Virtual Reality worlds and their resurgence via The Oculus Rift.

        The Oculus Rift A technological marvel. Virtual reality, now at its finest apparently. Virtual reality glasses are certainly becoming popular, and with trending topics relating to 3D for the modern era (3D vision for your desktop, and the idea of Google Glass virtual HUD on the go) has created a notable resurgence. With the amazing things they can achieve, it's more of a wonder they aren't used for more pragmatic solutions. Which brings me to why a seemingly niche technology (for entertainment) which utterly failed in the 90's is somewhat current and relevant in today's world.

Lawnmower man - apparent pinnacle of VR awesomeness...Not.

         Throughout the 90's there was a mass surge in virtual reality, and virtual reality glasses. You practically couldn't get through a movie without running into someone regarding the technology. It would appear, I'm not the only one with that sentiment. The over-aching problems, I firmly believe, are rooted in a lack of a standardized platform, no professional applications or or actual OS support/Interface design – and certainly from an economic standpoint – lack of a major backer. None of the big players really took it on, the wide variance of platforms, no applications that were designed to interface with virtual reality – cert iWear VR920 can go for under $500.

ainly no legitimate interface to speak of – all of this combined to make a very hard sell. Of course, with the price points (Which I remember sets going for 5 to 10 thousand when i was a kid in the 90's), it just wasn't meant to be. However, the sad part is the average display today, which only shows 800x600 is around $1000-$1,500 USD, though cheaper end models, such as the

Back...to the Future..wait, what?

         Of course, with all those negatives, in a manner of speaking, its any wonder it's something that still excites people, particularly in this day and age. Amazing technology, thanks to Moore's Law, has grown the technology necessary for virtual reality worlds, to a level commensurate with a consumer-end product. With extraordinary platforms allowing us relatively, unfettered access to a wide range of applications, big players to take on various projects (Just look at Sony's VR sets, like the new Prototype-SR), and a developed open market for people to put in their own design aesthetic (and the hardware to back it up), easily paves the way. If anything, the Wii, for instance, has shown a clear desire for more interactivity in people's gaming, as it won this generations console wars, selling almost 100million units. It led Sony to develop the MOVE for Playstation, and Microsoft to develop the Kinect for the Xbox 360. Rather than Niche, people are more and more, wanting these interactive technologies to play with. All that really stands in their way is price-point. Depending on your budget, grabbing a Kinect could have been a bit more expensive than you'd like. Certainly if you're into 3D, the 3D vision could be a tough sell unless you've got some extra cash on the side – after all getting the kid isn't the beginning, as to efficiently use them, you need a monitor with some capability (and for best results something 3D ready and/or 120Hz capable at least, which combined can easily land you around $500 or so).

How immersive can a brick on your face, be? We'll see..see, get it?

         Certainly a bit of wonder, but if anything, it's certain the with over 10,000 units pre-ordered already, the Oculus Rift is making waves. In a world that now has access to the technological hardware to make VR something of a pragmatic gaming solution, it's evident, regardless of whether it's niche or not – there's a market for it, people are craving it – the Oculus Rift may be the technology that brings virtual reality worlds – virtual reality in general – to the masses.

    

Mass Market Appeal and the Lack of Creative & Innovative Gaming.

                                                                                  Courtesy Gamenesia.com

        Recently there's been clamour for building games as with mass market appeal. Every year gaming grows larger and larger, having since passed all other forms of entertainment in total revenues, yearly. Digital consumption has increased by incredible margins in just the last 3 years, with no sign of slowing. Yet, somehow there's a need to make games “mass-market” appealing – even though they're the biggest market that exists in entertainment.

         At what point do we ask, how long till anyone cares about the quality of games – their narrative, character development, design aesthetics and staying power – in lieu of what can only be described as desire for more money? And, while everyone likes more money, is there really a need to sacrifice the very qualities that made gaming such a lucrative business in the first place?

That is a crap-ton (pun intended) of Brown.       Joystiq.com

         As the years go by, I begin to wonder what happened to the creative minds that brought us products like Heart of Darkness, or the surprisingly fun Medievil – even games like Fear Effect. I understand the need to increase quarterly revenue and profit margins, though the continued increase of lower-quality games isn't necessary. After all, how much of the color Brown can a mass market find appealing? Years later and it's still one of the most common colors of mainstream games. The level of engagement, immersion, and narrative have become scant, but they do appear occasionally, throughout the years. Offerings such as the original Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham Asylum, Psychonauts, The Walking Dead,by TellTale games and some others in the last 5-7 years, keep the heart hopeful. They're fairly far-and-few-between, however. With the ever-growing casual/social and mobile markets making a steady increase, year over year, the sheer number of easily cashable products have become the norm.

