Wednesday, June 26, 2013

EA and Nintendo: the collapse of the "unprecedented relationship"

Via Eurogamer.net:

 "Our job as game creators and executives is to be where the gamers are."

Just two years ago, during another typically sunny morning in Los Angeles, ex-EA boss John Riccitiello walked on stage at the Nokia Theatre to announce an “unprecedented relationship” with Nintendo.
It was June 2011 and the Wii was closing in on its 90 millionth console sold. With the world ready for new hardware, Nintendo seemed poised to make lightning strike twice. The Japanese company had a new touchscreen controller and, finally, an HD-capable console, and with PlayStation 4 and Xbox One seemingly still far away, Wii U was, briefly, the cool new kid in town.
“Over the years I've made appearances at E3 with console partners, but never before for Nintendo,” Riccitiello began. “What brings us together today is a breakthrough in our relationship based on a stunning breakthrough in technology. What Nintendo's new console delivers speaks directly to the players of EA Sports and EA Games.”
Riccitiello gave examples of EA's vision. A new Madden title could have instantly-available stats via the GamePad, he suggested, or a fresh Battlefield game would be able to use DICE's meaty Frostbite engine and the Wii U's graphical power. Other benefits of the system would include easy-to-access online multiplayer and the ability to provide a constant stream of game-extending DLC.
It's easy to see why the prospect had EA drooling. Nintendo had a huge existing Wii userbase and a new console ready to be filled with the publisher's slate of games. And it would strike first with fresh hardware at the tail end of a long - too-long - console generation.
Fast forward a year later to the Wii U's launch in Nov 2012, and far slower console sales than expected. EA released a FIFA and a Madden game (the former with fewer features than on other platforms and the latter only in North America). It also provided delayed ports of Mass Effect 3 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted (with existing DLC included on-disc, and later expansions simply missing).
Nintendo's online systems were better than the Wii's, but the console's included hard drive sizes and shaky eShop download speed meant most publishers ignored DLC altogether. And then, just six months into Wii U's life, EA revealed that it no longer had any Wii U games in development. The “unprecedented partnership” had come to an abrupt end. In total, EA made four Wii U games.
“[Need for Speed: Most Wanted] was the last one we did,” Patrick Soderlund, boss of EA Games Labels, told Eurogamer during an interview conducted at E3. “Right now I don't have any other games in development for the Wii U. We are, frankly, hard at work with what we have in front of us and with the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One. We're focusing on those for now and getting that right.
“When you have new technology like these two platforms represent and you have game teams focused on it, you can only do so much. And even though we have a lot of people we have decided for now... and I can only speak for my label... that we focus on the previous platforms, PS3 and Xbox 360, as well as PC, Xbox One and PS4.
“For now.”
It's hard to believe that a company the size of EA could lack for resources, but this year's financial results saw EA fall short of its own targets. It was for this reason that Riccitiello quit, the company triggered even more lay-offs and announced the cancellation of several under-performing franchises. It's not that EA didn't have the resources, then, but that it no longer had the resources spare for a lower-priority console.
When you run a business - and we all run businesses - you have to make decisions that are good for the consumers, and the people who work inside this company and good for our shareholders.
Patrick Soderlund, boss of EA Games Labels
1
As the final part of a story-driven trilogy with no previous entries on a Nintendo console - and released six months after other versions - was Mass Effect 3 ever going to sell on Wii U?
"My guess is that EA saw poor share on the Wii and Nintendo promised to help it gain greater share on the Wii U, and EA hadn't seen enough progress to give it confidence that it should continue support," explained Michael Pachter, famed video game analyst and managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities.
"Add to that the fact that EA missed its financial targets last year, and went through a comprehensive review of spending that didn't generate a return," Pachter continued. "It is highly likely that in this review, it determined that it was not profitable on incremental R&D spending for Wii U, and it couldn't see the poor-selling console turning the corner in the next year or two."
EA's Soderlund confirmed to Eurogamer that the decision to abandon Wii U - at least for the time being - was business-orientated, with the simple fact that Nintendo hadn't sold enough consoles to blame.
"When you run a business - and we all run businesses - you have to make decisions that are good for the consumers, and the people who work inside this company and good for our shareholders," Soderlund explained. "We put our eggs in the basket where we think they'll matter the most. I understand some people will be disappointed by that."
"Our job as game creators and executives is to be where the gamers are. Frankly, it's as simple as that."
But EA is still supporting many other consoles. For FIFA 14, EA Sports will launch the mega-selling football franchise on the original Wii but not Wii U. It will launch for PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One, on mobile, on 3DS, on PSP, on Vita and even for the decade-old discontinued PlayStation 2 but not Wii U. It's the first time a FIFA game has failed to launch on a Nintendo platform in over a decade, and rekindles memories of EA's decision to drop support of Sega's much-loved but ill-fated Dreamcast console.
Listen, we went out in strong support of the Nintendo Wii U.
Andrew Wilson, boss of EA Sports
2
The last time a new FIFA game skipped Nintendo's current hardware was in the pre-GameCube era.
"Listen, we went out in strong support of the Nintendo Wii U, and we actually built a number of games as a company including FIFA for the Wii U," EA Sports boss Andrew Wilson told Eurogamer when we asked why there would be no FIFA 14 on the platform.
