THE CGDA REPORT Newsletter of the Computer Game Developers Association Volume 1, Premier Issue 1994 <> ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** INTRODUCTION FOR ONLINE VERSION This special online edition of the premiere issue of the CGDA Report contains a few additional items not contained in the printed version of the newsletter. Specifically, these are the other items from the mass mailing that went out at the end of August: the letter from the CGDC, the brochure and the registration form. We have combined these in one file to prevent their unintentional separation as they are passed from person to person. Also, in order to make sure this file was readable on as many different computers as possible, we removed any special formatting and machine-specific characters. We have not inserted page breaks either. The side effect of this combination is that there's no convenient way to print the registration form on your printer. We recommend you use whatever word processing software is at your disposal to cut out the registration form and print it separately. You can also call our customer service line at 415-856-4263 ext. 5 and we can fax or mail one to you. This online edition was produced only for the first issue of the CGDA Report. Future issues will be printed only, and will be sent exclusively to CGDA members (although we reserve the right to do another online version if the need arises.) That said, enjoy! And feel free to drop us a line by email to let us know what you think. Kevin Gliner Jim Cooper ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** (letter from the CGDC) August, 1994 Dear Interactive Entertainment Professional: For several years now, we at the Computer Game Developers' Conference have been hearing the same question: "When are you going to form an association? I want to become a member." And each year, we've said, "We're thinking about it." Well, the time for thinking is over. The Computer Game Developers' Conference is proud to announce the Computer Game Developers' Association, and we'd like you to join. First, a little explanation. Right now, our industry is facing an enormous challenge: deciding what to do about software ratings. But rather than sit idly by and wait for Congress or the publishers to decide for us, we need to act -- to make our voices heard as developers. At the moment, there is no organization which represents our point of view. It's time we came together. It's time we found our own voice. But the Computer Game Developers' Association is not just about ratings. It's not a political action committee, a trade association, or a union. It's a society of interactive entertainment developers dedicated to improving our industry by advancing the careers and interests of its members. Also, we don't limit membership to one group of people or another. Like the Computer Game Developers' Conference, the CGDA is for everybody with an interest in interactive entertainment and multimedia. So, you're probably wondering, what does it cost, and what can it do for you? You can join as a Charter Member from now through October 31, 1994 at a special discount rate of $50 -- $25 off the normal rate of $75. The initial membership period will run from the day you join through December of 1995 -- more than a full year's membership for LESS than the annual rate. And all members receive an additional $25 discount off the 1995 Conference. To find out what all the CGDA is planning to do, see the enclosed brochure -- there's too much to list it all here. We hope you'll join us. Sincerely, Ernest W. Adams CGDC Director ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** (brochure) What is the CGDA? The CGDA is an association of interactive entertainment professionals dedicated to serving the careers and interests of its members. It's not a trade association or a union. The purposes of the CGDA are: * to foster information exchange among professionals in the industry * to represent the community of interactive entertainment developers when policy issues arise in industry or government * to increase artistic and financial recognition for developers * to enhance the quality of interactive entertainment and educational software Why should I join the CGDA? The most important reason for joining the CGDA is that it lets you participate in a community of people with similar interests and concerns. The CGDA will take an active role in helping to set government and industry policy on important issues such as software ratings. In addition, the CGDA will offer a variety of services to its members, designed to assist them in their careers. They are described in more detail inside. What does it cost? If you join before October 31, 1994, you'll be eligible for the Charter Member rate of $50 for the rest of 1994 and all of 1995! After that, membership will cost $75 for 1995. (Foreign memberships will be somewhat more.) Is somebody making money off this? No. The CGDA is temporarily being operated by the Computer Game Developers' Conference, which is providing financial support. Once a critical mass of members is built up, it will be incorporated in the state of California as a non-profit organization. What happened to CEDA? CEDA hasn't gone away; it was reorganized to create the new organization. If you are a paid-up member of CEDA, congratulations! Your membership rolled over into the CGDA, and you don't have to do anything more. You're already entitled to all the benefits of the CGDA. Is this really an effort to set up a union? Definitely not. The CGDA does not negotiate contracts, participate in collective bargaining, or set work rules. While we are concerned about working conditions for interactive entertainment developers, we also know that many developers are worker-owners. We want to be of service to all developers, without regard for whether they are "labor" or "management." Are there corporate memberships? No. The CGDA is being established to address the needs of developers as individuals. We hope to provide value to owners of small development companies, but our first obligation is to people. Memberships are for individuals only, and are not transferable. What does Devcon have to do with this? For several years the Computer Game Developers' Conference has received requests to set up a professional association. Given that demand and a galvanizing issue -- software ratings -- the CGDC decided it was time to act. The Conference is operating the CGDA and offering financial support until it gets off the ground. After that, they will be completely separate organizations, although they will cooperate on a number of projects together. Why "Computer Game"? I'm a multimedia developer! Frankly, the reason is name recognition. Right now, the Computer Game Developers' Conference is the most well-known and respected conference in the interactive entertainment and educational software industry, and we hope that will encourage people to join. Also, the CGDC and the CGDA's goals are very similar: to provide an important service for all members of our community. We want to let people know that they can expect the same commitment to their concerns from us as from the Conference. If the demand warrants, we'll take up the issue of the name at our next annual meeting. Who's actually in charge? The Association is being run by a Steering Committee until it is incorporated and elections can be held. The Steering Committee consists of David Walker (the founder of CEDA), Ernest Adams (a director of the CGDC), Jon Freeman (treasurer of CEDA), Kevin Gliner of Cinematronics, and Susan Lee-Merrow (also a director of the CGDC). When are the meetings held? The CGDA's annual meeting will be held at the Computer Game Developers' Conference, at the Westin Hotel in Santa Clara, California. The Conference will run from April 22-25, 1995. The exact time of the meeting has not yet been set. How do you pronounce "CGDA"? We suggest "sig-da," or just "the association" to distinguish it from "the conference." Just don't confuse us with the ACM's Special Interest Group on Design Automation, SIGDA. How to get in touch with us: Some of this information may be temporary. The most important thing is to keep your mailing information up-to-date with us, so that we can contact you if there are any changes. Computer Game Developers' Association 5339 Prospect Road, Suite 330 San Jose, California 95129 (415) 856-4263, extension 5 fax: (415) 965-0221 Please note that, in order to keep costs down, this phone line is not staffed by a live person. Leave a message and someone from the CGDA will return your call as soon as possible. CGDA MEMBER BENEFITS The CGDA plans to offer a variety of member benefits. Not all of these are in place at the moment, but we intend to implement them all within the first year: DISCOUNTS ON PRODUCTS AND SERVICES * All CGDA members will receive a $25 discount on registration at the 1995 Computer Game Developers' Conference. * We're currently negotiating with Game Developer magazine and Computer Gaming World to obtain discounts on subscriptions for our members. NEWS AND INFORMATION * Membership includes a subscription to the CGDA Report, a newsletter containing articles, interviews, and other features of interest to CGDA members. * A special area dedicated to CGDA activities and issues within the Computer Game Design Round Table on GEnie. CAREER ASSISTANCE * An on-line resume database, where you can upload your own resume and search the available resumes for people you'd like to hire. * Special resources and materials to help people newly entering the industry. LOCAL AND SPECIAL CHAPTERS * The CGDA provides an umbrella for grassroots organizations which want to organize for interactive entertainment-related purposes. There are two kinds of these: local chapters of the CGDA, which hold regular meetings in a specific place to discuss topics of general interest; and special chapters which meet to discuss special topics. If you're interested in forming one of these, give us a call. LEGAL AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES * Representing the interests of our members in discussions of government and industry policy, at both the local and national level. * Coordinating letter-writing campaigns to educate policymakers about the interactive entertainment and educational software industry. * Writing friend-of-the-court briefs for ongoing legal actions of concern to our members. * Creating educational materials for developers to help them learn the legal pitfalls of software development and publishing. ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** COMPUTER GAME DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION (Please use one per person) Name:_________________________________________________________________________ Title:________________________________________________________________________ Company:______________________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________ City:__________________________________ State:___________________Zip:_________ Home phone :___________________ Work ___________________Fax:__________________ (home phone number will remain confidential) E-mail:____________________ (please use Internet addressing style if possible) Occasionally we may share addresses with interactive entertainment related companies or sister organizations. [] check here if you prefer not to be listed in the directory of members. Membership dues: Please write the correct amount in the column at right, then total at the bottom. CHARTER MEMBERSHIP (only if postmarked by Oct. 31, 1994): $50 _____ REGULAR MEMBERSHIP (if postmarked after October 31, 1994): $75 _____ Foreign mailing surcharge for non-US memberships: $10 _____ Total dues included: _____ Payment: [] Check in US funds [] VISA [] MasterCard (Sorry, American Express thinks we're too small to deal with) Card #: __________________________________ Expiration date: ___________ Name on card, if different from above: _________________________________ Make checks payable to: "Computer Game Developers' CONFERENCE." Mail this form with payment to: CGDA 5339 Prospect Road, Suite 330 San Jose, CA 95129 THIS IS THE FINE PRINT, BUT READ IT ANYWAY Membership is individual, non-transferable, and non-refundable. Sorry, no purchase orders. Form must be accompanied by payment. No group or other discounts are available; it's a bargain as is. You are responsible for obtaining a correct postmark. Not responsible for loss or damage. Lock your car. For Customer Service, call (415) 856-4263, extension 5. In order to keep costs down, this line will not be answered by a live human. Please leave a message and someone will call you back. MEMBER SURVEY Please answer the following questions. The information collected in this survey will be used to endorse one (or none) of the game rating systems. 1. Do you support ratings for interactive entertainment? [] yes [] no 2. Should game ratings be broken down by minimum age recomendations (eg. the way the MPAA rates movies), or content-based descriptions (eg. separate labeling for sex, violence, etc): [] age-based [] content-based 3. How much should it cost to have a product rated: [] Free [] $25 [] $100 []$300 [] $500 [] $1500 [] $1500 4. Should ratings be determined by: [] the developer/publisher [] an independent review board 5. What length of time is acceptable for an independent review board to rate a product (assuming you cannot ship your product until it has been reviewed): [] 24 hours [] 3 days [] 1 week [] 2 weeks [] 4 weeks Please write any additional comments regarding ratings on the back of this form. ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** (newsletter) CONTENTS CGDA President's Letter..............................Ernest Adams From the Editors.....................................Kevin Gliner Jim Cooper Video Uzis and Real Blood............................Charles B. Kramer Ratings: From Washington Ratings: From the IDSA Ratings: From the SPA Video Games Rating Act of 1994 A Developer's Guide to Working With Industry Press...Ellen Guon Dare We Ask "Why?"...................................Jeff Johannigman Online Multiplayer Games, Part 1.....................Carrie Washburn From Computer Game to Video Game At Sega.............Nic Lavroff The Future of Sound..................................Doug Cody The Hunt Is On.......................................Kay Sloan Quoted Timeline In Future Issues ******************************************************************************* CGDA PRESIDENT'S LETTER The first question everybody asks is, "Why?" "Why do we need a Computer Game Developers Association?" You can find the answer in the evening newspaper. Or worse yet, on the TV news. Interactive entertainment is under attack these days. People who've never paid the slightest attention to computer games, video arcades or educational software are suddenly convinced we're poisoning their children's minds. They see a couple of video games on TV and they're sure our entire industry is riddled with sex and violence. That's just wrong. The vast majority of computer and video games are fun and wholesome entertainment. You know it and I know it. But the public, and the press and the government -- they don't know it. It's time someone told them the truth. But who's going to do it? The publishers could do it. They've got a lot to lose. But they have a particular slant: making money, beating the competition. Can we count on them to stand up for our concerns as individual developers? Can we count on them to stand up for the creative freedom that is our right and our duty, to ourselves and our customers? Can we count on them to stand up for our obligation to live up to our own consciences? I don't think so. There's already a movement afoot among some of the publishers to relieve you of your creative freedom and your moral obligations: to hand those off to a group of judges who will review your work and decide what is "acceptable" for whom and what is not. That's not good enough. Let the publishers speak for themselves and their concerns. We need to speak for ourselves and our concerns. Right now, we cannot speak -- we, the individual developers of interactive entertainment and educational software. We have no voice. In a public debate, if you have no voice, you cannot participate. You are powerless. The CGDA gives us that power. By joining the CGDA you'll lend your name, your experience and your voice to the debate. You'll have someone to stand up for you when the time comes. You'll know that you are being heard and that someone is representing your interests. Read the enclosed leaflet about the CGDA. It's not just about software ratings; it's about community service. About doing things to make our lives easier and our products better. We hope you'll join us. Ernest Adams August, 1994 ****************************************************************************** FROM THE EDITORS Ratings are the question on everyone's mind these days -- why they are happening, what form they will take and, most importantly, who will be imposing them. The significance to game developers is not lost on us; we've devoted more than a third of the pages in our premier issue to the subject. Charles Kramer leads things off by analyzing the current ratings proposals and examining their First Amendment implications. We then hear from the advocates themselves with supporting pieces directly from the IDSA, SPA and Congress. We have even gone so far as to include the complete text of the Video Games Rating Act of 1994. But the CGDA is not just about ratings, and neither is this newsletter. We aim to provide you with a range of material you cannot find anywhere else: material of interest or use to you because you don't just play games, you create them. To that end, you'll find several practical articles in the following pages. A good review can make or break a product so our Interviewer Extraordinaire, Ellen Guon, talked to Computer Gaming World's Editor-In-Chief Johnny Wilson about working with the computer press. For those interested in cartridge publication, perhaps of existing computer- based titles, Nic Lavroff outlines the product acquisition process at Sega. Few doubt multiplayer games will be a dominant portion of the industry in future. Carrie Washburn looks at where things stand today in the first of two articles about online services and the state of the art in multiplayer entertainment. Another rapidly changing area is how we use sound in our products. Doug Cody explains the present and future of sound and digital mixing. Two timeless questions about jobs in the industry -- how to get them and how to fill them -- are answered by Kay Sloan. Finally, Jeff Johannigman asks us to consider why we do what we do and to reach beyond our current designs to create interactive art. Welcome to the first newsletter of the Computer Game Developers Association. Because our needs, your needs, are so special, we invite you emphatically to participate. Suggestions, questions, novel ideas, or just a desire to address the industry at large -- any one is reason enough to drop us a line by email, fax, or phone. You can also join in online discussions about the articles in these pages on GEnie, CompuServe and America Online. Kevin Gliner Jim Cooper ****************************************************************************** VIDEO UZIS AND REAL BLOOD: THE COMING OF RATINGS ON COMPUTER GAMES by Charles B. Kramer, Esq. The nine year-old rapist, the five year-old arsonist, the fourteen year-old outside of a bank cash machine who says "give me your money, or I'll shoot," and then does: grounded in fact or not, the common perception is that violence is becoming more common, more random, and more often committed by youth with no more remorse than a game player atomizing video aliens. With the perceived increase in real violence has come an increase in the view that media violence, including game violence, is the cause, and that customers should be forewarned by ratings. And ratings are coming. Germany already restricts the sale of games that a government board determines "harmful to young persons." Violators can be imprisoned. In England, games carry stickers advising parents of their suitability for different ages ("Jurassic Park" is suitable for children over eleven, "Mortal Kombat" for those over fifteen). Efforts are also underway in other countries. In the United States, a number of games companies -- among them Megatech Software, Sierra, and Virgin -- already rate some of their games for violent or "mature" content with designations like "PC-17" and "Parental Discretion Advised." Apogee Software began identifying its most violent games with its very funny -- and very accurate -- "PC-Profound Carnage" warning on game screens and advertisements at least as early as 1992. But when Acclaim Entertainment Ltd.'s martial-arts "Mortal Kombat" (with scenes of ripped spines) and Sega of America Inc.'s "Night Trap" (with scenes of blood sucked from the necks of scantily clad