mind•haven

(in EST)

Just for fun, I’m compiling a list of numbers of the annual revenues of Internet and software companies. Here what I have so far:

World of Warcraft announced that the the 7.5 million players (paid, active) online. US monthly fees are $13-15 (Wikipedia). That means that WoW makes about 7.5x$13×12 = $1.17 billion a year from monthly fees alone.

That puts a single game in the same ballpark as products from other tech companies…

Google reported making $6 billion in 2005 up from $1.5 Billion in 2003.

One blogger speculates that YouTube could be raking in as much as $440 million in annual revenue.

From October 2005 to September 2006, Apple sold 39 million iPods. That’s at LEAST 39x$79 (for a shuffle) = $3.081 billion and at MOST 39x$279 $10.881 billion.

Apple has also sold about a billion songs in the same period. That’s almost a $1 billion dollars in revenue.

I wonder long it will take before other revenue models like Micropayments and In-Game Ads take off in terms of popularity and revenue.

Well, I arrived in the States last week. I am currently in Texas until Saturday. I lost my SIM card with all my friends’ numbers on it. If you are reading this, please do ping me with your latest number. Thanks.

“If you would really like to get the attention of [the games] industry and set yourself apart, your work has to reflect something that [game developers] don’t currently do or don’t know about…”

Upon looking at the list of projects for next semester at the Entertainment Technology Center (ETC), one could not help but notice the growth of approved game-oriented projects since last year. For students that are interested in the game industry, there are now much more opportunities. Particularly, with all the buzz around the game production projects, it may be easy to discount the two “research projects” such as Game Innovations and Game Sketching.

Frankly, it is understandable why some might think as research to be “un-sexy.” After watching the Game Sketching presentation in ETC Pittsburgh online, I can totally empathize with the reactions to the video our first week of work. On face value, it looks like a team of students could make a more “polished” experience in one round of BVW, but that is not the point of a research project.

The goal is to generate knowledge, not products, which can be a hard notion to take in. Since much of the industry seems to be focused on spectacle (i.e. graphics, AI, and physics), it seems reasonable to want to do the same in order to show that you have what it takes to “break in.” However, if you would really like to get the attention of industry and set yourself apart, your work has to reflect something that they don’t currently do or don’t know about.

But isn’t the ETC supposed to be production-oriented? Yes, it is very much so, and that is perfectly fine. It shows that ETC students can finish work, which is extremely important. However, research projects prove more than your ability to ship a title. They give developers in the industry better tools with the bonus of making you an automatic expert in that field, and developers find a lot of value in that too.

As a game developer, there have been three projects that have stood out to me as “immediately relevant” for all game developers: Experimental Gameplay, Game Innovations, and Game Sketching. Experimental Gameplay shows us that a new game “toy” or mechanic could be prototyped in only a week. Game Innovations is a “Web 2.0″ version of the toolbox assignment from Jesse Schell’s Game Design course. It gives designers a sort of practical language with which to communicate. To put it simply, it is a language of precedents. Lastly, Game Sketching is essentially “PreViz” for games. It allows designers an agile way to establish the experience of a game without scripting artificial intelligence.

At my time at Edge of Reality, it was common practice for a designer to take you aside to play an existing game and at the end of the conversation he would say, “Make it like that!” The notion, that an ETC project can expand the library of references at a game designer’s disposal or add to his arsenal by creating completely new forms of play, is extremely significant. It means that research projects have the possibility of changing the very way that professionals in the industry think, and that makes the ETC a very exciting place to be. So, if you’re applying to the ETC or continuing onto the next semester, take advantage of these projects while you have the chance.

Last week, I attended the Games Connect Asia Pacific Conference in Brisbane, Australia. I went with my Professor John Buchanan and the rest of the Game Sketching project team from the ETC.

The Game Connect conference started out slow with the MasterClasses. The Autodesk sessions were only really useful to 3d artists, and I could not get into the Sony PS3 lectures. So, I spent most of my time networking near the snack bar. There I met up with Mario from Sidhe Interactive, who in turn introduced me to an old acquaintance from GDC Tim Nixon. In turns out that Tim founded one of the three largest developers in NZ, which was very inspiring.

The next day, I spent the morning on the expo floor. There I met new people from Sidhe and talked about their new port of their game to the PS3 online download platform. One was a designer from Arkansas. Another was the business development person for the company. I found that Sidhe employees are allowed to do company pitches for new games. It looks like Game Sketching would be most helpful to individuals seeking to prove their ideas at larger studios.

The first session I attended was Matt Ford’s talk on User Testing, which only lightly touched on the topic. After lunch, our team interviewed by David Nye from “Control Freaks.” It is hard to concentrate when your on camera. I then made it into the last half of the programming language talk. The speaker from IR Gurus proposed that a committee from the game industry create a new programming language to replace C++. While the cost alone of such an undertaking is prohibitive, his case was further weakened since most game studios already use alternative forms of programming as engines become more data-driven.

Chris Avellone‘s talk on Interactive Storytelling, on the other hand, was very helpful. He cited many personal stories on how to best integrate writing into design. The Game Sketching team was able to grab him for questions at the end, and he became very interested in our project. The rest of the afternoon, I hung around the Iron Monkey booth. The team was made up of young professionals trying to sign their first console title.

That evening we went to the Sony party, which was packed. I was able to talk more with developers I had met earlier and even met some new ones. The creator of fMod was there. He had very truthful insights about the Australian game industry. The stated that most studios are only working on title with licensed IP and don’t create any distinguishing titles. However, I found that to be generally true of the industry worldwide.

The last day, I attended a session by the creator of Loco Roco. I found it amazing on how straightforward the Japanese design process is. In North America, any title pitch must have a business and marketing case, which muddies up any good idea trying to make it into production. After the talk, fellow teammate Albith and I were able to take pictures with the speaker. That made the entire conference for us.

Overall, the conference gave us an overall impression of the Australian game industry. Plus, it allowed us to make several contacts for next year’s Game Sketching project and our future careers.