"For us, in all honesty, the take-up there around sports gaming on that platform wasn't where it needed to be in order for the continued support of FIFA on that platform at this time. The reality was it wasn't there. We have to build and invest in games for the broad gamer base so we can ensure we deliver the best possible games."
But it's hardly surprising that Wii U owners - even those who are FIFA fans - avoided last year's title. It included fewer features than its PS3 and Xbox 360 counterparts, such as the First Touch system and the FIFA Street skill system. At the time, EA told Eurogamer that the disparity between versions was the fault of it having been busy building up a Wii U-specific FIFA framework to use in future entries - versions which now may never see light of day.
“Listen, I think we built a really solid game," Wilson said at E3 in the game's defence. "We were very happy with the game. We did the best to take advantage of the capabilities and the features of the Nintendo Wii U. Fun is a subjective thing. But what I can say is we put everything we could into making that the best possible game with the tools we had at hand."
Both Wilson and Soderlund suggested that EA's current stance on Wii U is not necessarily set in stone - the publisher could potentially return at some point in the future, but only if Nintendo turns around the fortunes of its struggling console.
"Nintendo's a fantastic partner to us," Wilson said. "We've had a long relationship with them. We certainly never count them out. I know they are working diligently to grow their install base and grow their install base of sports gamers, which by default will grow their install base of FIFA gamers. And as that happens we may be given cause to re-evaluate where we go and what we focus on."
We talk to EA all the time. In the end this is simple business.
Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America boss
3
Nintendo will return to its most iconic franchises for this year's holiday line-up - Mario, Zelda and Donkey Kong.
Nintendo declined to comment on the loss of EA's support when contacted by Eurogamer, but executives have mentioned it in interviews and even said they understand the decision.
At E3 in June, Nintendo of America boss Reggie Fils-Aime told Polygon it was up to Nintendo to increase the Wii U's install base, not EA. “We talk to EA all the time,” he said. “In the end this is simple business. First party needs to drive a large diverse install base for publishers to create content to take advantage of that install base.
“That is what we are looking to do, you know for any publisher what they want to say to themselves is that we have game X and we are confident that we can sell game X not only to pay off the investment but to make a profit on that game.”
It's clear that right now, EA does not feel it can make a profit on Wii U.
---
It's difficult to determine exactly how long it took for cracks in the EA-Nintendo relationship to appear, but the fact that EA never announced any further games for Wii U beyond its initial quota suggested that it may have already become more cautious of its chances by the console's disappointing launch.
It's likely that platform decisions for EA's spring 2013 blockbusters Dead Space 3 and Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel were made before Wii U was a known quantity. Yet the developer of another spring EA game, Crysis 3 studio Crytek, suggested a Wii U port would have been possible - EA was just uninterested.
As an independent company that deals with EA solely for its Crysis series, Crytek has been more open with its comments about Wii U than the EA mothership. As early as April 2012 - 10 months after the EA-Nintendo relationship was announced - a Crytek employee was heard to say that there was a "fat chance" of Crysis 3 appearing on Wii U. Subsequent clarification made it clear that Crytek itself had been working on an Wii U version, but that it "had to die" due to a lack of interest from EA.
I'd love to see it [Crysis 3] on Wii U, but what I love to see and what gets done at the end of the day are two different things.
Cevat Yerli, Crytek boss
4
EA backed Mass Effect 3, but not Crysis 3.
"I'd love to see it [Crysis 3] on Wii U, but what I love to see and what gets done at the end of the day are two different things," Crytek boss Cevat Yerli explained in January this year, before the game launched. "If that business decision doesn't make sense, or seems to not make sense for them, it's... not possible for us to make it. We can't publish ourselves, and that's the bottom line."
It's hard to hear that EA actively shunned a Wii U version of Crytek's shooter and not see it as some kind of barometer for the company's waning interest. It's also not difficult to imagine the kind of discussions that went on in EA's Redmond boardroom in the months that followed Riccitiello's E3 2011 speech, as the company pondered less-than-stellar Wii U sales predictions while Sony and Microsoft representatives dropped off the latest dev builds of Orbis and Durango.
With none of EA's major spring slate headed to Wii U and just the delayed port of Need for Speed: Most Wanted still left on the horizon, the unprecedented relationship was very much on the rocks. EA cemented the break-up with its next announcement: that its upcoming major wave of games would run on DICE's Frostbite 3 engine, which it claimed was not Wii U-compatible. The framework will be used in 15 upcoming titles, including Battlefield 4, Need for Speed: Rivals, Mass Effect 4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mirror's Edge and its unannounced Star Wars games. Wii U will miss out on them all.
By way of explanation, DICE technical director Johan Andersson claimed via Twitter that "FB3 has never been running on Wii U. We did some tests with not too promising results with FB2 and chose not to go down that path." Would EA now have the same technical problems with Frostbite on Wii U had the console been selling like hot cakes? Or was EA simply eyeing a less-than-spectacular return on Wii U releases? "It's both," Patrick Bach, executive producer of Battlefield at DICE told Eurogamer.
If the Wii U was immensely popular we would probably put more focus into seeing how we could mitigate this.
Patrick Bach, Battlefield executive producer
5
DICE's new Mirror's Edge won't release on Wii U.
"If the Wii U was immensely popular we would probably put more focus into seeing how we could mitigate this, because it is a technical problem," Bach said. "It is a technical problem at its core because the Frostbite engine is not designed to run on that hardware, and the hardware is quite different from the next-gen consoles and the previous gen consoles."
