Over one billion people have turned to video game expert Scott Steinberg - author, entrepreneur, radio/TV host and creator of game industry documentary series Players Only - for insight into all things high-tech. An internationally-acclaimed gadget expert and video game authority, he frequently appears as a technology analyst on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN, and has contributed to 400+ outlets from The New York Times to Playboy and Rolling Stone. We actually managed to get the author of Get Rich Playing Games away from his busy schedule to answer some of our questions.
Rebecca: So, why are we interested in your perspective? What is it about your body of work that is of interest to the layman/consumer level reader?
Scott : Hmm, good question - perhaps you're secretly closet masochists?
But realistically, I've experienced every side of the video game business from software development and publishing to marketing, media, finance and distribution. And, of course, have self-published games, books, magazines, video shows and more, which tends to give one unique insight into the entrepreneurial part of the equation.
The bonus being that I've also been an avid player since 1982, and covered the topic for 400+ outlets from ABC, CBS and CNN to The New York Times and Rolling Stone. It's provided the kind of crash course in inner industry workings and the magic of the medium that you can't get simply sitting in front of a TV/monitor, or behind the controller. So take my perspective for what it's worth. Having started out an anonymous fansite owner who advanced to sign hit titles before he'd turned 21, only to become an oddly prolific evangelist for the medium and advisor to some of the most noted companies in the business shortly thereafter, well... Maybe there's a story or two there worth telling, maybe not. Either way, I'd like to think I do my best to give a little something back to the industry that changed my life, and pay it the respect it deserves.
As for my body of work, well - take it from it what you will. But I've always advocated the need to dream big; walk without fear; put knowledge and education first; and - most importantly - be true to yourself, and able to stand on your own two feet. Which is a fancy way of saying we preach the DIY gospel. Everyone talks a good game about wanting to break into the business, start their own studio, change the gaming world, etc. I do what I can to provide the kind of real-world roadmap needed to do so, which you won't get in school or at your day job.
The experts' dirty secret? All they often have that others don't is knowledge and experience, and just like any other entrepreneur, many still have to make it up as they go. No one ever gave guys like Electronic Arts and Digital Chocolate founder Trip Hawkins, Ultima creator Richard "Lord British" Garriott or Interplay/InXile's Brian Fargo a how-to manual and said "here, go make history". If you want to call your own shots, sometimes you have to throw the rules out the window, and write your own playbook as you go. I'd like to think I've helped provide a few people with the means and incentive to do so. As all of the amazingly talented editors, artists, videographers, programmers and producers I've worked with (who deserve far more credit for these projects' success than yours truly) can attest, we don't do this to win the admiration or respect of millions. We do it for the one of every 10,000 who can read between the lines, and is willing to listen.
Rebecca: What is the [PC and console gaming industry] doing WRONG these days? What fundamental principles do you feel the industry is just NOT getting? What mistakes do you see being made over and over that make you want to shake your head and go live on an island somewhere?
Scott : Hmm... how much free space/time do you have? There's enough here to fill a small novel.
Let's just say that It would be easier to focus on what the industry is currently doing right. For example: Expanding the audience beyond the traditional 18-34 year-old male fan base; finding more diverse subjects to explore; discovering new ways to teach, inform and bring people together; rapidly evolving to fit better with our changing lifestyles; offering titles at a wider range of values and price points to better accommodate everyone's budget; starting to provide meaningful and intelligent experiences on-par with those offered by books and films; putting a greater emphasis on storytelling and characterization; breaking down the barriers to entry to allow more people from a broader range of backgrounds and cultures to bring their unique perspectives and ideas to the table; giving creativity and innovation a chance to flourish again as we rediscover the joy of bedroom development; finally waking up and realizing the medium's power to influence society for the better; using play to bridge gaps, touch hearts and unite people for the common good; etc etc.
But as for WRONG, well, the examples go on and on... Exhibits A through Z to the 86th power: A continued reliance on aging business models that expect consumers to pay for products that either don't fit their lifestyle, background or budget or no longer offer sufficient value to justify spending one's hard-earned cash; little slowdown in the production of titles which continue to patronize players or play to juvenile themes and baser impulses instead of treating fans with intelligence and respect; executives that remain woefully out of touch with the general buying public, leading to poor-quality games and/or those that struggle or fail outright to satisfy enthusiasts' needs; misguided marketing that refuses to take into account the need to engage in a meaningful dialogue with fans, and the importance of being genuine; software creators who get so wrapped up in realizing complex visions that they fail to comprehend the basics of what it is gamers really want; ridiculous business models that leave players wanting and countless developers out on the street; a development culture so brutal it causes many of our best and brightest minds to burn out years before reaching their full potential (look back 10-20 years, and you'll find few of this era's software creators still in the business today); and so on.