         As far as more detailed console and PC offerings, the sheer amount of IP milking, and banking on only the most likely-to-succeed titles means a steady decline in overall rich games. Lets be serious for a moment, for the nay-sayers – What games compromise the top spots for most sales, marketing, and/or overall exposure in the last 5 years, that weren't representative of a bundle? If you said the Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Black Ops, HALO, or Gears of War, for instance, then you'd be in the same conundrum. Yes, they all have great games in their respective series, but for better or worse, they've all become rehashed, over-milked IP's. Ironically, for instance, most FPS games have not only virtually the same marketing art – they often all look and play exactly the same - the most common appeal to mass market.

Apparently, mass-market appeal            Terabass -Wikipedia

         EA's CCO, Richard Hilleman thinks video games should be mass market appealing – though he doesn't think they've reached that pinnacle, yet. What does any of that have to do with the big chunk of yada-yada I gave in the aforementioned paragraphs? It's the core of the issue at hand – to much focus on monetization to court creativity, narrative, and quality user-experience. We have a market that produces over 67 billion a year, yet they want more, even during rounds of layoffs, and poor quarterly performance by some major companies. It's time to improve on the quality of the user experience in every faucet of gameplay. We can always come back to “mass market appeal” later, when there's a reason for people to actually feel the appeal.

  

Cross Platform Personalization & the Spread of Gamification.

        As 2013 makes its way toward summer, we've already seen some major highlights for the year. With the advent of Tegra 4, Project Shield, the Ouya, Unreal 4, and a host of other amazing product and services, it's a year year full of wonder and possibility. There are, however, trends that have continued and shaped into tangible forms over these past few years, as the force of casual and mobile games begin to take a forefront seat. People want content on the go, cross-platform, and all the work in between, they're looking for anything to improve the quality of an experience, that feels less like a chore.

         The two things that stand our in this arena are Gamification, and of course, cross-platform content personalization. While there's certainly a lot more, most trends can be summarized directly in these two arenas. If there's one thing we can all certainly agree on, it's that everyone pretty much loves games. People love achievements, as well as getting something for taking the time to do most anything. How impacting this is on our daily media consumption is surprisingly profound. It's pervasive even – you know it's gone somewhere when it has its own summit revolving around it – especially when there's a dedicated Penny Arcade episode to it. 

        A lot of what we see is focused on turning typical consumer engagement into a meaningful game-like experience, but the application is spreading. For instance, social networking has some of these elements, along with places like Foursquare, Dashlane, and many others, which offer badges for doing menial tasks. After all, lets face, it, we're all more likely to make the effort for things like filling out profiles and whatnot if we start getting leveling bonuses on a site for doing it. A lot of forums have done this kind of thing for years, though the range and detail is something that's increasing, across the board. The researchis staggering for this, according to DriVE by Daniel Pink, insisting autonomy, purpose, and personal improvement are the defining characteristics motivating people – core tenants we see consistently presented in Gamification.

        Of course, there's other things going on – cross-platform personalization – that are the foundation of the digital revolution. At the end of the day, people want content somewhere other than their TV, or just their computer. They tend to want it on any screen, be it phone, tablets, laptops, or their TV – all at their convenience. Anyone who uses Netflix can attest to its ability to keep pace with whatever you're watching or doing, even if you change your platform. It knows – it recognizes the network and produces you have on your account, and can adapt and keep up, accordingly. It even does so with its advertisements. TV show Vegas is an excellent example to use: Tuesday time slot it drew in almost 11 million viewers fairly consistently. The problem of course, is that the average age was 60.7 years – well above the 18-35/49 demographic the marketing slots are directed toward. In the face of the digital wave, however, that's not nearly the problem it may be on TV, where with algorithm's based on what you watch, when, your profiling, etc, such as with Netflix, you can measure the kind of advertisement that would be more relevantly suited to a consumer, rathe

r than at a broad category. It's a lot closer to “shooting fish in a barrel” rather than “aiming in the dark” so-to-speak.