But the Wii U is at least as powerful as current generation consoles and Frostbite 3 is designed to be scalable - we'll see current-gen versions of Battlefield 4, for example. With Frostbite 2 appearing to work on Wii U fine, does the argument about having technical difficulties really still stand up?
"From our perspective it's not as powerful as it should be to be able to run a Battlefield game," Bach responded. "Straight out of the box, as in Frostbite 3, it doesn't run that well on the Wii U, which means it takes a lot of time and energy from us that would then take from something else.
"So, we made the decision to say, no, let's not take away the focus from the PlayStations and the Xboxes and the PCs to do this. At the end of the day it's about focus and priorities. If we could press a button to move it over to Wii U, of course we could make a Wii U SKU, but it would take some substantial time to do it. I know some fans get very upset when we say that, but it's true. There's a reason why not all games are on the Wii U platform."
And again, should Nintendo turn around Wii U's fortunes, DICE is open to returning to the platform, Bach concluded.
"Absolutely. Of course. There's no reason why we couldn't focus down and make a Nintendo GameBoy version of it as well. It's all about where you put your focus and how you scale things. Where do you scale down? Where do you put your team efforts?
"We need to do what is right for the franchise and what feels right in our gut. If you have to scale your game down in the wrong places too much, then you lose some of the core values of what your game stands for. It's complicated. It's more complicated than people would like it to be. I would love for us to be able to be on Samsung TVs as well, but we have to draw the line somewhere."
We need to do what is right for the franchise and what feels right in our gut.
Patrick Bach
6
A Samsung TV. Unlikely to be running Battlefield 4 anytime soon, unless you plug your console in first.
EA is responding to the platforms it thinks it will turn a profit on, then, but as Soderlund said, you would expect nothing less from any other business. Ubisoft, while remaining as one of the Wii U's strongest third-party supporters, has still reorganised its 2013 Wii U slate with the same mentality. It attracted the ire of countless Nintendo fans for ditching Rayman Legends' Wii U exclusivity. Yet it did so to make sure that Legends would be available for a wide audience after analysing Wii U launch sales.
"This is not just an EA issue," agreed Piers Harding-Rolls, senior analyst and games boss at UK-based IHS Screen Digest. "Most publishers will be looking for Nintendo to generate platform momentum before committing significant investment at this stage. We expect Wii U sales to pick up in line with the release of big hitting titles and increased marketing support. But overall we expect Nintendo to lose significant market share this generation compared to last gen."
And it might be some time before Nintendo is able to build up a strong enough Wii U userbase that publishers are happy with the risk, Harding-Rolls concluded.
"Nintendo's short term plan is to generate momentum through first party games and to then stimulate increased third party investment. This still means, however, that we are unlikely to see significant third party releases until the end of 2014."
"My bet is that once Wii U gets a respectable installed base (say 15-20 million units), EA will look at supporting it again, as it might be able to sell sufficient units of its big games to turn a profit," Pachter added, explaining that even mainstream EA releases can find it hard to penetrate Nintendo's userbase. "It is unlikely that FIFA on Wii U would penetrate many more than 10 per cent of the installed base, and it might not justify the incremental cost to make the game for only 500,000 units sold."
Until then, though, Wii U owners will have to make do, on the whole, with Nintendo-made games. Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has said that his company can re-establish third-party support, but its focus is fixed squarely on fueling console sales through its heavy-hitting brands: Mario, Donkey Kong and Zelda.
Our focus is, first of all, to regain the momentum of the Wii U towards the end of this year, and then we'll try to establish successful third-party Wii U software titles.
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo company president
7
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze will be the second outing for DK this year.
“Our focus is, first of all, to regain the momentum of the Wii U towards the end of this year, and then we'll try to establish successful third-party Wii U software titles,” Iwata told IGN at E3. “I believe in the importance of third-party support for Nintendo platforms. I'm very willing to change the current situation.”
According to Harding-Rolls, Nintendo is better equipped than its competitors in the console game space to suffer from a lack of third-party support. “Although missing mainstream favourites such as FIFA or Madden and enthusiast titles such as Battlefield is a blow, Nintendo's portfolio of games IP is so strong that the lack of third-party support is less of a PR issue to Nintendo than it would be to Sony or Microsoft,” he said.
Pachter's assessment is more to the point: “The lack of third-party support makes the Wii U more of a dedicated Nintendo software player than any device prior.
“That makes it like Apple TV.”
It would be great for Wii U owners if all third-parties supported the console with a wide variety of games, of course, but the blame for the current lack of interest in the platform by publishers correlates directly with the blame for the current lack of interest in the platform by the public. Nintendo has yet to convince a large enough slice of the population to buy a Wii U, which in turn is keeping publishers cautious about lending it their support.
It remains to be seen whether EA will rejoin the Wii U at some point, but in the short term at least, the battle lines for this Christmas' crucial sales season are already drawn up. Nintendo has big hopes of its own, of course: Super Mario 3D World, in my own opinion the best multiplayer Mario platformer ever made, an HD remake of fan-favourite Zelda: The Wind Waker, plus Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Sonic games from Sega and a smattering of AAA support from Ubisoft. But, without EA, there is no doubt that Wii U will face its difficult second Christmas more isolated than its first, and now alongside two huge new platforms hungry for your attention.
Additional reporting by Wesley Yin-Poole.