young women) were released last year, a public uproar followed. Some stores responded by stopping sales. Not long after, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) called for congressional hearings into videogame violence. The result is a proposed Act, and a threat, and a headlong industry rush to self-regulation. The Act is the "Video Games Rating Act of 1994", introduced in February into the Senate by Lieberman and Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), and into the House of Representatives by Representative Tom Lantos (D-Cal.). The Act would establish a government commission to "coordinate with the video game industry" in the development of a "voluntary" rating system for computer, arcade and home video games. The threat is that if the commission determines that the voluntary system is insufficient, the commission may (in the words of the Act) "promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers and sellers" of games to include ratings. More disturbingly, several states, including California, Florida and Michigan, are considering far more restrictive game-related laws. One, for instance, would reportedly make the sale or rental of an "excessively violent" video game a criminal offense. In response to this threat, the games industry is quickly moving to establish ratings on its own. If the voluntary system appeases Congress and is in place in time for the next Christmas selling season, the Rating Act will die. "We prefer self-regulation to government regulation," Senator Kohl has said, "but make no mistake about it: We will move ahead if you fall behind." TWO SYSTEMS The games industry's rating efforts are split into two camps: one led by the newly created Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), and the other led by the Computer Game Ratings Working Group, consisting of over twenty-five members of the Software Publishers Association (SPA) and four shareware trade associations (represented by Karen Crowther). THE IDSA SYSTEM IDSA is principally composed of cartridge-based video game publishers, including Nintendo, Sega, Konami, Atari, Acclaim and Electronic Arts, many of which are not U.S. based. In its proposed system, publishers would submit a game, a $500 fee, a videotape showing game play including "extreme portions," and some other information to an IDSA "Ratings Board." The board would consist of educators, parents, child development experts and others, and be headed by an executive director -- currently Arthur Pober -- chosen by the IDSA's directors, all of whom represent IDSA member companies. The identities of the Ratings Board will not be disclosed to the public or to IDSA staff. The Ratings Board would issue ratings based on a review of the videotape and other submitted material -- a recognition, perhaps, that reviewing every game scene, including all the hidden ones, would require the week-long efforts of a roomful of fourteen year-olds. Publishers can appeal the ratings their games get. IDSA's proposed ratings are value-judgment based, and would consist of broad age category designations ("children 12 years and under"), supplemented with descriptive phrases from a long list that includes "needless blood and gore," "use of drugs" and "blasphemy." THE SPA SYSTEM The SPA, which is mostly known for its work against software piracy, is composed of many small and large software companies, many of which, including Microsoft, Interplay, Maxis and LucasArts Entertainment, produce computer-based games. The SPA and its shareware partners represent nearly 3,000 software developers and publishers. Unlike IDSA's Ratings Board, which remains connected to IDSA, the SPA's proposed Review Panel would be connected to a wholly independent new entity called the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC). The Council would include an Advisory Committee, and would be governed by a board whose voting members would consist of four representative software developers and publishers and five representatives of non-industry interests, such as teacher and parent organizations. Publishers would submit a game, a low or nominal fee and a "disclosure statement" to the Council's Review Panel. The disclosure statement would consist of answers entered on a computer program to questions like "does this title contain any violence that results in audio distress by a sentient object?" The program would generate ratings based on the answers. In certain circumstances, ratings would be based on actual game reviews. The SPA's proposed ratings avoid value judgments, and would consist of a five point scale ranging from "general audience" to "extreme content" on each of 3 categories: "violence," "nudity/sex" and "language." The IDSA and SPA have held talks toward either merging their ratings procedures or at least adopting a common set of ratings standards and symbols. Either would lessen customer confusion and end the competition between IDSA and SPA for Congressional approval of their plans. Neither is likely to happen, in part because IDSA won't give up control to the sort of independent entity that the SPA favors. The SPA and its shareware partners also have expressed concern that the IDSA system, with its videotape requirement and possible inability to review timely the pre-Christmas rush of software based games, favors the video-based business of most IDSA members. Even if it means having two or more concurrent systems, self-regulation could solve big industry problems. Besides forestalling federal action, it could forestall the much more feared possibility of inconsistent state regulation. But self-regulation also creates uncertainties and raises questions. For instance: * How valid is the threat of government required ratings, that possibly more vigorous self-regulation is supposed to avoid? * What recourse will publishers have who find their unrated or undesirably rated games cannot be be distributed? Unfortunately, this question is hardly theoretical, since executives from Wal-Mart, Toys "R" Us and Babbage's have already committed not to sell unrated games. * When the inevitable lawsuits come alleging that a game has injured a player -- and there have already been such lawsuits -- will games ratings affect a determination as to whether games can cause an injury for which publishers can be sued? The power of governments to require game ratings is limited by the First Amendment and other laws. Self-regulation is limited by the antitrust and other laws. And ratings, at least of the subjective "children 12 years and under" type, could increase publisher liability for the alleged consequences of playing games. But these are big subjects, and each may be the subject of a future article in this newsletter. The balance of this article examines the First Amendment, and the threat of government-required ratings. THE FIRST AMENDMENT The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . ." Like lots of legal statements, its meaning is something other than its literal words. While the amendment appears only to limit federal legislative action, it has been interpreted in light of other amendments also to limit state legislative action. The First Amendment also limits non-legislative sorts of government action. The power of individuals to bring lawsuits based on libel, for instance, is subject to the First Amendment's limits on the power of courts to restrict or impose penalties for speech. And while the First Amendment appears to be absolute -- it says, after all, that Congress shall make no law -- "obscene" speech can be prohibited on the ground that it's not speech at all, and "indecent" speech, misrepresentation and speech likely to incite imminent lawless action can in various degrees be restricted or penalized. Speech can also be restricted as an incidental effect of a law that serves some other legitimate state interest -- like the way an interest in safe roads allows local authorities to require permits defining the time and place of protest marches. Whether the power of governments to require game ratings is limited by the First Amendment raises three questions: whether games contain protectible speech; if so, whether government ratings would "abridge" the expression of such speech; and if so, whether such abridgment is justified because games are dangerous. DO GAMES CONTAIN PROTECTED SPEECH? The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech extends to all artistic expression. The Supreme Court has observed that "[e]ntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected; motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio and television, and live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall within the First Amendment guarantee." One Supreme Court justice noted that "the First Amendment draws no distinction between the various methods of communicating ideas." Despite these broad principles, the answer to the first question -- whether games contain protectible speech -- is actually unsettled. In cases involving video game ordinances, which among other things may regulate whether video game arcades can operate during school hours, a number of courts have found that games do not contain protected speech. This view is based on the belief that games do not communicate sufficient "information" or "ideas" or "expressive content." A player striving to shoot down invaders, one court explained, is insufficient. Whatever the merits of this view in the context of video game arcades, it makes little sense in the context of game ratings. If games have no content, how can there be anything to rate? David Sheff, in his recent book about Nintendo, observes that Nintendo's Mario may send the messages "kill or be killed. Time is running out. You are on your own." Sheff also quotes the view of Donald Katz in a February 1990 Esquire magazine article that "the lesson from Mario is 'there's always somebody bigger and more powerful than you are . . . [and] even if you kill the bad guys and save the girl -- eventually you will die'." But whether games contain protected speech shouldn't turn on whether they convey a message that can be expressed in words. As one court explained, since nude dancing, which is no more "informative" than video games, is protected by the First Amendment, video games should be protected too. Another court pointed out that since games are like movies -- an analogy that is more compelling now than when it was made in 1982 -- games deserve First Amendment protection as much as movies do. That games