Negotiation - Summary of Presenations & Their Relation to Gaming.

        Let's face it – we use it everyday, for little things, for big things, at home, at work while playing, while not playing – negotiation is a foundation of the human experience. Whether it's in a game, or in a business transaction, it is undoubtedly one of those skills that's fundamental to how we approach interactions. Ironically, while we're playing our favorite RTS, or taking a run through a shooter, or even saving the planet in RPGs, negotiation is one of those elements that presents itself constantly, even if it's unintentional, and becomes apart of our experience. Some of the more common that we see, three specifically, are positional bargaining, separating the people from the problem, and best alternatives to a negotiated problem – or BATNA. In order to learn more, let's go over three videos that fundamentally peruse these techniques. 

 

        The video from Emory School of Law on Advanced Negotiation (which can be found HERE), is an amazing – and beware, long – introspective on effective means of negotiation, particularly as it pertains to elements of positional bargaining. In the realm of video games, maybe we'll instantly think of that brutish shop keep, or those moments where we had issues with convincing an NPC to join the cause. Often these kinds of choice mechanisms fall under the purview of "Game Theory", something brought up throughout the Emory presentation. When we think of the aforementioned game scenarios mentioned, adversarial bargaining or positional bargaining, as it were, are a core mechanism for these experiences, which Emory's Paul Zwier explains as a kind of Zero-Sum element, where it becomes pertinent to determine "settlement points" – or overlaps between each sides' area of commitment in the negotiation – leading bottom lines of each person, and defining needs. Otherwise, you might end up like this cartoon from Stu's Views:

         Much like the Emory video, these needs and their associated settlement points, are major factors also in determining how to separate people from the problem. As William Ury likes to call it , "The Third Side" – something he notes in his video at TED. In his video, The Walk from "No" to "Yes," we go over the mantra of the Third Side – a representation of the central argument of any negotiation. With Ury's "third side", the video encapsulates the correlation of the positions in a negotiation with the desired needs of the people involved. Ury goes on to anecdotal stories and revelations concerning the nature of people, particularly in relation to their social mores and how that context can equate to a personable third side to a conflict or negotiation.

         While it may not be intentional, this kind of element comes up in games, quite often, especially in recent years. Conversation with NPCs in games like Skyrim, or Mass Effect, can determine how people respond to you – sometimes you begin to recognize their needs, wants, as well as things they'll settle for, as a determining factor in how you win them over. The foundation is similar to Ury's presentation, and it's becoming more common in playing, as people desire more choices. 

        Sometimes, choices lead us to avenues we simply have to settle with as an alternative. Like BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), determining your alternative settling point is as important in gaming theory, for choice patterns and the play experience in events, as the rest of everyday life and work. Negotiation for Entrepreneurs gives a great speech on negotiation, particularly revolving around the aforementioned BATNA, in which getting to know your alternative requires forethought and preparation in its own right. Focusing on how to provide a foundation for that and the contingency of your alternative, the podcast goes over how this determines the "dynamic of the negotiation," starting with writing everything down, and taking notes – being your own secretary, as it were – in order to ensure elements of your negotiation are on track.

         There is, of course, knowing how to swing a negotiation so that, should things not work out, the value of your alternative is improved, rather than diminished. This gets you avoiding contest of wills - one of the topics covered – while also going over how "win-win negotiations" are the only methods to maintain an outcome. How does all this translate to relevance? The answer is simple – by concentrating these elements around your alternative, you set up a method of negotiation that helps to avoid the need to go there, with a contingency that makes your particular alternative look just as good, if not better. From a gaming standpoint, rather than the narrowly focused outcomes of many negotiation-based conflicts, a game could instead improve the efficacy of how a player can deliver specific outcomes in these moments. In other words, methods to externally produce better results (or worsen them), as well as methods to fall back to, in order to hopefully still obtain the initial outcome associated with the negotiation in the first place – an example might be trying to win over an NPC to join your party. 

 

        So, ultimately we've taken a brief review of three powerful videos that give us a solid sense of the three techniques mentioned earlier. What we can take away from this, is that knowing them in a brighter light allows us to better understand the correlation between game interaction and negotiation – and how this form of conflict creation/resolution is a beneficial and useable aspect in game theory, improving the living narrative a player develops in games they play.

Crossroad of DOOM! - Games & Financing in Today's Market?

          It's not really DOOM!, however, it certainly can spell the end of the line for many a would-be developer, without prior knowledge and forethought. As the average cost of games made has risen from approximately 1-5million, since 2000, to a staggering average of over 28million, according to M2 research analyst group. (XX).