Friday, June 21, 2013

The most popular arguments in favour of Xbox One DRM

Via Eurogamer.net:

Yesterday I questioned whether Microsoft's decision to change its Xbox One DRM plans addressed the underlying issues that got the company into trouble in the first place, but on the whole I was happy to see the proposed policies rolled back, and left hoping that Microsoft will use this as an opportunity to find a better balance between the art and business sides of gaming.
Not everyone was pleased with the company's decision, though. Here are a few of the most popular arguments in favour of the original Xbox One policies, along with some of my thoughts on why they are flawed.
1
I remember when all this was fields.
"Xbox One would have solved the problem of buying a game on disc and then not being able to store it digitally or download it from the cloud."
The situation that we have now - and will have on Xbox One - is certainly inelegant, but I don't think the answer is to sacrifice what little sense of ownership is left to us. What I would like to see is a solution that shows an appropriate amount of respect to the creator, distributor and customer.
Compared to the original Xbox One ideal, the movie industry (somewhat incredibly - they would cut you up for firewood if it meant a better margin) has the less draconian Triple-Play, where you pay a premium to buy a film on Blu-ray, DVD and digital at the same time. This isn't perfect either, but it feels like a step in the right direction, and it is also offered as an option rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
"Publishers could charge less for games."
This claim seems to hinge on the idea that publishers will suddenly receive a cut of the resale market and therefore won't have to squeeze us. This is extremely optimistic. I think publishers will charge us exactly as much as we will pay, so if we continue to buy games at £40 then publishers will pocket the new money they get from a digital resale market and charge us £40 for new stuff all the same. That's just how business works, really - a few smaller companies with strong morals and ethics may pass on savings, but otherwise surely the notion of trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited?
Actually, the cost of gaming will probably continue to go up - maybe not in terms of the initial outlay, but over the lifespan of a game we enjoy, the cost of necessary micro-transactions, boosters and subscription elements will mean we pay more per release. Meanwhile, sales of traditional triple-A games could even get worse if the existing resale market is threatened, because a lot of consumers factor resale value into their purchase decision and would find the alternative unappealing.
"You could make more money from your trade-ins."
We don't know exactly how the used game market - or 'used licence' market, if you like - was supposed to work, so it's hard to pre-judge its impact, but it seems extremely optimistic to think you would be able to simply sell your licence back to Microsoft for the equivalent of a partial refund. Any second-hand salesman has to be able to say 'no' to someone proposing a trade-in deal, or else they can end up with loads of stock they will never shift.
It's more likely that the digital used game market on Xbox One would have resembled an auction house, in which case the convenience to people using it would also increase competition among individual second-hand sellers, which would actually drive prices down. Meanwhile, publishers would make out well by skimming a percentage of whatever you did get for your licence off the top.
As for the bricks-and-mortar resale market, I can't imagine how it would have worked, but GameStop's existing attitude to consumers hadn't exactly filled me with optimism.
3
We're already paying more for our favourite games over their lifespans and this trend will continue.
"Everyone used to hate Steam, but everyone loves it now. Xbox One could have been the same."
Steam is a closed system like Xbox Live, but the crucial point is that it has to compete with other systems, like GOG, Amazon, Origin, U-Play and various others. These competitive market forces are one of the key reasons that the price of new PC games is driven lower than its console equivalent.
Meanwhile, there is only limited digital competition within the console space. Some digital games are multi-format, but as Microsoft's management of Xbox Live Arcade demonstrates, it will do its best to keep things exclusive so that it is not subject to these competitive market forces.
As for super-cheap sales of old games on Steam, they happen because those games stand more chance of making any money that way. Otherwise they are just catalogue items that users barely notice. The same thing also happens to a limited extent with Xbox Live summer sales, and Xbox One's attitude to pricing would probably just resemble that.
"Sharing games with your 10-person family plan would have been so much better than the total lack of digital sharing we have now."
Obviously this ignores the fact that we still have the option to buy many of our games on disc, where no such restrictions apply.
If you modify the claim to apply to digital stuff only, then yes, it's true that a 10-person sharing plan would be superior to what we have now - assuming it meant sharing the whole game for free across multiple devices owned by the same family. So what's stopping them introducing that anyway? Physical media should be able to co-exist with this system, which is why we could still see it in the future, assuming Microsoft actually thinks it was a good idea and it wasn't just an olive branch conceived after the original PR battering.
"The 24-hour online check-in was a necessary evil because it allows games to run entirely off the hard disk and be shared digitally."
It's hard to unpick this one without knowing the specifics of how it all worked, but it's worth noting that making installation obligatory was Microsoft's decision in the first place, and if we are going back to the way things work on Xbox 360 then perhaps it won't be necessary.
As with many of the Xbox One's positions on DRM, the 24-hour check-in was convenient for Microsoft's business objectives, but it clearly wasn't that important to games. The ease with which these elements have been scrapped, and the very small number of things Microsoft has had to sacrifice in order to hit its November date with a full software line-up, just goes to show just how unnecessary it all was.
2
Competition drives the prices on Steam down.
"DRM makes stuff more affordable."
I'm afraid I think this is a case of mistaking correlation for causality. Competition makes stuff more affordable.
"Now all we have is Xbox 360 2.0. How is this progress?"
It isn't progress. But change doesn't automatically represent progress either.
The thing that is genuinely sad about the rollback of Xbox One's policies is that it has drawn even more attention to the absence at E3 of any startling new creative thinking from the people using it to make games. But we shouldn't forget that the promise of innovation in Xbox One - made by the likes of Phil Harrison during the system's original unveiling - was the triumvirate of cloud computation, being able to rely on Kinect 2.0 in every box, and the promise of using multiple devices at once. None of these things relies on any of the measures Microsoft has taken out of the Xbox One this week, so there is no reason that Xbox One games should be any less imaginative and exotic than they were going to be in the first place.
As for whether those things were going to result in better games anyway? Well, we shall have to wait and see. It's not long now until November, so we'll know soon enough.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

More data storage? Here's how to fit 1,000 terabytes on a DVD

Via theconversation.com:
 T5gbpxcm-1371621655
Using nanotechnology, researchers have developed a technique to increase the data storage capacity of a DVD from a measly 4.7GB to 1,000TB. Nature Communications
We live in a world where digital information is exploding. Some 90% of the world’s data was generated in the past two years. The obvious question is: how can we store it all?
In Nature Communications today, we, along with Richard Evans from CSIRO, show how we developed a new technique to enable the data capacity of a single DVD to increase from 4.7 gigabytes up to one petabyte (1,000 terabytes). This is equivalent of 10.6 years of compressed high-definition video or 50,000 full high-definition movies.
So how did we manage to achieve such a huge boost in data storage? First, we need to understand how data is stored on optical discs such as CDs and DVDs.

The basics of digital storage

Although optical discs are used to carry software, films, games, and private data, and have great advantages over other recording media in terms of cost, longevity and reliability, their low data storage capacity is their major limiting factor.
Adam Foster | Codefor
The operation of optical data storage is rather simple. When you burn a CD, for example, the information is transformed to strings of binary digits (0s and 1s, also called bits). Each bit is then laser “burned” into the disc, using a single beam of light, in the form of dots.
The storage capacity of optical discs is mainly limited by the physical dimensions of the dots. But as there’s a limit to the size of the disc as well as the size of the dots, many current methods of data storage, such as DVDs and Blu-ray discs, continue to have low level storage density.
To get around this, we had to look at light’s fundamental laws.

