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.

  

THQ closes: Publishing power shifts, for better or for worse

A Nail in the Coffin: Contrary to many and their feelings,  the death of THQ isn't a good thing.

         After some serious ups and downs over the last few years, THQ has finally called it. Being unable to maintain it's stock, and having defaulted on their Wells Fargo loan (in addition to their quarter-billion in long-term liabilities) they've been selling off their assets. Having filed a Chapter 11 in mid December, many of our beloved titles are getting tossed around, which can easily spell the end of many products, or a 'revision' of production on said IP's that end up delaying their releases (Company of Heroes 2 and Metro Last light have already been pushed back to March of this year, when they were to be released in 2012, originally).

         To be fair, many people were against THQ for a long time. With a company as infamous as EA with its acquisitions and publishing methods, it is easy to suddenly shout with joy that one of the largest behemoths has fallen. However, the truth is, that while it would seem this had an effect on stifling creativity and openness of the gaming platform itself, what it really means is that, a wide range of products that promoted staples of non-casual gaming are poised to suddenly disappear. 

        What's about to happen to titles such as Red Faction or Destroy All Humans!? What is the future of titles such as Saints Row, Darksiders, or Warhammer 40k as a franchise? While some studios and their associated IP's were pickedup at auction, yesterday, it remains to be seen what happens to some of the more illustrious studios, such as Vigil games, who are as of this writing, still under the Chapter 11, pending sale (hopefully not lost to the annals of time). And, while Relic Entertainment was sold, it ended up in the hands of SEGA, whom, this past summer had to close its Oceanic & European operations due to economic issues. That's not exactly inspiring – neither is the fact that SEGA's days as a dominating presence in video games as a whole, is largely past them after the failure of their last two consoles, the Dreamcast and the Saturn.

         While they're still well in the black, do they have the range and support to make Relics product(s) penetrate as well as previously done under THQ? To those who may think otherwise, the short answer is yes – remember, they own Creative Assembly, the company behind the Total War series, and have recently announced picking up rights to develop Warhammer games. So, this may be a solid placing for Relic Entertainment if it all pans out.

         Other holdings, such as Volition (Metro & Saints Row franchises) go to Koch Media (who in case you're wondering, are the guys who own Dead Island rights, and Deep Silver, a publishing company), Crytek picks up the Homefront IP, and Take 2 snags Turtle Rock Studios, “evolve.” Unfortunately, non of this particularly helps employees of THQ, who, having weathered the storm of falling in the red, so-to-speak, with THQ, have lost there jobs (which searches all across social networking, has many listed as out of work, now). In fact, the letter from the CEO can be found at Kotaku, which you can read, Here.

         Overall, the shifting of power has moved around, yet it likely opens up a new door for advancements in the Indie sector, and changes in creative pursuits. The problem, is that it likely will increase the foothold casual markets have, while the chance for work, will likely be an even tougher market in the wake of this change.

CES: "Steam Box" & "Project Shield" - Unnecessary 'innovation' on the horizon?

        Happy (belated) New Year! No Alien invasions, Zombie apocalypse, Nuclear holocaust, or various other epic end-time maladies happened from Dec. 21^st onward. Luckily as well, a narrow avoidance of the Fiscal Cliff , which is definitely giving me – and I'm sure millions more – peace of mind. Unfortunately, That doesn't mean there aren't element son the horizon that threaten our very way of life. I mean, I'm sure there are, but I'm certain technologies such as Nvidia's new venture into the handheld market, or Steams new PC hardware won't be ushering in the dark age any time soon.

         Last nights' Pre-Consumer Electronics Show (CES), which was broadcast live across the web, was not only fairly amazing, it was surprisingly full of innovation – though I think much of that is like a tree branch, growing in the wrong direction. Throughout the rest of CES we'll also get to see Valve's new "Steam Box." All of this is compact, and lightweight it would seem, but I've got to be honest: It's a lot of 'dead weight' if anything.

         Valve's new toy is said to have a higher spec than its sister model, the original Xi3 which, for $500 runs an AMD dual-core 1.8Ghz processor, 2GB DDR2 RAM, and a DX11 compatible video board, albeit only 128MB. What that actually amounts to is an expensive paperweight – by all accounts – in today's market. While it can be upgraded, it doesn't really have any selling points that can't already be entirely met by other relatively similar, and better priced, products. Name most tablets of the last year, which have great functionality for a mobile and small device. While they're not necessarily upgradeable, when you consider the new versions every 6 months to a year, the cost of upgrading Xi3's modular box, is just as much, if not more, than buying the next iteration of say, an iPad, or Galaxy tablet.

         While as of yet, I'm not sure of the specs or potential for Valve's version, other than Big Picture Mode ( rolled out in September, it allows Steam to work on TV, along with controller friendly input and a built-in web browser), I do know that it's an interesting concept. Though, since we don't actually 'need' the Steam Box for it, it's probably safe to say it's really only an item for those who like to be at the front of the technological curve – those guys who bought a $10,000 and even $15,000 plasmaTV when they first came out, or a $1,500 keyboard withall LCD screens, The world is lookin' at you.

        Now, as for the earlier mentioned Nvidia handheld, I'd say like any good New Years resolution – you should be dropping the fun of the idea by the end of cold February. In other words, much like a zombie apocalypse – which I'm still glad didn't happen by the way – you should be running in the other direction. While I've nothing against Nvidia, in and of itself, the fact that their new handheld, so far titled, "ProjectShield" is already being compared to the N-Gage, is clearly not a good sign. Additionally, there's no real function in it that you can't already recieve in gadgets you already own; namely many of your smartphone or tablets.

         The thing to like about the new handheld, is of course, it's Android based design, 720p 294dpi retinal display that's also multitouch. The HDMI supporting, on-the-go streaming ability of the device with the amazing Tegra 4 chip (which is roughly 6 times morepowerful than the Tegra 3), allows for some impressive gaming on the go. Along with the universally shaped controller (for the millions of us who play an Xbox or Xbox 360, this will have us right at home) it's accessible and easy to pick up. The problem is that with all of that, it's still not doing anything that hasn't already been done by our common technology we use on-the-go, now. 
 

         One of the biggest issues regarding the Project Shield in my opinion, is PC streaming requires a PC to actually stream from. It'll have to be strong enough as well as run Nvidia (as some reports seem to believe there will or may be issues with non-Nvidia chipsets) to be functional. I think the biggest headway it makes is that it's far more powerful, due to the nature of it's graphics chipset, than the Ouya, the soon to be$99 independent Android console.   

        I'll be impressed if it can size against that kind of price tag, and likely with a modding community behind the Ouya, it's safe to assume streaming functions between PC and console will be had , rendering another niche in the Project Shield handheld, irrelevant. Even so, if this baby can manage to be used by way of a wireless connection, however, then we'd be on to something – playing my PC games while I'm out of the house. Truly the only viable option for ever streaming your PC games to a handheld device, other than feeling like playing them on your TV outside your room.

         At the end of the day, these are some pretty cool sounding gadgets, the Nvidia Project Shield and Valve's Steam Box. However, I'm just not convinced there is a real market for these products, when faced with a wide array of technology we use already with similar features. How the Steam Box will improve the Big Picture Mode, I'm not sure. Nor am I certain of the potential wireless stream capabilities of Project Shield – what I consider to be it's only defining point if it can indeed be used by wireless connection. Soon we'll learn more and hopefully it'll be something worth looking forward to.

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?