockey Hall of Famer and All-Star who was forced into retirement in 1998 due to head trauma and concussions. During a period of convalescence, Pat drew solace and inspiration from the many critically ill children and teens who were hospitalized at the same time. Through his experience, he redoubled his efforts and devotion to his foundation, Companions in Courage, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting children and families who are overcoming life-threatening obstacles. CiC has created "Lion's Dens" in a number of children's hospitals around the U.S. - essentially a playroom filled with kiosks and game stations (including an array of adaptive technologies) and conversation areas. CiC says, to quote their website, that "[t]hrough innovative communications tools, these playrooms replace the isolation of a hospital with a connection to family, friends and celebrities during each hospital stay." Yes, emphasis mine.

I guess Robbie Bach must be a great guy, too. He's Microsoft President of Entertainment and Devices Division. He and Pat announced today that their respective organizations are partnering to put "hundreds" of Xbox 360 game kiosks in CiC Lion's Dens. In addition to select games, movies and television content, the Xboxes will be linked to a private network version of Xbox LIVE. The kiosks are preloaded with a variety of E-rated games, Y-rated TV shows, and G-rated movies. Well, Robbie is head of Entertainment and Devices.

I'm an optimist by nature. (What? Fretters can be optimists, too.) I expect all children who go to hospitals come home to live long and healthy lives. But, this of course, does bring up the problem of how much school they are missing when they are working so hard at getting well. And why are these charitably-minded people (aha!) so concerned about entertainment and celebrities and not about school? (You see the fretter-optimist thing now, don't you?)

This seems like such an overlooked opportunity. Particularly when you consider that Robbie's uber-boss is Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft and Co-Founder of the Gates Foundation, which considers improving education in America to be one of its principal objectives.

C'mon guys. One of the great ways to help kids - or anyone - not just heal, but have a successful re-entry into the world is by keeping them engaged with the world they can't participate in right now. As every parent knows, kids want to learn, even sick ones. Let's not just think about entertaining them so that time passes more quickly. Let's also think about how we can keep their minds engaged, with the world and with learning!

I'm serious,
Anne