Circumnavigating Abbe’s limit

Ernst Abbe. Wikimedia Commons
In 1873, German physicist Ernst Abbe published a law that limits the width of light beams.
On the basis of this law, the diameter of a spot of light, obtained by focusing a light beam through a lens, cannot be smaller than half its wavelength – around 500 nanometres (500 billionths of a metre) for visible light.
And while this law plays a huge role in modern optical microscopy, it also sets up a barrier for any efforts from researchers to produce extremely small dots – in the nanometre region – to use as binary bits.
In our study, we showed how to break this fundamental limit by using a two-light-beam method, with different colours, for recording onto discs instead of the conventional single-light-beam method.
Both beams must abide by Abbe’s law, so they cannot produce smaller dots individually. But we gave the two beams different functions:
Nature Communications
  • The first beam (red, in the figure right) has a round shape, and is used to activate the recording. We called it the writing beam
  • The second beam – the purple donut-shape – plays an anti-recording function, inhibiting the function of the writing beam
The two beams were then overlapped. As the second beam cancelled out the first in its donut ring, the recording process was tightly confined to the centre of the writing beam.
This new technique produces an effective focal spot of nine nanometres – or one ten thousandth the diameter of a human hair.

The technique, in practical terms

Our work will greatly impact the development of super-compact devices as well as nanoscience and nanotechnology research.
The exceptional penetration feature of light beams allow for 3D recording or fabrication, which can dramatically increase the data storage – the number of dots – on a single optical device.
The technique is also cost-effective and portable, as only conventional optical and laser elements are used, and allows for the development of optical data storage with long life and low energy consumption, which could be an ideal platform for a Big Data centre.
As the rate of information generated worldwide continues to accelerate, the aim of more storage capacity in compact devices will continue. Our breakthrough has put that target within our reach.

Anti-slavery campaign targets Nintendo for protest day

Via Polygon:


A new campaign has been launched by anti-slavery organization Walk Free that aims to persuade Nintendo to tighten up its supply chain and avoid the use of 'conflict minerals' mined by slave labor.
Walk Free has launched a video lampooning Nintendo characters Mario and Luigi, which states that Nintendo has yet to respond to a forceful campaign to join an electronics industry audit program for conflict-free mineral supplies. The video points out that minerals sourced from some suppliers come from slavery operations in conflict regions, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, where miners are often forced to work at gunpoint.
Walk Free's website states that the campaign aims to tell Nintendo that "slavery is not a game." It adds, "We've sent 430,558 emails calling on Nintendo to take concrete steps to ensure slave-mined conflict minerals are not in its gaming consoles, and we have heard nothing back."
Electronics devices like games consoles make use of minerals such as tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, often sourced from conflict zones. "Government troops and militias fight for control of the mines," states Walk Free. "They often terrorize communities using forced labour, debt bondage, sexual slavery, the use of children by armed groups, and other forms of child slavery. Child slaves are often used for the worst types of labour such as diggers at the mine sites, or porters assisting in the transport of conflict minerals."
A protest day is being planned to coincide with Nintendo's Annual General Meeting on June 27. Supporters are being encouraged to cosplay and demonstrate outside retail outlets selling Nintendo consoles. Anyone who signs up receives a downloadable kit explaining protest plans.
Nintendo has previously stated to Polygon that it provides "specific directions to our production partners regarding socially responsible procurement practices," based on "relevant laws, international standards and guidelines that focus on protecting human rights, ensuring workplace safety, promoting corporate ethics, and safeguarding the environment."
Walk Free counters that this is not enough. It points out that many companies, including Intel, Apple, Sony and Microsoft, have signed up for full audits of their supply chains to root out minerals sourced from slave-mines. Its literature states, "Nintendo ranked dead last among 24 major consumer electronics companies on efforts to examine and end the use of conflict minerals. Nintendo has yet to join the electronics industry audit program for conflict-free smelters nor has it required its suppliers to use only conflict-free smelters, the bare minimum requirement for taking action on conflict minerals."
Polygon has contacted Nintendo for comment.

BazaarBot: An Open-Source Economics Engine

Via GameDev.net:

 By Lars Doucet | Published Jun 20 2013 11:39 AM in Game Programming
Peer Reviewed by (Hodgman, Michael Tanczos, Alpha_ProgDes) open source economics engine haxe


This availability of commodity physics engines has freed designers to focus on interesting new games, powering everything from Crysis to Angry Birds. The key is straightforward API's that let developers just throw things around and let the chips fall where they may (literally!).

For years, I've been wondering whether we could do the same with an economics engine. I remember playing strategy games where prices would rise and fall in proportion to supply and demand, but I could never find an open source engine to handle this, nor was I able to program it myself.

That is, until I found this research paper by Jonathon Doran and Ian Parberry. Entitled "Emergent Economies for Role Playing Games," it outlines exactly how to write a basic free-market simulator, in much the same style as Baraff and Witkin's seminal papers on rigid body simulations.

Over the course of two days I wrote a straight implementation of Doran and Parberry's method, and I figure I'd share my results. Behold: bazaarBot!

bazaarBot


bazaarBot is a simple, open-source free market simulator written in Haxe. This means it can be easily compiled down to multiple languages, including actionscript 3, C++, javascript, and more. It's very basic for now, but I would like to eventually turn it into a sophisticated engine with a decent API that can be used for games and simulations.

Let's talk about what makes it tick.

Prices emerge from Beliefs


I knew a free market simulator needed at least the following things:
  • Some kind of market, a clearing/auction house to handle trades
  • Agents that hold and trade commodities
  • A currency to denominate commodity prices
  • Recipes and/or jobs that define how commodities are transformed
But what was I missing? For starters, I was missing price beliefs. In a free market, goods don't have some inherent value stamped into their very being. Instead, their value is simply whatever someone is willing to pay. This willingness is modeled as a Price Belief that each agent maintains about each commodity in the market, defined as a range of two numbers. This represents not only what they think the price is, but also how certain they are of that price. When it comes time to decide the cost of a good when buying or selling, the agent picks a random number within their belief range.