        The data, posted at Digital Trends, is fairly clear – there's a change in the weather concerning net usage. In just 4 years mobile traffic went from 1% to over 13%. It's certain this is a steadily growing trend. With that growth comes certainty that more people are going to expect more synergy between their devices, and the need to market and advertise specifically with detail to a consumer, will grow with it. With micro screens, the amount of marketing you can do in a given space decreases – so the need to be more user-specific will increase, accordingly. Certainly a good thing, as it's market is a growing one up to9%. Consider also, the rising cost of digital marketing, just look at conversion costs for companies like GREE, who pay up to $15 per user acquisition – clearly driving up the market - it become pertinent to be specific, more now than ever.

         At the end of the day, marketing directives have a fairly obvious path. As we continue into a world that's entirely wired, having us transition from device to device, advertising and marketing initiatives need to be just as pliable. With focus on cross-platform personalization of content and advertisements, in addition to Gamification to improve the percentage of invested consumers, ads and commercials probably wont lessen, but at least they'll be more specific and interesting to you, and certainly less bombastic across every page.

Thoughts on Game Design Documents

        There comes a time when you're producing a game, you look for a feature, only to find that there's a lot of ambiguous information regarding its function and overall use/implementation. Often an issue in any design document, its a concern , after all having all the answers so your team can do what they need to do, maintaining the core of your product, is the most essential element of any game design document. However, when is to much, simply to much? Executive summaries, financial plans, marketing directives, prose for the first parts of your game, etc. Is all of this necessary? Who's going to actually read it? 

 

        The basic building blocks of any document should involve 3 major things, the way I see it: Core Statement, written for your team who read it, and lastly, no ambiguity (though that doesn't mean there is no elasticity in what can/cannot transpire with regard to mechanics and what not, there shouldn't be any direct questions regarding whats suppose to happen, or how things are suppose to work with any given feature or scenario). Clearly, I'm not alone in that sentiment, as others like Brenda Brathwaite with her take on ambiguity and core statements, or Tom Sloper with his belief indetail and even Black isle studiosleaked Van Buren documents present a clear standard.

        Over time, however, it's become apparent that game design documents have become biblical – only in the sense of their immense size. It's not uncommon for publishers and other departments to have a say in the overall GDD, and often end up including a wide array of things that simply aren't necessary or beneficial to development – clearly I'm of similar opinion with Mr. Tadhg Kelly. There comes a point where everything that your document is about becomes veiled by clutter – elements that no one but executive would ever look at, if they weren't already busy listening to you and watching your presentations instead. No one in the design team is going to care, and they're the very people these documents are really meant for.

         Of course, there are other developers who have their own opinion even on that – these documents are worthless in their eyes, something they feel is a waste of time to write, according to Joe Danger's Sean Murray. I admit, there's a certain appeal to game design as a form of purely elastic, reiterative prototyping, rather than design documents backed with concept artwork galore. Raph Koster has a great article regarding less design documents, art, and more prototyping, like in the image to the right – as well as learning to make products cheaper. It's certainly insightful, and definitely relevant in a world where games can cost as much as fifty million and higher – in the hundreds of millions, as it did with Star Wars: The Old Republic. 

        Ultimately, there's always going to be room for design documents. They're truly beneficial, though only if they continue to focus on the design, remain elastic, and revolve around prototyping (even if that prototyping is some flash cards and paper cut-outs). There's a point where we seem to get focused on the 'idea' of what we like, rather than on the implementation and functionality of 'fun' with those ideas. While it's clearly not everyone's cup of tea, a good foundation, and a good place to finalize information that you're actually using as you prototype and iterate your designs.

Video Game Agents & Consultants...Yes? Maybe?...

        With the increase in the range and penetration of the gaming industry, it was inevitable that eventually, agencies and consultants would make their way into the field. Business, and the dynamics of corporate work not only set the stage for these players, but create a space where they have the ability to thrive. Curiously then, one wonders, is it a viable investment in the age of gaming corporatism, to yolk yourself with an agency, or to hire in a consultant? As time moves forward, it's become more of a rhetoric than a direct question, though I think it has its own answer imprinted in it: “No.”