          There comes a time when every developer begins to wonder about the costs associated with developing their own product or app. In particular, costs that go beyond the core basics needed for them to spend the time developing (i.e. Paying the bills, and still put the effort into producing their project in the time they have thereafter). At this point, concerns such as distributions, licensing, overhead, utilities, packaging, outsourcing (if needed), etc., start to crop up. When you're looking at fixed costs, variables, contribution margins, and more, it can be, certainly, overwhelming. With companies and start-ups dropping capital down 29% in 2010, from 2009 figures, The truth is, it's not nearly that scary, or as complex as it sounds, with a little forethought and personal management goals.

           Mark Cerny noted at the D.I.C.E. Summit, that the budgetary concerns of games today, in 2011, are notsustainable – pre-2005 figures, however, would allow continued sustainability and potential profit margins that are reasonable. So, then, in an age of ever-increasing monetary concerns, how then, can people hope to find a common ground? It closer than some imagine – mobile games. With a decrease in start-up capital, and continued big-studio development budgetary concerns, mobile apps have become a more dominating field, and continue to grow. In 2011, Angry Birds, one of the highest selling mobile games in history, with over 50 million downloads in 2010, alone, was nominated for the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences "Game of the Year" award –a momentous feat. It didn't win, however (Mass Effect 2, steals the show), but it begged the question – is this viable? The answer is, a resounding, "Yes." At a development cost reported to be around 150,000 USD, with those kind of download sales, that's a game with a massive cash flow.

           Of course, mega mobile giant, Zynga, isn't doing so well, but it's competitors are coming up, and the market for indie mobile products has skyrocketed in just the last couple of years. Games like Limbo, The Room, Bards Tale, Where's my Water, Minecraft, World of Goo, Plants vs Zombies, and yes, the incredible Angry Birds, are leading the way to games across a range of genres, that re big sellers, with low capital production margins.

           To be fair, it's not to say there aren't costs with producing your own indie app. After all, the typical start-up cost will often put you in around 10-20 thousand. That can be a hefty starting fee, certainly, for those strapped. Thanks to the power of Crowd Funding -  potentially raising over 2.8 billion - 91% more than last year - with some time and effort, you can build some working elements, produce a profile, and potentially get yourself funded this way. It's worked for a rather great deal of developers at present.

           Ultimately, it's going to be important to know just what you want your game to do, and features to use. It'll be important to take the time to invest in determining your costs, and margins needed to break even, or even make a profit. Knowing this, helps you to know what you really need, and where you're really heading. Once you're there, the crossroad starts looking a whole lot straighter.

Gaming Industry: Developers moving on - but why?

          Cliff Bleszinski – Dude Huge; Cliffy B, if you will – has departed Epic Games. It's a sad time, when one of the great designers and innovators in the way we play, and view games, decides to move on. Though, after 20 years, you can't really blame a guy, either. Some of the best games I've played in recent years have come through Epic games, and under Cliff's eye – Unreal Tournament, and Gears of War, being fairly operative. He's left an indelible mark, that will undoubtedly shape the future of gaming, and gamers, everywhere.

          Then, I think of others who've moved on, recently – Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk, founders of BioWare – again, nearly two decades. Is there something about the 20 year milestone? Shigeru Miyamoto – though not a true retirement – stepped down, and took a less 'direct' role late last year, and Walter Day, renowned for his game score-keeping, called it quits in 2010 (Ok, he's not technically a developer, but you get the gist). Eventually you start to wonder, is it just that these people, and others, are done, ready to move onto the next chapter in their life, or is it that the face of gaming has changed to much, from where it once was? Could it be that, instead of the innovation of technology, methods to tell stories, and producing new and inventive ways to immerse players, that the landscape has instead become to muddied by corporate expansionism, acquisitions, stagnant creation, and repetitive cycling? Or, maybe it's something to do with the increase in digital sales, over traditional retail, having a direct impact on how DRM and piracy concerns are managed in the age of the Internet.

          Late last year, and earlier this year, there was an issue, with major UK retail station, GAME, which being the largest of the market in Europe, lost favor among major developers in the wake of its falling stock, and plummeting revenue. Unfortunately, the only thing soaring for GAME, at the time, was its operating costs. Eventually they went into administration, and were purchased by OpCapita. What this is, is a telling story on the distribution model of games today, EA promised to go totally digital in the future – and then there's the fallout of used games market, something companies including EA have taken an interest in eliminating, likely with an increase in the digital distribution market, thereby capping the total flow of lost, "potential," revenue.

          With all that together, maybe it's not just a hanging it up, but a moving on, to greener pastures, for game designers like Cliffy B, and the beloved, "Doctors." Things are certainly different, and there's a lot more corporate influence than ever before, with the need for higher profit gains, faster output, and repetitive game features and clones. If anything, it's a time to stop and assess the situation – what can we do about it, and how can we keep the strong growing indie sector from coming under the clamp, too?