Each trading round, agents create "bid" (buy) and "ask" (sell) orders for various commodities, and the market fills up with orders. Then, the market resolves the orders thus:
  • Shuffle the bid and ask lists
  • Sort bids by -> highest to lowest
  • Sort asks by -> lowest to highest
  • Match bid[0] with ask[0]
Clear the trade:
  • clearing_price = Average of bid/ask prices
  • Trade the minimum of units offered in bid or ask @ clearing_price
  • If bid[0] units == 0, remove it from list
  • If ask[0] units == 0, remove it from list
  • Continue until either bid or ask list is empty
  • Reject all remaining offers
The "average market price" of a commodity for a given round is defined as the average clearing price for a successfully traded unit that round.
Each round, agents update their pricing models. If they had a successful trade, they become more confident in their price belief and tighten the range around the mean. If they failed, they become less confident in their price belief and expand the range. Furthermore, failed agents will look at the average market price from the last round, and translate their price beliefs towards that range.

There's a bit more to it than that (see the paper), but the result is that commodity prices rise and fall in proportion to supply and demand. Some agents will be more successful than others, so some will have a tight range and others a large one.

When supply is high, selling prices will be all over the place. If demand is low, buyers can fill their orders entirely with just the goods offered at the low end of the price spectrum.

When demand is high, buying prices are all over the place. If supply is low, sellers can offload their entire inventory with just the offers at the high end of the price spectrum.

The result of that round then reinforces price beliefs, causing next round's prices to change.

Agent AI


That's just the first step. Next, there has to be some feedback to make agents respond properly to price signals. Agents have very rudimentary AI that works like this:
  • ideal_amount = Decide how many units to buy/sell of COMMODITY
  • curr_price = Check current market price of COMMODITY
  • favorability = Compare curr_price to my_observed_trading_range
  • Buy/sell (ideal_amount * favorability) units of COMMODITY
This block simply determines, "Assuming I want 10 hamburgers, how many will I actually buy if they cost $5 a pop?" It has nothing to do with how the Agent comes up with its generalized lust for hamburgers. In the paper's example (and which I model in the bazaarBot's example project), each agent just tries to maintain static, pre-defined units of each commodity in its inventory at all times. Under ideal conditions, Blacksmiths just always want X units of metal, and Farmers just always want Y units of wood, etc. During production (defined separately) they will consume these input commodities to make tools and food, and then they'll want to replenish their stocks next round.

The price signal logic simply makes the Agent buy low and sell high. How the agent determines what counts as "high" and "low" is based on its own history of successful trades. This value (my_observed_trading_range) is simply a list of trading prices per commodity. This means that more successful agents have better information and are less likely to make mistakes, but also more likely to bid conservatively and miss opportunities when prices change sharply.

There's a few other things thrown in, but that's the basics of it.

Agent Replacement


Finally, some agents will run out of money due to bad trades and/or market conditions. In this simulation, the bankrupt agent is replaced by a new one of the currently most profitable job type. This is another driver of supply and demand - if so much wood is being sold that the price collapses and woodcutters start going broke, people quit woodcutting and start farming. The supply of wood goes down, the price rises, the few remaining woodcutters stick with their jobs, and the population reaches a more stable distribution or careers.

There were a few kinks in this system. I stored each job's profitability per round in a public information list, which worked nicely for a while until a particular job was completely abandoned. At that point, that job's profit per round would be continuously logged as "0." At this point, no new agents would ever consider the job again, even if there was enormous demand (and zero supply!) of that job's chief export!

I couldn't figure out how Doran and Parberry solved this issue, so I added in a special case during agent replacement to check for a good "market opportunity," defined as any commodity with signicantly higher demand than supply. If such an opportunity existed, the new agent would favor the job that creates the most of that commodity rather than the default behavior of picking the most profitable existing job. This covered that case pretty well - any time all the woodcutters or blacksmiths would go out of business, eventually the pent-up demand for wood or tools would become high enough to encourage a short boom in those careers.

The above formula for agent replacement works well enough, but it should probably be a lot more customizable as each game's needs will be different.

Where to Go From Here


A lot of work remains to be done to make bazaarBot the kind of open-source economics engine that can drive the strategy games of the future. Here are some futher thoughts on that.

A well designed API


Right now the engine doesn't have much of an API to speak of, it's just a simple proof-of-concept. Further work is needed to decide what should be the walled-off internal guts, and what parts should be for public consumption.

Most physics engines work by creating two parallel universes - the game world, and the physics world, and closely linking them. Thus, every game object has a corresponding physics object, and the physics object is used to update the game object's position every frame.

bazaarBot's API would be similar - there's a game world, and an economics world, and game objects will somehow be linked to economics objects via bazaarBot instances.

So, you could have a simple game town filled with NPC's that walk around, some are woodcutters that find and cut down trees (which grow back according to some schedule), some are miners that look for and mine ore (which is finite and unreplenishable), and at the end of each day they bring their goods to the town square, itself a game object which is linked to a bazaarBot.

Each NPC updates their economic Agent's inventories and desires, the market object runs a round of trading, and the NPC's pull their new inventories from their economic Agent's, and then go out and do another day's work before coming back to trade.

This would be one of the more simpler implementations, but you could go further.

A Tale of Two Cities


By creating multiple bazaarBot instances, you could model separate economies for cities that can then trade with one another. Let's create two cities, Paris and London, each with their own economies. Prices for goods in each city will be different, and let's say wheat has been cheaper in Paris for the last 10 rounds.

A Londoner could notice this, and game logic could make him become a "merchant," with knowledge of both markets. This merchant checks the cost of the "travel-to-paris" token (redeemable in game for the travel-to-paris service), and it's currently favorable, so he hops on a ship across the English channel.

Next round he's in Paris, and the price of Wheat is way below his observed trading range in London, so he offers a generous price (for Paris) and buys as much as he can carry.