         If you're wondering why “no,” - for the simple reason that we live in an age of information. Everything you need or want, is by and all accounts, at your fingertips. Whether it's related to branding, marketing, or potentially, publishing & distributing your work – the world wide web and associated internet-technologies allow us – the consumer – to also be the producer. We simply have no real need of them. While an agency can provide a great stepping stone between your company and publishers/distributors – while also taking a great deal of the time and effort to both go through the motions of it all, as well as acquiring the skills and mindset needed to go about such hefty business – today it's often easy enough to manage it yourself. The reality is, most consultants and agencies simply don't have the background. It's common for them to rationalize games as just another venue for media consumption. In part, this trend has helped develop the casual market in recent years. Certainly there's a place for that – yet that market in and of itself is a different beast to the gaming industry that makes over $67 billion a year. Statistics show even now, the core gamer – those who make up almost all of that number – are still, “...reluctant to embrace social games.” Mobile gaming certainly has a place, but as long as it, and other venues of social gaming remain a casual affair, they're likely to not be taken seriously. Consultants and agencies need to take that into account, to focus on elements that are viable in the gaming industry direction, or focus specifically on casual/social and mobile gaming elements.

         Of particular note, securing publishing deals for companies can be a burden, and a costly one at that. Certainly a benefit of agencies and consultants. However, with the rise of cloud-based distribution, and elements like Steam – with their indie-friendly appeal and “Greenlight” community, make these options far more lucrative. For those who prefer to go it solo, take Mojang founder, Markus Persson who managed to create one of the most authentic, and impressive games of the last generation – and likely, ever made. After all, since Minecraft's official release, it has sold over 20 million copies. Primarily, all of it with a focus on their own method of distribution, and marketing – without the use of agencies and consultants, or all those fees.

         Of course, there are those points with which many make claim of their benefit to the industry. For those not in the know – a quick search can show you just how many developers actually jumped on the agency & consultant train(s) – in 2010, one of the leading Video Game Agencies, Digital Development Management, had over 700 signed, across 15 studios, in addition to working with 20 different publishers. Not only that, the infamous “fired” Infinity Ward duo, Vince Zampella and Jason West, shacked up with Creative Artist Agency in 2010 as well. They're certainly not the only ones.

         While the model itself may be pretty similar in the industry today – with a focus that's very focused on franchising and “studio renting” to publishers – the role of Agencies and consultants today, has the ability to make the divide much smaller. It's fair to say they are in a position now, to even embolden developers against the constraints of this ancient model. Two major ways to go about this is to either A: focus on marketing/branding factors of a studio and its developers – or its products if they prefer, and B: focus creating an atmosphere that allows a dynamic change in financing models for game developers and publisher relations. That is exactly what many agencies are doing in the game industry. Seamus Blackley created a new dynamic by way of “B” - focusing on bringing the artists and creatives to the forefront of negotiations, while changing the core of how financing could be done for games by working around the ideal of bond/debt financing – something of a norm in film/TV – to games that rely on iteration.There's a lot less guessing and fishing with these kinds of methods, and you certainly don't need a crystal ball.

     

     Other companies, who may follow the “B” and also certainly the aforementioned “A” model, such as Video Game Agency, the Game Agency, Intergi, or Embassy MultiMedia, happen to provide services that you don't generally associate with games, but you certainly enjoy seeing them all the time. What do you do, if you're studio is new, and lacks a firm hand, a financial lead, or a producer with business sense? If anyone still remembers the ill-fated Ion Storm company and it's epic failure, Daikatana, you'll know that by and large, had they'd secured a consultant and/or agency to help in the realm of branding/marketing and especially finance with a producer, things may have turned out a lot different. By right of branding and marketing, think of the extraordinary commercial for Halo 3, which you can view, here – brought to you by the famous McCann Erickson. EyeBallNYC created the well-known Bioshock commercial for Xbox.

         If anything, it's fair to say that there's certainly some contention, but agencies penetration into the industry is only going to become stronger. It's for the best – as they continue to improve the quality of marketing and branding directives, that actually listen to developers, while opening up the dynamic from a franchise model and studio renting, to one that showcases the developers and the artistic merit of its products, the quality of their worth becomes apparent. As more and more sign on, in order to improve their ability for their products to get funding, development resources, or expanding their distribution and marketing, they're creating more options. Any option that allows an artist to be an artist and do what they do, while helping to alleviate constraint and stringency is certainly an option worth considering, if not outright investing in.

   

Legal Liability: 3 Opinions on its Effects in the Modern Age.

     Legal liability is an ongoing affair. By its very nature, driving society to vigilance in every work commuted to.. At the same time, it forces that same society to constantly reassess creativity and its use. With looking over some lectures regarding legal liability, three stood out this week that that focus on the root of legal liabilities that are oft the most common, particularly in the gaming industry lately.

