92 Computer

S t a n d a r d S

Innovation and Value AnnDeMarleChamplain College

Electronic games might be a nascent field, but its poten-tial and impact are grow-ing at exponential rates, with the field highlighted

frequently in publications, journals, conferences, and news sources. Like-wise, as a media form, games have left the playground of the living room and entered arenas such as healthcare, gov-ernment, education, marketing, public commentary, and artistic expression.

The Internet’s reach and the por-tability of mobile devices have made electronic games an outdoor expe-rience again, now in the guise of alternative reality games or ARGs. Researcher Jane McGonigal’s global game The Lost Ring, constructed for the 2008 Summer Olympics (www.thelostring.com), is illustrative of the narrative, expansive ARG form that relies on hidden digital clues and mass participation.

This dynamic field poses salient questions about the relationship of standards to innovation, competi-tion, and value. We must discover and determine the role standards will play in shaping the future of electronic games. Further, by exam-ining the industry’s current state, we can discern how standards can assist in the medium’s progress.

Market FraMeworkThe electronic game industry has

experienced a surge in popularity and tremendous financial growth over the past decade. Game sales, as the 2007 Entertainment Software Association (ESA) report “Video Games in the 21st Century” states, are burgeoning: “The real annual growth rate of the US entertain-ment software industry exceeded 17.0 percent in the periods 2003-04 and 2005-06. During the same years, real growth for the US econ-omy as a whole was below 4.0 per-cent” (www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ VideoGames21stCentury.pdf).

Data released by the ESA in Janu-ary 2008 reported game industry record sales of 267.8 million units for 2007. This is nearly a fourfold increase over the 74.1 million unit sales recorded in 1996. The 2007 figures can be teased apart further into dollar amounts in the following game software segments: console software sales of $6.6 billion, com-puter software sales of $910.7 mil-lion, and portable software sales of $2.0 billion.

These segments point to the chang-ing nature of game platforms, catego-ries, and the accompanying evolving demographics. Once predominantly

a domain for young males playing on game consoles and home com-puters—with genres populated by first-person shooters, racing cars, and sports—the market has broad-ened to include new experiences that reach as far afield as elder populations. Led by diversification in hardware and platforms such as Nintendo’s Wii and titles such as Harmonix’s Rock Band, electronic games are becoming mainstay com-munity-oriented venues and have even become regular fixtures in hos-pital rooms and nursing homes.

The electronic gamer’s average age has crept up to 35 years, with women now constituting 40 percent of this traditionally male-dominated demographic. Surprisingly, more adult women now play games than do boys aged 17 and under (www.theesa.com/facts). Success in the entertainment field has prompted integration of game theory and technologies into other fields. Of particular note is the serious games initiative and subsequent recognition of the demand for applications in education and training, health and medicine, business, marketing, and the military. Barriers are tumbling.

Collaborative innovation

Creativity and innovation have driven this explosive market growth. Customers demand “more and bet-ter” graphics and sound fidelity, action and real-time performance, character believability, intuitive interactivity and interfaces, por-tability, and connectivity. In turn, this trend drives development of the underlying technologies and expression. If creativity is found at the meeting point of diverse mind-sets, game development must be the trend’s poster child.

Divergent disciplines and talents must work together efficiently to produce a successful game. By their nature, games merge the entertain-ment and software industries. Right- and left-brained thinkers collabo-rate. Art, code, and game mechanics

a proper mix of innovations and

standards could ensure that electronic

games reach their full potential.

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 11, 2009 at 14:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

provide the core components of electronic games. Such mechanics, successfully deployed, provide the elusive and not easily defined key ingredient—fun. Narrative might or might not be a feature, depending on the title and genre. Created by project teams as small as two to as many as hundreds, these artists, game design-ers, writers, programmers, and engi-neers work collaboratively to unlock and release fun in the form of an elec-tronic experience.