He buys a "travel-to-london" token as well and travels back to London the next round. He checks the price of Wheat in London, and it's well above what he paid for it in Paris, so he sells it all at slightly below the current market price.

The activity of trading merchants would eventually cause prices in each city to communicate somewhat, mediated by the time and expense of travel, as well as any policy restrictions (such as tariffs) imposed by governments. Furthermore, the price of travel would respond to demand by merchants.

Some work might need to be done to enable the "Tale of Two Cities" example specified above. Currently bazaarBot Agents do not have any mechanism for explicitly keeping track of what they've paid for the items they currently own, this is just sort of handled implicitly via price signals and observed trading ranges.

There also might need to be first-class support for "merchants," though this could also be left entirely to the game logic side just by moving Agents from one market to another. Support could also be added for "government policies" such as taxes, import duties, subsidies, bans, and price controls. These rules could be set on a per-market basis.

There's currently no formal support for multiple currencies, but it could be handled implicitly by how we treat the "money" in each market. In the above example, London and Paris can freely exchange, so they might as well be cities in the same country. Now, let's instead call a unit of "money" in London "Pounds" and units of money in Paris "Francs."

The exchange rate between a Pound and a Franc would be done by comparing the total value of goods in one country versus that of another. In a simple example, the only commodity available is wheat, so if Paris has 100 wheat trading @ 1 Franc and London has 50 wheat trading @ 1 Pound, then 1 Franc = 2 Pounds, showing that it's currently cheaper to import wheat from Paris. I'm really not sure what effect formal currency exchanges and money changers would have on things.

(Feel free to correct me if you know something about currency exchange and valuation)

Agent AI


It should be noted that Agents are kind of stupid. bazaarBot has rudimentary support for a basic data-driven scripting engine, but it's honestly some cheapo thing I hacked together letting you specify actions and conditions in JSON, so it's not ideal. In the future I might expand this, switch to an actual scripting language like lua, or just leave it entirely to the game logic side to extend Agent objects and provide your own code for handling their production logic.

Perhaps it's even best for Agents to have as little AI as possible beyond economic matters, and all the user does is update their inventory and desire for certain products, with the entire matter of how those values are created being entirely left to game logic.

One caveat I should mention is that AI is stupid, really stupid. This is no replacement for a real human-driven economy, nor is it likely to be an incredibly accurate simulation of one.

Complex Finance


bazaarBot has no current support for anything beyond buying and selling commodities of uniform value. It doesn't even have support for borrowing or loans, let alone interest rates, bonds, short selling, options, or credit-default swaps. Services could easily be modeled just by mapping them to a tradeable token, which could work just like a commodity.

Some or all of these could be added later, I suppose, but this brings me to my next point.

Finding the Fun


Emergent complexity is no magic formula for fun, and is often quite the opposite. I'm a data nerd at heart, and I get a huge kick out of tweaking intricate and complex systems, but I've found players are mostly interested in systems with clear inputs and outputs, and choices that are easy to understand. I think an economy engine could be really useful, but it will take special care to make a fun game out of it.

I'd recommend keeping economies simple at first before going too far down the rabbit hole with complex Agent behaviors or whacky financial instruments.


Ideological Bias


I've tried to keep things as simple as possible, but it bears mentioning that any economic simulation is going to reflect a certain bias. My hope is that bazaarBot will be flexibile enough to model many different kinds of economies, as well as demonstrate economic principles from a multitude of perspectives, be they Keynesian, Hayekian, Marxist, Georgist, etc. Most of that high-level bias will come from the actual scenario that's modeled, as well as how the game designer decides to reduce real-world entities to economic objects.

From the engine's perspective, a commodity is just a commodity. But if you treat land as a simple commodity, you are at odds with Georgism, and if you treat labor as a simple commodity, Marxists might have something to say.

There are already some fundamental biases, however, that I can see in the current engine. For one, it assumes that commodities are uniform in value and quality. This is how the United States treats agricultural products on major commodities exchanges, and some would argue (including myself) that favoring commoditizable goods can have serious repurcussions for the health and welfare of humans, animals, and the environment.

Flexibility


However you feel about food politics, I think we can all agree there are limitations to the "commodity" model as a one-size-fits-all model for tradeable goods. Some designers might want more flexibility. I suppose one way to do that is to add quality "grades" to commodities, and treat each as separate commodity types that are still somehow linked to a parent type. For example, if you want to buy Grade-A pork bellies, but they're too expensive, you might be willing to substitute Grade-B pork bellies instead.

Further considerations could let us define goods that don't act like commodities at all, so instead of having unique data structures in the market for each commodity type, you could have "flea market" lists that are a random grab-bags of goods, where items aren't defined by what they are but insetad by what they can do.

So, if an agent is just looking for something -anything- that is "sharp," they could make bids for axes, knives, swords, etc, based on the properties of those items.

I'm not sure I want to dive down that rabbit hole just yet, though, but it's one possible solution.

Signing Off


Well, that's my economics engine! It only took me two days to write over the weekend, but I've been thinking about if for a long time. If anyone else has some tips for me, I'd really appreciate it, as I'm constantly looking for ways to improve this thing.

Here's the Github link again, in case you want to contribute (I'll put it under MIT license):

And here's a link to the page where I found the research paper, it's got lots of other good stuff in it!



About the Author(s)


Lars A. Doucet is the Co-Founder of Level Up Labs, LLC, an independent game design studio based in Bryan, TX, and has a Master's degree in Visualization Sciences from Texas A&M University.

His latest project is the successful RPG/Tower Defense hybrid Defender's Quest.

In addition to his work at LUL, Lars has been a consultant who specializes in "Applied Gaming," an emerging field that uses game design and game technology for new uses both in and out of the entertainment sector.

Lars' applied gaming projects include Super Energy Apocalypse, in collaboration with the Houston Advanced Research Center, and CellCraft, through Wake Forest University and the MacArthur foundation.