are entitled to First Amendment protection is clearly the better view, if not a settled one. WOULD GOVERNMENT RATINGS ABRIDGE SPEECH? The second question -- whether government ratings abridge the protected speech in games -- is more difficult. A government ratings system that banned sales of games, even if only to certain ages, would certainly be an abridgment. In theory, however, the game ratings that Congress is contemplating would be no more than information labels, and would be no more unconstitutional than a law requiring labels on cans of string beans identifying vitamin content. Not surprisingly, the senators behind the Video Games Rating Act take the position that the Act would not violate the First Amendment. Jamie Schwing, legal counsel for Senator Kohl, has said "[w]e are not censoring or banning any games. We are trying to set up a system that protects kids and gives information to parents and consumers." This statement seems disingenuous, since the real purpose of those behind the Rating Act is clearly to pressure game manufacturers into producing less violent games. On May 2, 1994, for instance, Senators Kohl and Lieberman wrote a letter to major retailers, urging them to sell only games using the IDSA approach to ratings. "We ask that you commit to sell only interactive entertainment products rated by an independent, pre-market rating process," the senators wrote, "and that you make it clear that software initially rated by publishers will not be carried." Any system of required ratings backed by official "advice" that limits distribution of unrated material is potentially illegal. For that matter, industry-imposed ratings backed by such advice could be illegal too. In 1986, for instance, then Attorney General Edwin Meese's Commission on Pornography sent letters to twenty-three convenience store companies, threatening to list them in the Commission's final report as distributors of pornography unless they contested the accusation. Playboy and Penthouse went to court, and a federal judge made the preliminary determination that the Commission had probably acted unconstitutionally by sending the letter. The Kohl and Lieberman letter is different -- for one thing, it did not threaten government action -- but coercion was equally its purpose, so it may also violate the First Amendment. ARE RATINGS JUSTIFIED? The answer to the third question -- whether ratings are justified because games are dangerous -- may depend on the standard being applied. If ratings incidentally abridge speech, they would at least have to serve a substantial government purpose that cannot be achieved by a less restrictive method. If games are not protected by the First Amendment, they would still need to be at least reasonably related to legitimate government concerns. Whether games or any other works that depict violence are dangerous has been controversial for at least 30 years. George Gerbner, a professor, defined media violence years ago as "[t]he overt expression of physical force against self or other compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing," and included within this definition "physical force" in the forms of slapstick comedy, humorous cartoons, accidents, illness such as cancer and natural catastrophes. Using this test, Gerbner in one year determined that the most violent television show was "I Dream of Jeannie." Gerbner is still around and, interestingly, applauds the hiring of Arthur Pober as the executive director of IDSA's Ratings Board. Some ratings systems are premised on the notion that media violence is less dangerous if justified by the situation in which it occurs. The IDSA ratings proposal implicitly adopts this view by using descriptions that will only be applied if game blood, gore, or injury to humans is "needless." Some experts believe, however, that unjustified violence is the safest type, since violence used by a hero figure is more likely to arouse imitation. In light of the degree of uncertainty as to what game play if any is dangerous, a strong argument can be made that ratings are not justified by any legitimate government concern. FREEDOM TO NOT SPEAK Apart from the First Amendment danger that ratings will limit what games are distributed is the possibility that by requiring ratings the government would be requiring certain opinions to be expressed. By rating types and quantities of game violence, for instance, publishers express the opinion that such distinctions mean something. By using a value-judgment based system which contains "appropriate" age, "needless" violence and "blasphemy" descriptions, publishers also express opinions about psychology, appropriate social values and religion. Since the freedom to express ideas includes the right to refrain from expressing them, the government can almost certainly not impose a value-based ratings system any more than New Hampshire was able to penalize those who covered the state motto "Live Free or Die" on automobile license plates because they disagreed with it. CONCLUSION Government-required ratings would likely violate the First Amendment because they are not justified by their expressed purpose, and because they would effectively force games companies to express opinions they may not believe. A voluntary ratings system backed by "advisory" letters or other coercion from government officials might also violate the First Amendment. Even self-regulation without government coercion could change which games get to market and which do not. In the 1950s, public outrage about violent comic books followed a similar pattern of attempted legislation followed by self-regulation. Comics that passed a "voluntary" prescreening of storylines and artwork could display a seal. When distributors and wholesalers refused to handle comic books without the seal, twenty-four of the twenty-nine publishers of crime comic books went out of business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES B. KRAMER is a member of the New York and Illinois Bars and has practiced law in New York City since 1982, including at Lord, Day & Lord. His practice includes corporate, copyright and trademark law, including for clients in the software development and other information businesses. He can be reached at (212) 254-5093 or 72600.2026@compuserve.com. ****************************************************************************** FROM WASHINGTON The following are excerpts from materials provided by the respective offices of two of the legislators sponsoring the "Video Games Rating Act of 1994." FROM SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CONNECTICUT): Any rating system proposed by the video game industry will be subject to charges that it is not objective, that it will bend to the marketing whims of the companies that pay its bills. To gain the public's trust it is imperative that those responsible for rating games be absolutely insulated from pressure by the industry and be free to rate without fear or favor. There must be a range of views expressed on the rating panel. The panel should include men and women, parents and educators (in short, the panel should reflect the public rather than the industry.) One of the most exciting aspects of the video game industry is the pace of technological development. But rapid change also points out the need for the rating system to be flexible enough to handle tomorrow's games as well as today's. Thus, we have asked that the rating board define its mission broadly to cover all interactive video games, including games played on personal computers as well as on closed platform systems. The ratings should provide as much information about the reason for the rating as possible. For example, if the game has sexual content, that should be clear in the rating. The same should hold true for violence and for offensive language. The ratings must have tough, conservative standards, lest the confidence of parents be lost. If you rate a game as being OK for kids and we still find blood and guts on the screen, then in my view the rating is meaningless. If the industry does its job [to create an independent rating system], we will have accomplished our job, and our legislation would become unnecessary. And that would be fine with me. However, the key will be the effectiveness of the rating system in providing parents with the information they need and want about the content of these games. Until a good rating system is in place, we won't be pulling the plug on our bill. If the video game industry had practiced self-restraint before now, we wouldn't be here today. FROM REP. TOM LANTOS (D-SAN FRANCISCO): I was visiting my grandchildren and I had the opportunity to see some of the games that they were playing which were given to them as gifts. I must say that I was shocked by some of the garbage that was in these games. And as I have looked further into the subject, I have been sickened by what I have seen. The gratuitous violence and explicit sex on some of these games would be offensive to most adults and is certainly not appropriate for children. The least we can do as a civilized society is warn parents of the filth that is in some of these games. Games such as "Mortal Kombat", which allows the victor to kill the loser by tearing out his heart, by electrocuting him, by pulling his spine out or by decapitating him, and "Night Trap", where three men in black masks burst into the bedroom of a woman in a flimsy negligee, then drag her off and hold her down while a fourth attacker plunges an electric drill in her neck, are clearly the type of material that should carry understandable, indestructible warning labels to help parents monitor their children's play. A rating system must be credible and enforceable. Everyone who profits in the manufacture and distribution of these products must be held accountable to ensure that no games reach the market without a rating. For example, as a means to enforce their rating system, I see no reason why the interactive entertainment industry doesn't simply refuse to sell to retailers that choose to sell unrated games. I strongly urge the industry to consult with teachers, parents and other experts, in addition to interested Members of Congress, on how to implement a credible and fool-proof rating system before millions of dollars are spent by the industry on a rating system that turns out not to be effective in providing parents with important information about the content of games. Because if the industry doesn't get it right the first