Realistically, the industry needs to get a grip, and wake up and realize that what we really need to do is put ourselves in players' shoes, and be more sensible about both how we conduct ourselves and work to develop long-term relationships with all parties we interact with. You're seeing examples of these principles start to emerge with the rise of games for social networks, free-to-play titles, affordable and intuitive outings for platforms like the iPhone, games that operate more like services that one-shot products and offerings which make ongoing downloadable content (DLC) updates central. The bottom line being that most of this ISN'T rocket science - we just need to exercise more common sense. Look at games for Facebook like Restaurant City and Who Has the Biggest Brain - ask some executives, and they're revolutionizing the business. But seriously, how hard is it to realize that if you make a game intuitive, affordable, appealing to a large audience, gratifying in short spurts, and capable of letting friends and family interact with one another anytime, anywhere, there might be some merit to the concept?
Thankfully, though, there's still hope yet: Thanks to the power of the Internet, fans and professionals are being brought closer together than ever before, meaning that the time for meaningful dialogue is at-hand, and - thanks to an interesting confluence of events, including one little recession - suddenly, everyone's finally willing to wake up and listen to what the other party has to say. Hallelujah!
Rebecca: When I was a kid in the Reagan years, there was always talk about 'trickle down' technology, ie., that high tech developed at the government/military/space program level would filter down to the consumer economy, getting us wonderfully important innovations like latex condoms and Tang. Lately, though, it seems like government, particularly military, is looking at civilian computing and gaming technologies. Has this phenomenon inverted? Is tech 'trickling up' now, or has the traditional trail just gotten less obvious?
Scott: Actually, I suspect that what you're seeing is the playing field becoming more evenly distributed. Back at the dawn of computing, innovation was costly, as only a select few could afford such technology, or had access to the knowledge, resources or manpower required to significantly improve upon it. Now, you're looking at a world united by the Internet, where information travels at the speed of tweet, and the answer to virtually any question is just a click away. Similarly, an explosion in cost-affordable platforms and user-friendly tools for development has made it possible for virtually anyone to throw their hat in the ring and bring even the most far-fetched idea to fruition.
Governments are limited by little things like budgets, schedules and political agendas, whereas amateur hackers and enterprising entrepreneurs have limitless time, energy and space in which to operate by comparison. As such, it's not surprising to see innovation travel both ways. Had you told the military it would be operating a massively multiplayer game in 1985, you'd likely have been laughed out of the Pentagon. But once a few companies in the civilian sector proved that half the red-blooded American males of fighting age out there would happily spend hours online engaging in virtual conquests or combat, well... Is it any surprise Uncle Sam was keen to enlist the technology as part of its own arsenal?
Rebecca: Where do you see the ethics of the industry these days? Sometimes, the relationship between game companies and their consumer base seems almost adversarial, if not predatory. Some specifics:
a) Why does everyone have their shorts in a bunch over DRM etc.? It's been a year since Spore and people are still griping about it, even after most companies seem to have backed off of that level of copy protection. Why is this REALLY such an issue? Is this basically a bunch of pirates bitching about, you know, stealing being made difficult, or is there really some lofty consumer rights concern here?
Scott: To answer your first question, it's an issue because it genuinely affects consumers - if you buy a game, you should have the right to own and use it in any reasonable, intelligent and legal way you see fit. Likewise, games should operate as advertised out of the box, and not create headaches for honest consumers who just want to tune out life and enjoy a great escape. But as for why the flames have been fanned into a bonfire, it's because alarmists from both camps can't resist throwing fuel on the flames. The trouble starts when companies start to overzealously guard their games with draconian copy protection schemes that wind up causing more harm than good to well-meaning players. Bottom line: Game publishers can't afford to be naive when it comes to protecting their intellectual property, but they should always err on the side of innocent players.
Rebecca: b) A lot of games are starting to see much of their release/support/development lifecycle happening online, via Steam or the like, which seems have the effect of thinning the barrier between consumers and publishers, and has given voice to a complaint that seems to be arising with increasing frequency: namely, that publishers seem to release "half-finished" or minimally-featured products with the "promise" of continued support or expansion, though there's really nothing obligating publishers to continue supporting or expanding these products.
Scott : The truth is that game companies owe it to enthusiasts to ship titles that work 100% as promised the second you rip off the shrink-wrapping. But the reality is that increased pressure in terms of ballooning budgets, crunched or overly lengthy development schedules, demanding shareholders and the needs to meet increasingly tight shipping windows has led to post-release patches and updates becoming more of the norm than exception. Welcome to the world of modern game development, I fear: When you've got teams of 100+ people or more working for 3 years on games large enough to literally be played for months on end, there's a lot of room for human error and possible points of failure. And at some point, something has to give – unfortunately for all of us, many times, it comes down to overall polish and quality assurance testing. It's a tough time to be a game developer, making it easier to understand why some studios might spend less time/money on a product, effectively using a small-scale retail release as a prototype, and then adding more features/support later if it actually sells.