      Knowledge Network – a great resource, (hereto referred as KN) if you don't mind that resource being Indian (i.e. from India, not to be confused with Native Americans) – provides a great deal of information on liability. An excellent lecture regarding criminal and civil liability, particularly with reference to tort law and negligence can be found here.

      With that in mind, the commentary on negligence and the effect of tort law on typical liabilities was rather profound. Negligence, as KN notes, is “The failure to exercise the standard of care, required by law to protect others from an unreasonable risk or harm." In the gaming industry, its unsurprising that liabilities involving negligence are generally the more common forms of tort. Two in particular come to mind – as reported by various outlets such as VentureBeat, there is the issue with 38 Studios last year, and of course, a paper by Deanna Pollard-Sacks, belief in the perceived “constitutionalized” negligence of video game violence.

      What we have ultimately, is willful failure to protect employees (or in the case of Sacks' case, consumers) from damages – both physical and financial – that should have been covered. For any business it is a fair assessment to acknowledge a clear violation like this as a headway for a lawsuit toward compensation and punitive damages. Of course, in the case of video game violence and its perceived negligence, it's technically just a matter of perception at this point, until otherwise speculated commentary becomes fundamental fact. Though, with the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of Free Speech for video games in 2011, it's bound to be a while before a major re-contest happens in that regard. Maybe the truth is, negligence is as much contextual in the law as it is in the face of personal morality. There is a certain level of violence no parent wants their child to be exposed to – on the other hand, there is a point at which a company should (and often must) maintain their personal and contractual obligation to their employees.

      The next lecture comes from famed Cory Doctorow, well-known Sci-Fi writer, journalist and blogger. His work as a copyright activist and freedom of speech involving rights management are fundamental elements of liberal rights movements. Particularly, his lecture regarding copyright found on Youtube, here, expresses the very foundation of copyright and IP law in the digital age. Particularly that it all boils down to the very fundamental principle of data – the bit – in which the copying of bits is so natural and continuous on a daily basis that attempts to encroach upon the ability to copy them are a waste of effort.

      All in all it makes a lot of sense, when you consider the years of attempted digital rights management – all of which have been broken at various times over the years by various groups, such as Fairlight, Razor1911, Reloaded, and others. As Doctorow describes, fundamentals behind today's copyright management in effect requires a decryption method to use/watch/hear a product by which the receiver must have the mechanism and “cypher” to decode the product – ironically, the very materials which are supposed to never be disclosed to the recipient.

      Big Champagne, a monitor company that Doctorow notes in one of his anecdotal references, amasses a wide range of information having to do with copyrighted materials. For instance, as Doctorow mentions, the average time between a release on iTunes and its DRM cracked version released on Peer-2-Peer is approximately 2-5 minutes. An excellent story that goes hand-in-hand with this, is that of the Sony Rootkit invasion some years back, in which those who downloaded software from Sony had the rootkit virus installed as a measure against alleged DRM tampering, while, ironically, those who got the very same material from P2P sharing didn't get affected by said virus.   Ultimately, consumers are being alienated by manufacturers and sellers, as purchasing a product gives them no ownership of something they must invest their own funds into. As Doctorow describes this method of business as the “If Value, then Right” theory behind charging money for anything and everything, while limiting the scope to which a product can be used or maintained by a consumer.

      Of course, with the power of the internet, the ability to copy copious amounts of bits across the World Wide Web means how we judge the success of IP laws change – rather, as Doctorow describe it, the success should be on how well the copyright increases diversity and participation of these social forms. There is certainly merit to this line of thinking, as in the gaming industry for instance, the ability to play games, before purchasing them is a major deal. Word of mouth to friends and strangers alike across the web improves the viral participation in a product, thus improving, or limiting its selling scope.

      The greater the the room to allow this spread of an IP, the larger the change it develops a greater following, and community – something of paramount importance in an industry defined by the quality and quantity of any particular community toward a product. At the same time, this very method of communal growth directly affects potential profit margins for a product (at least, according to some game developers), and so the line of how to mold copyright laws to allow symbiotic growth of a product while providing room to make profit from the authors work – is incredibly important, and a fundamental concern in the debate that continues to rage on.