time, our legislation would establish an independent commission to do it for them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Lieberman's office can be reached at (202) 224-4073; (202) 228-3792 fax Rep. Lantos's office can be reached at (202) 225-3531; (202) 225-3127 fax. ******************************************************************************* FROM THE IDSA The Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA) was formed earlier this year to represent interactive hardware manufacturers and software publishers. We will be involved in a number of issues, but at the moment our focus is on developing an independent rating system to give parents and other consumers the information they need to make informed interactive entertainment purchasing choices. The genesis of the rating system came last December when Congress gave the industry an ultimatum: self-regulate, or face legislation mandating a government rating system. Meanwhile, at the state level, several legislators were introducing their own bills to label or rate interactive entertainment products. We felt strongly that self-regulation was much preferable to Federal mandates and multiple state laws. Consequently, we have established an independent rating board which is developing a rating system based on two major principles. First, the system must be credible. Consumers and policymakers must feel that they can trust the system to provide understandable, accurate, unbiased information. To this end, our independent rating board is soliciting input on the rating system from consumers, retailers and experts in children's issues. And we have agreed that products submitted to the system will be rated by an independent third-party rating board before they are shipped. The system will be flexible enough to meet the production and marketing schedules of all publishers. All products, regardless of platform, will be rated in five to seven days, and publishers can submit a range of materials, as long as they give raters a complete picture of the content which will drive the rating. Frankly, the IDSA itself had its doubts about prior review when we began our process. We considered a "registered disclosure" type of honor system, which would clearly have been an easier answer for industry. But members of Congress, child experts, retailers and consumers made it clear that anything less than pre-market review would be inadequate to head off legislation. That conclusion has been validated by harsh Congressional attacks on the registered disclosure model, the latest coming June 30th at a hearing of the influential House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Second, the rating system must carefully strike a balance between meeting consumers' needs and the needs of our industry. We're committed to making the system work for all platforms, and in recent weeks we have modified it in several ways to address concerns expressed to us by others in the software industry. For example, the Interactive Multimedia Association expressed concern over the scope of the products eligible for a rating. So we have made it clear that the rating board does not intend to rate instructional, commercial, or business software, software sold through non-retail channels, or software being distributed on bulletin boards (unless the individual publishers ask it to do so). Moreover, we are examining the feasibility of developing a sliding cost scale for shareware and other small publishers, and have already agreed to modified submission requirements for shareware products. The rating board is continuing to solicit input on the system and welcomes any ideas which will help result in a system which works effectively for everyone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Editor's Note: The IDSA has announced it will use the following symbols and categories for its ratings system: "EC" (early childhood, ages 3 and up); "KA" (kids to adults, ages 6 and up); "T" (teen, ages 13 and up); "M" (mature, ages 17 and up); "AO" (adults only). Doug Lowenstein, lobbyist for the IDSA, can be reached at (202) 739-0204. ****************************************************************************** FROM THE SPA The Software Publishers Association (SPA) formed the Computer Game Ratings Working Group last January. It consists of over 25 SPA member companies including Interplay, Maxis and LucasArts Entertainment. It also includes the Association of Shareware Professionals (ASP), the Shareware Trade Association and Resources (STAR), the Educational Software Cooperative (ESC) and the Computer Game Developers Association (CGDA) [while the CGDA is participating in the Working Group, they have not yet endorsed a particular rating system -Ed.]. All told, the Working Group represents over 3,000 software developers and publishers. The Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC) ratings program has been developed in consultation with media research experts and reflects many of the recommendations of interested groups in the fields of medicine and media research. INDEPENDENCE. Because industry self-regulation has serious drawbacks, RSAC will be organized as an independent nonprofit agency, outside of any industry trade association, that will administer the ratings program. This is in contrast to proposals that purport to "insulate" the ratings board within an industry trade association. Such approaches undermine objectivity and have been criticized by media researchers, because a trade association exists to represent members of the regulated industry, and because members of such ratings boards are employees of the industry trade association. Moreover, at least one survey shows that consumers prefer that an independent council, rather than industry, rate software titles by a three-to-one margin. PARTICIPATION BY PARENTS AND EXPERTS. The RSAC plan is now being reviewed by interested experts and will soon be available for comment by parents and other consumers, as well as retailers. The RSAC Governing Board and Advisory Committee will include not only parents and industry representatives but also other experts in media research and public health. Moreover, parents, educators and other experts will be in a position to control the policy and administration of RSAC because they will enjoy a majority of votes on the Governing Board and Advisory Committee. RATINGS CATEGORIES AND ICONS. The RSAC ratings categories will give consumers precise information by specifically identifying the type of content, in particular violence, sex/nudity, and language, that may be objectionable. RSAC uses numerical measures to identify the level of violence, sexual content, or profanity. To insure that the ratings program does not defeat its own purpose by restricting titles that advance anti violence themes, RSAC will have authority to consider the context in which the content is presented. This approach gives parents and consumers better product information, enabling them to better make choices based on their own preferences and judgment. By being informational but not judgmental, the RSAC ratings system will avoid the danger of imposing any one set of moral criteria upon consumers. RSAC will be open for business in time to rate software titles being shipped October 1, 1994. For a complete information packet on the RSAC ratings system, contact Sally Lawrence at (202) 452-1600 ext. 320, or check the SPAFORUM on CompuServe. ***************************************************************************** THE VIDEO GAMES RATING ACT OF 1994 BRIEF TITLE Video Games Rating Act of 1994 H.R. 3785 (identical bill introduced into the senate by Senators Lieberman and Kohl is S1823) SPONSOR Tom Lantos DATE INTRODUCED February 3, 1994 HOUSE COMMITTEE Energy and Commerce Judiciary OFFICIAL TITLE A bill to provide for the establishment of the Interactive Entertainment Rating Commission, and for other purposes. Feb 3, 94 Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mar 4, 94 Referred to subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness. Feb 3, 94 Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary. May 24, 94 Referred to Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law. CO-SPONSORS: Glickman, Maloney, Morella, Smith (NJ), Shay, Johnson (SD), Lloyd, Bereuter, Frost, Hughes, E.B. Johnson, Orton, Parker, Taylor (MS), Gejdenson, Hinchey. 103d CONGRESS 2D SESSION A BILL To provide for the establishment of the Interactive Entertainment Rating Commission, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE. (a) SHORT TITLE -- This Act may be cited as the "Video Game Rating Act of 1994." (b) PURPOSE -- The purpose of this Act is to provide parents with information about the nature of video games which are used in homes or public areas, including arcades or family entertainment centers. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Act -- (1) the terms "video games" and "video devices" mean any interactive computer game, including all software, framework and hardware necessary to operate a game, placed in interstate commerce; and (2) the term "video game industry" means all manufacturers of video games and related products. SECTION 3. THE INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT RATING COMMISSION. (a) ESTABLISHMENT -- There is established the Interactive Entertainment Rating Commission (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Commission") which shall be an independent establishment in the executive branch as defined under section 104 of title 5, United States Code. (b) MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION -- (1)(A) The Commission shall be composed of 5 members. No more than 3 members shall be affiliated with any 1 political party. (B) The members shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President shall designate 1 member as the Chairman of the Commission. (2) All members shall be appointed within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (c) TERMS -- Each member shall serve until the termination of the Commission. (d) VACANCIES -- A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. (e) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS -- (1) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "Chairman, Interactive Entertainment Rating Commission." (2) Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "Members, Interactive Entertainment Rating Commission." (3) The amendments made by this subsection are repealed effective on the date of termination of the Commission. (f) STAFF -- (1) The Chairman of the Commission may, without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and such other additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission. (2) The Chairman of the Commission may fix the compensation of the executive director and other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title. (g) CONSULTANTS -- The Commission may procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. The Commission shall give public notice of any such contract before entering into such contract. (h) FUNDING -- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its duties under this Act, such sums to remain available until December 31, 1996. (i) TERMINATION -- The Commission shall terminate on the earlier of (1) December 31, 1996; or (2) 90 days after the Commission submits a written determination to the President that voluntary standards are established that are adequate to warn purchasers of the violent or sexually explicit content of video games. SECTION 4. AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (a) VOLUNTARY STANDARDS -- (1) The Commission shall (A) during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and to the greatest extent practicable, coordinate with the video game industry in the development of a voluntary system for providing information concerning the contents of video games to purchasers and users; and (B) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act -- (i) evaluate whether any voluntary standards proposed by the video game industry are adequate to warn purchasers and users about the violence or sexually explicit content of video games; and (ii) determine whether the voluntary industry response is sufficient to adequately warn parents and users of the violence or sex content of video games. (2) If before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission makes a determination of adequate industry response under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) and a determination that sufficient voluntary standards are established, the Commission shall -- (A) submit a report of such determinations and the reasons therefore to the President and the Congress; and (B) terminate in accordance with section 3(i)(2). (b) REGULATORY AUTHORITY -- Effective on and after the date occurring 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act the Commission may promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers and sellers of video games to provide adequate information relating to violence or sexually explicit content of such video games to purchasers and users. SECTION 5. ANTITRUST EXEMPTION. The antitrust laws as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 45) and the law of unfair competition under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action, or agreement by or among persons in the video game industry for the purpose of, and limited to, developing and disseminating voluntary guidelines designed to provide appropriate information regarding the sex or violence content of video games to purchasers of video games at the point of sale or initial use or other uses of such video games. The exemption provided for in this subsection shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action, or agreement which results in a boycott of any person. ******************************************************************************* A DEVELOPER'S GUIDE TO WORKING WITH INDUSTRY PRESS: INTERVIEW WITH JOHNNY WILSON by Ellen Guon (This is the first in a series of "Developer's Guide" articles) Everyone knows that game reviews are important to the financial success of a game product. A top trade magazine can have a distribution of over 100,000 a month, reaching a huge percentage of our market. A full-color ad in a top magazine can cost $2,000 . . . so a two-page review can have a value of $4,000 at no cost to the developer except time, effort and a little expertise at working with the press. But how many developers know much about the press or how to interact with them? To answer these questions, we talked with Johnny Wilson, Editor-in-Chief of Computer Gaming World (CGW) magazine. Johnny has been working with CGW for six years, with eleven years as a professional journalist. He reviews roughly fifty games each year, as well as assigning and editing articles, planning editorials, covering industry news and one of his favorite activities, "schmoozing with industry personalities." ELLEN GUON: How many games does CGW review? JOHNNY WILSON: Roughly thirty online and print magazine feature reviews a year. Our Prodigy reviews per month (roughly twenty-five) overlap with some of the games we cover in CGW. EG: With those numbers, the odds aren't good that a developer's game will be reviewed. How can a developer increase those odds? JW: We try to cover every game that we believe will have an impact on our readers. Any game that is getting attention from our readers is going to get attention from us. We feel obligated to cover the major releases, but we are a staff full of gamers and we are constantly looking for those innovative, up and coming, quality publishers that can capture our imagination with a quality game. The games I (personally) preview or review must all have what we jokingly call the "coolness" factor. Russ (Sipe), Alan (Emrich) and I have all interviewed Sid Meier and borrowed his "technical" term for innovative and attractive ("cool"). There must be some new approach, whether in interface, design or technology, to capture my somewhat jaded interest. Sometimes, but not often, the graphics and music provide the coolness factor. Sometimes, the approach to a story, interface, puzzles, character interaction or even victory conditions will attract me. EG: What do you look for in a game? JW: I look for a subject matter that intrigues me. I want to be pulled into that subject matter in such a way that my "suspended disbelief" quotient is very high and my chance of being pulled back into the mundane world is reduced for every minute of play. I want to feel that my input makes a difference in the game (i.e. I want feedback!). I want to feel that I have a legitimate chance to succeed. I want a minimum of deja vu. I don't play games to feel like I've been here before. I want to be inspired. If a game doesn't cause me to do extra research on a subject, it hasn't really captured me. And I want to have such a satisfying experience that I can reflect on it afterward, as though my vicarious experience through the onscreen character or representation has been an authentic personal experience. EG: What are some immediate "turn-offs" in games, things that will generate a negative review? JW: What I really hate is when a company's public relations people, the producer or designer of a game set me up for a unique new product and I find that it has copied from every successful game in that genre without risking anything innovative. Featureitis is another factor. If I get the feeling that something has been included in a game just because they can do it, I lose my cool. User-unfriendliness, whether due to clunky interfaces, lazy programming, mindless marketing decisions or crummy installation procedures is very likely to flash a red cape before my eyes. Of course, finding out that another publication has a copy of the game before we do is not the type of thing that will endear a product to our hearts. EG: What can a developer do to encourage CGW to review a game? JW: We need to know about the product early. We need to know what the developer is trying to do differently (our verbal nondisclosure is solid). We need to be updated periodically. A fax or voice mail saying, "we've got this feature working" or "we're having to change the design" will keep the product in front of us. We need product as soon as possible . . . after it's on the shelves is too late! . . . and we need multiple copies of that product. EG: What is your preferred mode of working with developers when you're reviewing their game? JW: On a preview, we like to be able to contact the developer directly so we can get past problems and make occasional bug reports. On a review, we prefer to approach the product just like a gamer would approach it. We usually don't contact the developer on a review. However, we often bug them to death when it's time to do the strategy article. EG: What is the worst thing a developer can do to you, to inhibit or damage a review of a game? JW: Call us up and start listing features. Another bad approach is to keep calling us and ask us what we think of a game. We know developers are anxious to hear that opinion, but we are often on a very tight schedule and may not have been able to look at it in a reasonable time table, according to the developer's calculations. Guess how terrible we feel when we haven't yet formed an opinion? EG: Can you tell any positive stories about working with developers? JW: Before Interplay was a publisher, they were the best developer to work with. They were aggressive at keeping us informed about product and were one of the first developers to trust us with Beta (versions). We looked at "Wasteland" early on and even lobbied for some design changes. Between Brian Fargo and Michael Stackpole, we were kept very well-informed on the project's status and, hence, were able to stay excited about it, even when it was delayed. Interplay's track record of dealing with us as a developer made it easier for them to get coverage as a new publisher. In fact, the "Neuromancer" cover was probably as much a result of the groundwork laid on "Wasteland" as anything they pitched on "Neuromancer." EG: How about horror stories on working with developers? JW: Horror stories involve pushy developers who are so convinced that they have the latest and greatest that they don't hear your questions, developers who won't even talk "off the record" with the press for fear we'll spill their ideas, developers who want us to review the "demo" (making us wonder about some reviewers), developers who wait too long to get us product (if they are self-distributing), developers who will not trust us with Beta (software) because they are afraid it will "prejudice" our final view of the game and developers who are not aware of what has already been published. EG: What can developers do to help you review their games? JW: We appreciate designers who are "delicate" with us when we goof and "patient" when we don't make connections. Graeme Devine ("The Seventh Guest", Trilobyte/Virgin Games) was marvelous at correcting