Thankfully, you're seeing less of this as more titles are specifically designed for digital distribution, or outings for traditional platforms are built to be more tightly focused and limited in scope. The more publishers stop trying to bite off more than they can chew, and devote added time to putting in the needed polish and TLC on titles, the less technical hiccups or half-baked digital diversions you'll see. Like many players, I'd gladly trade a buggy 60-hour epic that does many things poorly for a 10-hour outing that shines for its tight gameplay, presentation and controls.
Rebecca: I can't think of any way to relate the gaming industry to swine flu or health care reform, so let's go with the recession. Recent industry research claims that sales are remaining strong, some even going so far as to say they're on the uptake, postulating that games are a more affordable and sustained source of entertainment than big ticket items like vacations or cocaine. Are these claims valid? How is the economic climate affecting things from the development end- are we going to start seeing titles with lower production values, smaller design teams, lower price points? How would you advise publishers as far as what constitutes an economically viable project that doesn't suck?
Scott: Let's put it this way: As covered in our recent documentary Video Games Are Dead, the industry's doing just fine - for the most part though, the success stories simply aren't what you'd consider "video games" in the traditional $60, set top console-ready sense of the term. That said, the recession is certainly putting a crunch on developers for traditional platforms such as the PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360, whose development budgets and schedules are on-par with independent and major motion picture studios' films, meaning the margin of error between success and bankruptcy can be razor-thin.
What we're seeing as a result is a splintering towards both ends of the price and value spectrum. Blockbuster titles like God of War 3, Halo 3: ODST and Grand Theft Auto IV aren't going anywhere, and will continue to dominate the charts, with today's less risk-averse publishers sure to put greater focus on proven franchises, known licenses and obvious sequels. But you're also seeing an explosion in titles at lower price points (e.g. free to $20) courtesy of games for the iPhone; outings for social networks; digitally distributed titles on services like Steam, PlayStation Network, WiiWare and Xbox Live Arcade; complementary or ad-supported offerings; Flash amusements that run in your Web browser; indie games; episodic titles; and more. Small wonder then that so many studios are beginning to focus on small, downloadable games, titles for mobile phones or online projects like casual MMOs that don't take 3 years and $30 million to make and thereby enjoying greater freedom to experiment with innovative concepts and characters . But what's happening as a result is that there's little room to operate in the middle, with mid-sized publishers like Midway and Eidos being gobbled up by other companies. These sorts of companies with average-quality or nondescript games and little cash in the bank just don't have room to compete anymore.
As for what constitutes an economically viable concept that doesn't suck? There's no one blanket answer, but picking a solid concept that people can get behind and executing it well within a reasonable timeframe and budget's a good start. It goes back to what I was saying about being smart about what you have the resources, time and skill to tackle - publishers reach shouldn't exceed their grasp.
Rebecca: The representation of women both in employment and depiction in the gaming industry is still an issue. The industry culture remains insular and, in some ways, openly hostile. Don't roll your eyes at me. In all seriousness, despite the gains in recent years, what do you see as the biggest obstacles to fairer and more positive representation of women in these areas?
I've been told a number of times in the past year by developers and marketers that expanding female inclusion in games that don't involve ponies and shopping isn't cost-effective - that, for example, including the option of female player-characters and the like doesn't offer sufficient returns for the increased development time and costs. Isn't this a Catch-22, though? What about increased representation in the industry itself, in areas OTHER than marketing and PR?
Scott: No eye-rolling here - I wholeheartedly agree. The issue's the same as it was well over a decade ago when I first began campaigning for greater equality in gaming: We simply need more women to voluntarily take an interest, get involved and take an active role in game development and publishing. By doing so, it's inevitable that their unique views and perspectives will permeate into the overall culture, and influence be felt in the games that we as an industry produce. With society at large finally waking up and realizing that games have the potential to not only speak to everyone, but can also cover a greater array of subjects and viewpoints than ever before, nowadays, we're truly getting closer to attaining this goal than ever before.
Women aren't just stepping up and taking the reins more and more either. You're also seeing entire generations of female fans for whom games are a treasured means of socialization and self-expression. And the more interest we see them taking in becoming a part of the game industry, the less we'll see instances of behind-the-scenes fear and hostility pervade - it's amazing how quickly a little understanding and familiarity can help dispel the side-effects of xenophobia. In addition, the more we see females vote with their wallets and continue to buy games in increasing numbers, the less often that game developers will be able to ignore their feelings and needs.
Change is coming, have no fear - it's only a matter of time. Right now though, publishers are playing to the lowest common denominator with babysitting titles and pony raising simulators to maximize financial returns. But as soon as the proportion of females of all ages and interests in the game-playing public becomes proportionate to that represented within the general population, the sooner they'll be forced to address this audience's desire to cover a full range of tastes and topics.