Lars has also consulted for Rice University's Center for Technology in Teaching and Learning and Texas A&M University.


License


GDOL (Gamedev.net Open License)

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Microsoft restores game ownership and expects us to smile

Via Eurogamer.net:


For this reversal to have meaning, it must be matched by deeper change.
I remember waking up on the day Microsoft unveiled its original set of Xbox One policies, reading through them on my phone and being desperately sad. When I wrote about them that morning, I chose a headline that reflected the kind of sombre dejection I was feeling: Microsoft kills game ownership and expects us to smile.
The original policies would have taken ownership of games away from players completely, rather than allowing us to sacrifice it for the convenience of digital access if that was our choice. And while they promised to create mechanisms for sharing or reselling the licences that we would be paying for instead, the details were either murky or restrictive. The console would also have had to access the internet once a day or else.
Less than two weeks later, Microsoft completely changed its approach, reversing its position so much that the Xbox One will now work in much the same way as Xbox 360. There is some collateral damage - such as the loss of digital game-sharing options - but I don't imagine it will be a terrific stretch for Microsoft to introduce features along those lines at a later date, should it wish to do so.
The fact that Microsoft has decided to give its customers more choice and greater control over their investments is an improvement on its original position, but I am still deeply sceptical about its intentions and their potential consequences. Let me explain why.
I got married earlier this year and my wife and I intend to start a family. I have a lot of old games - Super Nintendo cartridges like Chrono Trigger and EarthBound - that I look after very carefully, and I am excited about the idea of showing them to my children. It will be natural for children born today to understand and appreciate video games throughout their lives, and while the artistic achievements of the games we have now will seem primitive compared to the games they play as they grow up, it makes me happy that I will be able to show them the original building blocks for something they love. For them to understand or even contribute to this artform, I believe it is important that they are able to trace those origins and experience them, in the same way that somebody who wants to understand the cultural legacy of Citizen Kane can go back and study that film.
Moreover, I want them to fall in love with games to the same extent that I have, and while the notion of physical media is not an irreducible component of that relationship, I believe that the concept of ownership is extremely significant to it. The world needs collectors, archivists and curators who strike up deep, spiritual bonds with art and history in order for those things to continue to resound throughout our cultural consciousness, and I believe those bonds start at a personal level. It is my own experience - I am who I am because I was able to collect and covet these things as they began to matter to me.
So I was sad about Microsoft's original Xbox One policies not necessarily because of the effect they would have on me (I haven't pre-ordered Ryse anyway, I'm afraid), but because I felt they were driving us toward a future where games would be inherently more transient, reducing their potential to leave any kind of cultural legacy, and because they were making it harder to form lasting bonds with them and preserve artistic achievement, reducing their potential to make a future generation of gamers fall in love with games in a way that should be their birthright.
Microsoft's new policies tell us what it is going to do in the first days of Xbox One, but they don't tell us that its desires have changed, and those desires were responsible for the old policies. Those desires were on full display at E3 last week, where Xbox executives repeatedly manoeuvred the conversation towards connected experiences and the portable game library, arguing that the choices we were losing were not as important as the benefits we gained. This is not true. It is more accurate to say that the choices we would lose are not as important to Microsoft as the resulting alternative. The reason that the original Xbox One policies were attractive to Microsoft is because it wants to own the living room with an Xbox service that can rival iTunes, and they would have been a very neat fit with that objective.
I started off my original post about game ownership by quoting something I wrote during E3 in 2012. "If we are entertained by what Microsoft chooses to do for its own gain," I suggested, "then that is simply a happy coincidence." The coincidence was over, I concluded, because Xbox One's original DRM policies were devastating. All I can conclude today is that the coincidence has been extended. To judge by what Microsoft said at E3, it has probably been done so reluctantly. I see nothing to suggest that the desire behind its original decisions has changed, and until Microsoft convinces me that it understands the significance to gaming of ownership and legacy, I will find it hard not to be pessimistic.
What I sincerely hope is that Microsoft hasn't just concluded it went too far too soon with its original Xbox One policies but that, as it considers the ramifications today's U-turn will have on its future Xbox strategy, it works more carefully to balance its business interests against the long-term sustainability of the medium it desperately wants to control.

Microsoft to drop Xbox One DRM, region locking

Via Destructoid:

Changes come 'as a result of feedback from the Xbox community'
1 hour ago - 3:37 PM on 06.19.2013


Xbox One drops DRMMicrosoft to drop Xbox One DRM, region locking photo



[Update: It's true. Microsoft has reversed its policies. There's only a one-time system setup that requires an Internet connection -- no daily check-ins. Discs work like they have in the past -- they'll need to be in your console's tray -- so trade-ins aren't going to change. Also, no regional restrictions. Best part? The update was written by Microsoft's Don Mattrick.]
After what already feels like an eternity of warranted criticism over Microsoft's mandatory online check-ins for Xbox One and other related DRM policies, the company has seemingly taken the backlash to heart. The always-online requirement has been dropped, meaning users won't have to check in daily and game discs will function as they do currently, reports Giant Bomb. Sources tell the outlet that the new polices will result in the following:
  • No more always online requirement
  • The console no longer has to check in every 24 hours
  • All game discs will work on Xbox One as they do on Xbox 360
  • An Internet connection is only required when initially setting up the console
  • All downloaded games will function the same when online or offline
  • No additional restrictions on trading games or loaning discs
  • Region locks have been dropped
The official Xbox website's FAQ for Xbox One has been updated today stating that "As a result of feedback from the Xbox community, we have changed certain policies for Xbox One reflected in this blog. Some of this information is no longer accurate -- please check here for the latest." At the time of publication, the link is unavailable. We'll know what's been changed soon enough.
I was so convinced that Microsoft was committed, that it had the infrastructure in place and wouldn't turn back no matter how much heat it took. It feels so great to be wrong.
Microsoft to drop Xbox One DRM, region locking photo
Microsoft to drop Xbox One DRM, region locking photo