Game teams face challenges inher-ent in the changing nature of tech-nology, competition, and value to the customer. Although it is a soft-ware product, the task of creating entertainment determines that game production will be a complex, labor-intensive, hand-hewn endeavor. A team forms for specific projects, and its composition changes over the proj-ect’s course. Further, development might be distributed globally with art, programming, and quality assurance teams that span continents—from Asia to Europe to Australia to North America. Production deadlines target key buying cycles. Obligatory crunch times—intervals of intense overtime that compensate for slipped sched-ules—are commonplace.

Typical development time from concept to release spans between seven months and three years. Vari-ance is based on the platform and product scope. Upon design comple-tion, a game can be ported across Nintendo’s, Sony’s, and Microsoft’s consoles and distributed through multiple venues such as the Web and handhelds. Consoles are unique and competitive, game engines expensive and proprietary, and customization continual. Customer desires propel essential code breakthroughs directed at the engine, middleware, graphics, networked architecture, light render-ing, AI, and physics. Meeting these demands requires ongoing skillset development and team training.

the king’s FlagTo remain competitive, game pro-

duction companies must innovate.

Likewise, standards can serve to enhance competitiveness. They can shorten time to market and ensure value, but the appropriate balance between standards and innovation must be struck.

A look at the etymological roots of the terms innovation and standard can be informative. Innovation has its roots in the Latin word innovatus, for renew or change. Standard has a more complex history. Originally it denoted a military flag serving as a demarcation or rallying point

attached to a pole or spear stuck into the earth and standing upright. This term derives from the old French estandart or standhard, meaning to stand firm.

The king’s flag or royal standard equates this meaning with quality. The definition of change appears to be at odds with standing firm, hence the basic tension between inno-vation and standards. However, if the equation is one of renewal and quality, a supportive structure can be uncovered. The consumer’s demand for quality experiences and the game production team’s need to deliver the experience cost-effec-tively motivates the competitive push toward innovation.

toward standardsAs often occurs with expanding

industries and technologies, few standards have been adopted that guide processes, direct platforms, or support protocols in game devel-opment. Yet this allows for creative flexibility and an increased vari-ety of offerings—fertile soil for rapid growth and an area in which standards could have a beneficial effect.

Game development teams employ widely disparate process methodolo-gies. Even within companies it can be difficult to find common practices. Project management arises quickly from varying disciplines with dif-fering amounts of management experience. With the difficult goal of creating an electronic experience focused on fun, consumer involve-ment becomes imperative, dictating a primarily iterative, agile approach.

Development approaches range from organic and chaotic through front-loaded to waterfall methods. Although each approach can sup-port creativity, fiscal goals test team fortitude. Crunch time, cost overruns, and missed deadlines take their toll. Projects might never reach publication.

Selectively applying standards toward development processes could benefit game developers by enhancing the understanding of workloads and quantifying them, distributing workflow, and man-aging team goals, thereby unify-ing global teams and providing for enhanced communication.

indUstrY and aCadeMiC partnerships

The game development industry can turn to other software indus-tries and academia to guide process improvement. There are academic centers, supported by degree-granting game curricula, actively exploring entertainment and seri-ous games. The Emergent Media Center at Champlain College does this through a collaborative proj-ect model that brings together diverse expertise. Faculty and stu-dents team with professionals from game and nongame industries, public institutions, and nonprof-its, creating a unique environment for discovering concepts, applica-tions, and processes that competi-tive fiscal limitations hinder in the entertainment game industry. The following suggested areas provide a short list for collaborative stan-dards development:

Few standards have been adopted that guide

processes, direct platforms, or support protocols

in game development.

September 2008 93

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 11, 2009 at 14:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

94 Computer

S t a n d a r d S

common lexicon or ontology for games and game development processes;playtesting methodologies;player profiles and correspond-ing linkages to game genres and mechanics for improved player experience;learning metrics and methods of assessment for application in games for learning and trainingpersonal 3D Web identity—transportable, independent ava-tars for movement across games and platforms;cross-platform user interface parameters and metrics, best practices for porting console games to mobile platforms, and vice versa;cartographic data format—a GIS for game terrain; andraw asset file formats for inter-change throughout pipeline and toolsets.