Rebecca: Do you see any realistic place in the industry for up-and-comers? There's a growing and healthy (by all accounts) community of "indie" game studios and producers, but is this a flash in the pan or the sign of a sustained trend? Is the industry in five years going to look more like Stardock or EA?
Scott: Both, actually, as alluded to above. We'll see gaming giants like Activision, UbiSoft and Electronic Arts continue to gobble up smaller developers, just as the larger movie studios began to exert more dominance as the film industry matured. However, I also expect that we'll see the greatest innovation, and most clever business models, come from smaller start-ups, including a few guys or gals here and there operating out of their own garage. Necessity is the mother of invention, or so I hear, and with barriers to entry lower than ever, let's just say as follows. I suspect we'll begin to see greater and greater things from indies as growth in broadband penetration, more cost-affordable technology, a rise in ways to connect and communicate directly with buyers, and an increasing surge in audience numbers give those with their back against the proverbial wall a fighting chance to rise and shine.
Rebecca: What excites you the most about emerging trends in development and gaming technology? Engage in a little gratuitious futurist prediction for a moment- what cool stuff do you see just over the horizon? Also, why don't I have a jetpack yet?
Scott : The most exciting trends to me are titles for the iPhone and social networks, as they're simpler to produce for indies (allowing for more risk and innovation), meant to be played in short spurts, affordable to more people and - through their social nature - are helping to draw in new types of players and bring folks together. Also very cool: The explosion in ways to digitally distribute titles, which - in many ways - are helping us return to the garage days of old, and enabling smaller, quirkier teams and titles to flourish. Likewise, I love seeing the rise in quality and volume of free-to-play Flash titles that run in people's Web browsers, helping bring millions of new fans to the table.
But realistically, I suspect that motion-sensing interfaces (e.g. Sony's wand, Microsoft's Project Natal) that minimize or eliminate the controller entirely and cloud computing are the two major technical innovations coming down the pike that hardcore gamers will find most promising. The former has tremendous potential to change the field in that it enables completely new ways to play and gaming experiences. (Even developers are struggling to grasp just what possibilities and new game types the control method opens.) And the latter means that very soon, thanks to scalable servers that do all the hardcore number-crunching remotely, you may not have to spend thousands on a pricey desktop rig or console to enjoy the most advanced games money can buy, and still enjoy them on your HDTV or desktop.
As for why you don't have a jetpack? It's less a function of scientific innovation than practicality. People drive poorly enough as is - imagine them trying to successfully navigate at 150MPH with a rocket strapped to their back.
Rebecca: Is gaming, as it currently exists, good for our culture? Is it good for us as people?
Scott: Absolutely, undoubtedly, without question. Could things be better, from the way we tackle complex topics to the degree of respect and dignity with we treat today's player? Certainly. But consider this: As infants, every one of our routines consisted of "eat, play, sleep" - the key word there being "play," to which we can all relate. Which means that games not only have the power to teach, inform and broaden horizons in general, as proven by countless serious games and educational ventures: They also have the power to touch every human being on this planet. Call me crazy, but I think there's magic in that.
Rebecca: What are you playing these days? What do you wish you had time to play? What absolutely sucks?
Scott: What I'm playing: Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Heroes Over the Pacific, The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition, and a lot of peek-a-boo and pattycake with an infant in the house. What do I wish I had time to play? More turn-based strategy games like Military Madness: Nectaris and role-playing titles like Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect - also BioShock 2, given that I'm a sucker for storytelling, atmosphere and characterization.
What absolutely sucks? The fact that like many hardcore gamers who also serve as parents and working professionals, I seldom get the time to sit down and really spend as much time as I'd want with deserving epics. Instead, I have to turn to titles such as Shadow Complex and various iPhone games (e.g. The Oregon Trail) or downloadable outings including Plants vs. Zombies and the new Zuma that better fit into my schedule.
Still, no complaining - I often fire up DOSBox and the titles I grew up with such as SSI's Pool of Radiance or Interplay's The Bard's Tale and wonder how the hell I had so much free time and patience to suffer through such slow-moving, complex outings back then. Ah, the glory days...
Rebecca: When the bombs fall and the grid gets wiped out, how do you intend to amuse yourself? How would you earn your water ration if you weren't an industry consultant?
Scott: Re: the former: Lots of scavenging, hoarding, and fighting mutant ants and ghouls - endless hours of Fallout 3 have left me well-prepared, I confess. As for the latter, perhaps stand-up comedian or politician: the mouth never stops, and well seldom runs dry of bad jokes. (Although once in a while, something meaningful might come out, or so rumor has it.) Then again, my wife might say by playing male nanny or maidservant to rowdy pets: Maybe it's that we connect on an intellectual level, but there's apparently something about me that infants and dogs can't resist...