       Lastly, Josh Wattles, famed attorney and Advisor in Chief for DeviantArt, gave a great lecture at thispast years Comic-Con, in which he discussed the value of effect of fan art and IP law. The more salient points discuss expression and the “artist paradox” that arises, in addition to the counter intuitive nature of IP and the over-aching effect of 'black letter' law vs the “law of the playground,” as he puts it.

      These elements come into play in the video game industry pretty often. If you have ever looked at cosplay at events such as Comic-Con, Comi-Ket, and various other conventions and expos, then you will have seen people dressed up as some of their favorite characters from movies, books, games, and shows. Often there may be booths where derivative works are being made and/or sold and so the paradox begins. These are forms of IP law in effect, and while often enough they let a lot of this slide, as theirs a great love for cosplayers and fan artists across the board according to Wattles and the famously anonymous “Harold Smith.” However, it does not change the fact that it often places original artists or publishers of works in a spot at times, where they may alienate customers by having to enforce encroaching rights on their products – sometimes you have to.

      Regarding the “law of the playground” - there has to be a method to which fans can express their “fandom” through works without calling into question infringement, something on the playground that never happened. i.e. little Bobby and little Timmy both able to pretend to be Superman – something that does not exist in the adult world, though with fan artists a more lax authority presents itself, allowing their works to transpire. Of course, as Wattles notes, there are ways to protect yourself from the effects of IP law: implied consent, non-commercial use, and fair-use methods.

      These are important as much for fan artists as they are for most anyone else dealing with anything that could be construed as derivative of something else – for instance a character in a game that reminds you of say, Bruce Campbell.. Ultimately, avoiding selling material for commercial use is one way to maintain a defense, as long as you're not harming or “besmirching” the trademark. Its not to uncommon to see implied consent, something wattles refers to with his anecdote of a star commenting on fan art and his/her love of it and how much they love to see it and hope it continues – this implies consent, and can be used as a defense to maintain fan artist works. Of course, by and large, the most common being fair-use – allowing a work to be used fairly in a wide range of ways often by way – as Wattles puts it – of the nature of being trans-formative. Things like teaching and using content for the purpose criticism counts toward fair-use, as does a modification of a works original intention, expression and format in such a way that it differentiates itself. Something to think about when you are making a product based off another product, while attempting to pretend it is original, even when it has works from other products in it. That is a mouthful, indeed.

      Overall, these three lectures aspire to inaugurate and/or improve the breadth of our information on liability in realistic context. In the age of information and digital means, it is imperative that we be vigilant for ourselves as well as for the sake of others personally protected rights to their work and/or creativity. If anything, it falls to finding a way to incorporate the fundamentals of the day in the wake of these technological changes, in order to capitulate in a mutually beneficial manner, expressive creativity, community, and the ability to maintain what is yours. So, I leave you with this image - a great book on the overall subject in today's world. You can check it out, here.

The Power of Money: A look at some of 2012's most prolific Video Game controversies

          Every year there is something new and inventive on the horizon. There is the proverbial ship, carrying all the wonders of the age with it, yet something strangely pervasive as it nears the horizon – green sails – sails made of currency, and paneling made of gold. Its a money-train, on water, that impressively enough, doesn't sink. An interesting way to describe the state of the video game industry, and the quality of some of those involved. Of particular note, 3 of the most prolific cases of recent memory, some still ongoing, such as the Activision lawsuit against infinity wardand West/Zampella, as well as HammerPoint Interactive's WarZ andthe nightmare that is Sergey Titov, and the court case rocking the NCAA/entertainment industry world – Keller vs. Electronic Arts.

           While all three appear to be stories of the little guy vs “The Man,” it's more accurate to describe these controversies for what they really represent – greed in the face of artistic expression, and the right to peoples due diligence in the wake of ever-expanding corporatism in the video game industry. Everyone should be entitled to what they're owed, but is there a point at which both sides forget what it is they're really about in the interest of the almighty dollar? Something to think about as we take a step into these three prolific controversies.

           The West/Zampella vs Activision lawsuit was a major issue, starting in 2010, that ran the gamut through the first half of 2012. Constantly in the news, it stressed the importance of trust and transparency between company and employee. Through 2012 it became a he-said/she-said battle in which West/Zampella were accused of stealing code and conspired with Electronic Arts to create something amazing from Activision left-overs, all the while negotiating terms of new contracts with EA, while still under contract with Activision – a wholly illegal affair.