Partnerships such as these can bal-ance fostering innovation and devel-oping standards.

hardware and soFtwareThe underlying hardware and

software supports for games prom-ise a bright future. Multiple hard-ware platforms and game engines continue to push at the varying edges of the possible. For hardware exam-ples, Sony’s Playstation3 promotes its graphic excellence and processing power while Nintendo’s Wii relies on its intuitive controller and friendly approachability. Microsoft’s Xbox was the first console to offer online multiplayer connectivity with Xbox Live, released in 2002.

Each platform offers unique capa-bilities. Such variety advances new technologies and the possibilities for game design. Yet console manufactur-ers and engine developers can be seen to mirror the kingdoms of old by striv-ing to claim distinct territories. They mandate standards and specifications that game developers must abide by. Alongside the advantages, there are limitations in this multiplicity.

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

For the consumer, multiple consoles dictate a lack of compatibility and interchangeability between systems. Translated to the game developer, this means porting the same game to dif-ferent consoles and paying for expen-sive game engine licenses. For games as a medium, expensive barriers to entry curtail both artistic develop-ment of new forms and research into new capabilities and applications.

Some call for an open hardware platform. In October 2007, EA’s head of international publishing, Gerhard Florin, stated, “We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible” (D. Waters, “EA Wants ‘Open Gaming Platform’”; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/ 7052420.stm).

The PC game industry, which offers a hardware platform competi-tive with consoles, has begun a simi-lar initiative. This February, manu-facturers Acer Inc./Gateway Inc., AMD, Dell/Alienware, Intel, Micro-soft, Nvidia, and others announced the formation of the PC Gaming Alli-ance to unify game development on the PC (R. Kim, “PCs Get a Boost in the Gaming Arena; Development Alliance Is Formed, Console Appli-cation Is Announced,” San Francisco Chronicle, 20 Feb. 2008). A stated Alliance goal is to “provide guide-lines to simplify hardware specifi-cations and speed the introduction of new technologies, as well as … maximize the PC gaming experience in all ways possible” (PC Gaming Alliance; www.pcgamingalliance.org/en/index.asp).

open developMentSimilarly, there is movement

toward a common open source game engine. Prohibitively expen-sive licenses and lack of player pro-file portability create walls to the broader development community. Imagine if engines such as Unreal were as accessible as video editing software is today.

Here can be found growth not into the professional sphere but toward the

consumer hobbyist. Microsoft offers XNA Game Studio, and open source engines proliferate. Unexpectedly, the current leader might be Adobe Flash because of the ease with which it can create content and its ability to share that content across the Web. Standard-ization of platforms and engines could result in a proliferation of innovative content, solutions, and gameplay.

It could also have the opposite result. Opening game engines to a broader public will bring about more content, but quality will become variable. (Think of all the cat movies posted on YouTube.) In the case of hardware, a common platform could freeze competitive motivation, lim-iting future developments. Imagine, for example, the impact if console development had been standardized before the Wii’s introduction.

T he electronic games industry, while expanding financially, retains a youthful quality that

keeps it in a state of chaotic, creative flux. Yet it needs to be. Out of this environment are born innovative products and processes. Competition remains the driving force. Markets are expanding, and the platforms on which gamers play continue to evolve and expand. The value to the consumer lies in innovation.

Consumers might propel the cre-ation of open-development platforms even as development teams explore new realms of expression. Yet in this seemingly boundless state, there is a place for thoughtfully applied stan-dards to ensure project success. A proper mix of innovatus and the king’s estandart can ensure the mar-ket does not set limits on a medium reaching for its full potential. ■

Ann DeMarle is director of the Emer-gent Media Center and an assistant professor at Champlain College. Con-tact her at demarle@champlain.edu.

Editor:JohnHarauz,JonicSystemsEngineering,Inc.,Willowdale,Ont.,Canada;j.harauz@ieee.org

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 11, 2009 at 14:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.