           Of course, Activision had been accused of firing employees in whom they owed significant royalties. Between all the paper work and articles, the best we can surmise is that both sides were actually right – the team that separated from West/Zampella and left Activision became the Infinity Ward Employee Group, who went on to win over $42 million. West/Zampella settled out of court in late May of last year with an undisclosed sum, though with the amount they had been asking for (over 1 billion dollars), it is fair to imagine they certainly made enough to never work again. Likely for the best, considering all that happened, they'll actually never be able to work again in this industry.

           Thinking back on it, it is a shame that it happened to begin with. Greed is a disease; it starts small, insignificant, and the more it roams free, the more it grows into something entirely disassociated from its original intent. Instead, we end with as much as 46 people being let go and not receiving their owed royalties, while the attempt of pinning blame on two men as part of the fault be hind the entire ordeal, as somehow the cornerstone of the issue. The problem is that it never was. The issue boils down to people being owed something and not receiving it. What this means for the rest of us, is that in the future claims of royalties, and due commission will easily become a forefront element to any deal in the industry, though it is likely to paint companies such as EA and Activision in an even worse light then they already are. There are of course, detractors on the other side, claiming people like West and Zampella are complicit in that greed, and that folks like them are just as bad – maybe that's true, though if you were owed money – whether a dollar, or a million dollars – the principle is the same for you: you want what is yours.

           While talk of lawsuits abound, there has been nothing concrete in that arena thus far in the troubles of WARZ. The controversy, originally stemming from copyrightinfringement of some images from The Walking Dead, suddenly turned into a total campaign smear against HammerPoint Interactive, the makers of WARZ, in which it got out (with clear evidence) of directly lifting the vast majority of content from the game, WARInc.: BattleZone. Additionally, it was then shown that they lifted stylized content and direct mechanics and UI representative of the customization menu functions behind the Crysis series' weapons.

           Things spiral soon after, with Valve's Steam service deciding to pull the plug on the zombie shooter and refund purchases. From there, it was a long line of suspicious micro-transactions, underhanded moderator bans and censorship, fraudulent activities regarding account banning to force long-time players to repurchase in addition to lack of features that were promised. The games big wig Sergey Titov, known for creating the worst game in history, Big Rigs, attempted to issue an “apology” letter, where, for all intents and purposes, he accused everyone of misreading, rather than taking responsibility.

           While certainly not the first tale of stolen assets in a game, if anything, the moral of this story and those like it, is caveat emptor. Whether lawsuits are going to light up is unclear at this point, but what is known, is that HammerPoint appears to be a subsidiary for Arktos – who also own the company behind War inc, which Titov works for – which would likely give him the room needed to secure those assets without legal troubles. Even so, it doesn't account for the other theft of property from Crysis or The Walking Dead, nor does it leave them free from their clearly fraudulent activities.

          Lastly, the Keller vs. Electronic Arts case, which, by and all accounts is far from over, gives us another introspective into the steps people will go for the sake of money. In this case, Keller, a player in the NCAA asserts that his likeness without fair representation and compensation is a clear violation ofhis right to publicity, having made money off his likeness, stats, jersey number, etc. Assertions by the Keller camp believe the infringement goes deeper – obtaining these stats, and other materials across the entire division. Schools aren't permitted to make money directly from their athletes, nor are athletes able to obtain monetary sums for their skill, something to which Keller believes the league exploited with EA, yearly.

           It's been a long standing issue, with cases such as Hart vs Electronic Arts, or the O'Bannon case (which is now consolidated with the Keller camp). While these issues haven't finalized, it's clear that whichever way they go will have a significant effect on sports in the NCAA. Either players will receive compensation damages, or should they lose, EA and others will be able to speculate as to why they need to pay royalty agreements yearly at all. I suppose, f you can't grant an NCAA player direct compensation for his skill, it could be re-assigned in the same manner scholarships are. After all, those are technically monetary investments given based on skill. The League itself shouldn't have the final say, and I think those in the Keller camp, really do have a solid reason to not only be upset, but to continue the battle for rights to their publicity and personality.

           So, with three of the most prolific controversies surrounding the video game industry, it's a pretty safe bet the effect of money – and involved parties perceived right to it – will continue to expound in an industry that's gone from quaint and fun, to a thoroughly engaging multi-billion international business. The over-aching theme starts to create its own picture, however. One that particularly showcases a yearly drive for sales and money, rather than a focus on quality products that are fun, entertaining, and engaging, while improving the art form.