me with a witty fax. Mark Baldwin ("The Perfect General", White Wolf Productions/ QQP) has been terrific about staying in touch, even when CES plans or game convention plans went awry. Online notes are always welcome, public or private. Peter Oliphant ("Lexicross", Interplay) and Tom Zelinski ("GemStone III", Simutronics Corporation) have often provided timely insights in this manner. [Developers can] keep us informed and follow up to make sure that their publisher/distributor gets us the product before it hits the stores. If not, it's easy for them to get lost in the flow. EG: You work closely with the PR departments at the different companies, right? JW: This industry has a surprisingly informed core of PR professionals. In this industry, most of the PR personnel know their products. I legitimately respect those professionals who: a) know their companies and product lines; b) know our magazine, readership and reputation; c) are both efficient in providing product and honest in answering questions; and d) believe that their job is supposed to be fun. PR Departments are wonderful tools for organizing products, photos and information and getting it disseminated. We often ask them to set up interviews and demonstrations, as well as use that wonderful tool known as Federal Express to get materials at the 11th hour. EG: What can a developer do to help their publisher's PR and marketing department with regard to the press? JW: If I were a developer, I would make sure that I knew what PR person was assigned to my product. I would put pressure on the publisher to schedule him/her to spend time with at least one new build of that product per month so that he/she will know how to describe it to the press (and which press to describe it to) when they start pitching stories. I would follow up and make sure that the PR person knew when the product was going to be mastered and that they received product in time to get it to the magazines promptly. I would tell them which magazine's readership repre- sented my target group and try to get them to pitch that magazine, regardless of circulation. I would make sure the PR/Marketing departments at my publisher were informed of contest possibilities within my game. I would make sure that I was available to do any kind of tour, trade show or interview that the PR/Marketing types deemed important. EG: Objectivity is often considered to be a problem with industry press. You mentioned a publisher who canceled four months of advertising after a bad review. JW: He wasn't the first and he won't be the last. EG: How do you maintain objectivity in your reviews? JW: We expect our reviewers to have a critical point of view. That's not to be confused with a negative point of view. The critical point of view thinks about the product and puts things into perspective. The non-critical review simply describes what's there and, at best, offers a bottom line opinion or numerical rating at the conclusion. Every article gets read by a minimum of three editors. In our case, they are editors with lots of gaming experience. Sometimes, three or four of us will gather around a screen and see if we have a consensus with the original writer. There is a healthy amount of discussion in our editorial department. We also pay attention to the feedback we get from our readers. There is nothing more sobering than a letter from an angry reader, and we read them all. EG: Any last comments for the developer community? JW: Just remember, at least at CGW, our real weakness is loving to have the inside story! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELLEN GUON is a game designer, writer and producer who worked on over twenty entertainment and educational software titles. Ellen has worked on projects for Electronic Arts, Origin Systems, Compton's NewMedia and Sierra On-Line. She is currently the president of Illusion Machines Inc., a development group specializing in Windows games. ****************************************************************************** DARE WE ASK "WHY?" by Jeff Johannigman I feel quite honored that the editors have invited me to write a piece for this first issue. As fellow pioneers in the frontier of interactive entertainment, we need to share with each other what the territory we're exploring looks like. We need scouting reports on where the fields are fertile or the soil rocky. We need more opportunities to discuss what we are doing and how we are doing it. And for the first issue of this newsletter, I'd like to take a step back and examine why we are creating the works we are creating. First, we need to decide whether we are artists creating a new form of expression, or merely craftsmen catering to our audience's desire for harmless diversion. Those among us who choose the latter can stop reading now and be content in commercial success as your motivation. However, if we aspire to be artists, it's time to dig deeper and understand what is the purpose behind our acts of creation. Perhaps the oldest and most common drive for creation comes from the human desire for immortality. Through art, we make something that outlives us. It worked for Shakespeare, Beethoven and Michelangelo. But when it comes to our medium, SF author Bruce Sterling said it most clearly at the 1990 Computer Game Developers Conference: "For God's sake don't put my books into the Thomas Edison kinetoscope. Don't put me into the stereograph, don't write me on the wax cylinder, don't tie my words and thoughts to the fate of a piece of hardware, because hardware is even more mortal than I am, and I'm a hell of a lot more mortal than I care to be." So you can just dump those thoughts of artistic immortality into a landfill with the finest Apple II and Atari VCS games. Though today we may critique the aesthetic merits of "The 7th Guest" and "Myst," in just a few very short years they'll be as forgotten as "Murder on the Zinderneuf" and "Trust and Betrayal." The second reason artists create is "because it's there." In my book, that's either a non-answer for the ignorant and apathetic, or the ravings of a mad genius whose sense of purpose is so sublimated that it emerges as visions and voices from the subconscious. I'll grant the visionaries a great deal of credit, for they have created some of the most inspiring works of art mankind has beheld. But most of us can't lay claim to such a strong sense of inspired vision. Much more prevalent in our industry is "because we can." Many of us are so attracted to the power of new technology that we just have to see what we can create with it. Now our works feature higher frame rates, photorealistic images, cinematic animated intros, digitized and really cool explosions, just "because we can." This is the fine, time-honored rationale of mad scientists from "Frankenstein" through "Jurassic Park." Technology for the sake of technology, technology without a purpose, technology without thought of its social implications, technology without a soul. A frightening thing indeed. "Because we can" is the equivalent of saying "we don't care whether it's used for good or bad, we just want to play with it." The only truly noble purpose for creating art is to better humanity. For some artists, that means sharing an insight into what it means to be human. For others it's teaching an object lesson in universal human values. In almost all cases, it means making you feel something. True art can make you laugh or cry, can anger or frighten you, can send your heart soaring or cast it into depths of depression. It is through this emotional response that the artist's message burrows past your intellect and into the subconscious. Even the most inane and juvenile forms of artwork have some value-based message at their core. Comic book heroes defeat their opponents not just from superior might, but because they have a moral center and sense of justice that the villains lack. The most insipid episode of "The Beverly Hillbillies" still shows the importance of down home honesty and openness over urban guile and vanity. It reaffirms some common values that we as a society need to share. Our industry has recently come under fire from parents' groups and legislators who fear, mostly out of ignorance, that we are addicting their children and exposing them to graphic violence. I put no more credence in their rabble-rousing paranoia than most of you do. Unfortunately, when it comes to defending our games from such attacks, the best social benefits we usually come up with are "they improve hand-eye coordination," "they develop problem-solving skills," or "they can be educational, like Carmen SanDiego" (a solitary example, created nearly a decade ago). Once those arguments are exhausted, we find ourselves borrowing the same "freedom of speech" defenses used by the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and other groups whose social benefits are dubious at best. It all leads me to think about what we really are giving our audience. The "problem-solving skills" we espouse usually reduce to choosing the proper martial kick, fireball spell, or sidewinder missile to make our lives better. Even in non-violent storytelling games, the player's important decisions usually mean using the blue widget stolen in room thirty-two to unlock the door to room forty-seven. These are not decisions that require courage, honesty, compassion, or any other basic value at the core of the most simplistic stories. A more personal case hit home last fall when a game I produced, "Master of Orion," generated a small controversy. Some politically correct game players were up in arms over the depiction of all humans in the game as white males. In their straining to pick their politically incorrect nits, none of our players seemed to realize that the entire point of the game was to conquer the galaxy through a policy of racial genocide. Compared to your average "Master of Orion" player, Hitler was a rank amateur. The simple fact that the other races were ugly insects, lizards and robots made it fun and socially acceptable. (I'd be tempted to re-release the game substituting Jews, blacks and gays, but I think the world is not ready for that.) "Master of Orion," like most of our games, reduces quickly to a mere exercise of intellect or dexterity. The only emotions we know how to generate are the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. We create contests without moral context, without choices of truth, courage, compassion, generosity, justice, or sacrifice. It is easy for our games to establish the evil of a bad guy, but then we give our players little opportunity to choose good. Rather, we encourage them to be just as ruthless and merciless as the evils that oppose them. By reducing all of our challenges to intellectual puzzles or dexterity contests, we have removed any emotional or ethical content to them. Without that, our games are not art. They're mental masturbation. At this point, I hear you all saying, "lighten up, it's only a harmless game." And I agree that we have been creating simple games which, I hope, are mostly harmless. I am not writing this to condemn us all, or give us a massive guilt trip. Instead, I want to challenge us to do what the most mediocre writer of "Gilligan's Island" can do. Create art. Create something that makes you feel genuine emotion. Create something that gives you ethical choices. Create something that reaffirms basic human values. Create something that gives you an insight into what it means to be human. If we wish to call ourselves artists, if we aspire to ever produce our own "Citizen Kane" or "Hamlet" or "Heart of Darkness", then we must create art that means something. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFF JOHANNIGMAN has produced over 50 games, including "Master of Orion," "Ultima: The Savage Empire" and "Ultima: Runes of Virtue." Since 1983, he has worked with many of the industry's biggest publishers, including Electronic Arts, Origin, MicroProse and Dynamix. He currently resides in Austin, Texas where he is producing a strategy game for MicroProse Software. ****************************************************************************** ONLINE MULTIPLAYER GAMES: WHAT ARE THEY? WHO'S BUYING THEM? by Carrie Washburn (Part 1 of 2 parts) Online multiplayer games are games played on commercial consumer services, such as CompuServe (CIS), America Online (AOL) and GEnie. Generally, these games allow large numbers of persons (sometimes more than a hundred at a time) from all over the world to compete against one another or against computer-generated creatures. TYPES OF ONLINE GAMES Online games come in three basic types: text, front-ended and graphical user interface (GUI). These types of games have appeared on the market roughly in that order. A text game is either ASCII or ANSI text. These are still quite popular on many online services due to their inherent ability to allow any person on any computer or terminal type to play with no more advantage than any other player. These games are the oldest in the market. Some examples of these types of games are "Island of Kesmai," "MUD II," "Dragon's Gate" and "GemStone III." Text games have been enhanced by the arrival of front ends (FEs). The FEs generally present game information in a more useful fashion. Some FEs have static graphics. In the past, FEs were generally written by the player population. Recently, the job of FE development has been taken over by the game developer. Player-written FEs tend to optimize game play, making play unequal for those who don't have the capability to use the front end. Developer-written FEs are designed specifically to prevent this problem. Good examples of developer-written FEs are the Windows interfaces for "Hundred Years War" and "Stellar Emperor." GUI-based games require a specific game program running on your local computer; the GUI is an inherent part of the product. There are, of course, problems with this type of game since you have to specifically support versions of the GUI for each platform. This adds to the development time for the product. The benefit of this form of game is that the capabilities of the local computer can be used to augment the software running on the online service. Good examples of GUI games are "SVGA Air Warrior," "MultiPlayer BattleTech" and "Cyberstrike." STYLES OF ONLINE GAMES There are four basic styles of online games: role-playing, simulator, classic and turn-based. These are by no means hard and fast categories. There are games which cross the line between two or more of them, but in general these are the four most popular styles of games currently found on commercial services. Role-playing games found on commercial networks are in the standard formats you find in almost every other type of role-playing event: fantasy, medieval and adventure. The most popular of these games are "Dragon's Gate," "Island of Kesmai," "MUD II," "GemStone III," "Neverwinter Nights (AD&D)" and "MultiPlayer BattleTech." The current online games involving simulators are mostly vehicle simulations. Most are based on history or fantasy. There are few, if any, simulations using the latest game technology. In the online world, "simulator" is becoming synonymous with "GUI." This is due to the need for the processing power of the local computer. Examples of this style of game are "Air Warrior," "MultiPlayer BattleTech," "Cyberstrike," "Sniper!" and "Multiplayer Red Baron." The classic game is the broadest of the game styles. This style encompasses all parlor and card games. These can range from poker to trivia to board games. Every service has some capability to support this style of game. The most popular of these are "Rabbit Jack's Casino," "NTN Trivia" and "RSCards Poker," "Bridge" and "Chess." The fourth style is turn-based games. These games are probably one of the growing areas in the online industry since the turn length and the amount of play is variable and can fit into anyone's time schedule and pocketbook. As with classic games, turn-based is a rather broad category with just about any type of game fitting into it. Among the most popular are "Rebel Space," "CEO," "Quantum Space" and "Galaxy." ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL ONLINE GAMES There are four important elements of online games that every developer needs to remember from the beginning of the game design: a low learning curve, ease of social interaction, depth of play and breadth of play. Most online games have a fairly high learning curve, simulations higher than most. The best way to keep new players is to make as few barriers to entry as possible. It is important that players begin enjoying the world quickly and easily. A tutorial, off-line practice mode or, as in "Air Warrior", a special training function will all make a game easier to learn. Social interaction must be the backbone of every online game. Flash and sizzle will bring folks into a game, but the socialization will keep them. If it is not allowed and encouraged, the game will not be popular for long. As important as it is, socialization can't be forced. Let players develop their own communication within the game setting, and, where possible, don't limit communication opportunities to game settings alone. Care must be taken to ensure that a low learning curve does not mean that the game is slim on features for advanced players, and hence slim on depth. Players expect to have fun as their abilities increase. Boredom is the fastest way to lose players. The developer should always plan to add new features on a regular basis. Anticipation of new features will go a long way to keeping players, as long as the promised features don't become a promised dinosaur. Along with depth, breadth of play must be provided. The developer cannot force players to play a certain way or on a particular schedule. The game design must provide features for the beginner and the advanced player, the casual player and the high-roller. ONLINE SERVICES Following is a discussion of the major online services including points of contact, membership totals, game interests, tools and information about contracts. AMERICA ONLINE (AOL) Vienna, Virginia (850,000 members) CONTACT: Scott Gries; (703) 448-8700 ACCEPTING: Proposals for any style game. TOOLS: AOL generally does not allow developers to work on their Stratus mainframes and, as of this writing, has not activated the capability to design and develop on Intels and transfer code. The normal development method is for the developer to make code which is sent to AOL and ported by the staff to work on their proprietary backbone code. AVERAGE DEALS: AOL has been known to provide development and advance fees in the past. They can be stingy on royalty rates but are known to have gone as high as 15% on excellent products. COMPUSERVE INFORMATION SERVICES (CIS) Columbus, Ohio (1.5 million members) CONTACT: Jim Pasqua or Kevin Knott; (614) 457-8600 ACCEPTING: Proposal for any style game but especially Role-Playing Games. TOOLS: Developers currently can work in BSDI UNIX with X.25 protocol. Products can now run on separate Intel platforms off their DECs, so developers can work in ANSI C at home and transfer code electronically. Developers can also work on the DECs in several older languages, including compiled BASIC. AVERAGE DEALS: CIS normally wants exclusives. Royalties range from 8 to 12% in most cases. CIS is not known for providing any up-front or advance fees for development. DELPHI INTERNET SERVICES Cambridge, MA (180,000 members) CONTACT: Ben Feder; (617) 441-4516 ACCEPTING: Delphi has made a public commitment to work with Kesmai ARIES, Ltd. in the development of games. It is best to contact Kesmai ARIES for information on development opportunities. eWORLD Apple Online Services; Cupertino, CA CONTACT: Hartley Lesser; (408) 974-9860 (Publicly available as of June 20, 1994. Some analysts predict that eWorld will have as many as 700,000 users one year after going live.) ACCEPTING: eWorld is currently available for the Macintosh with Windows capability predicted to be available in 1995. They are currently accepting applications for any style of entertainment or edutainment game. Currently, eWorld is working with developers on 7-bit ASCII-style games. Proposals for graphic games will be accepted with development to begin in late 1994 or early 1995. TOOLS: eWorld does not have the facilities in-house to support development boxes. They will work with the developer to connect to the games through a remote managed gateway. The gateways are all UNIX-based. eWorld supports SUN and SCO environments. eWorld also will put the developer in touch with a management house where the games can be run. AVERAGE DEALS: Deals vary based on the experience of the developer and exclusivity arrangements. Deals can include upfront development fees and advances against royalties in addition to any product royalties. GEnie Rockville, Maryland (400,000 members) CONTACT: Bruce Milligan; (301) 340-5184 ACCEPTING: Proposals for any style game TOOLS: While GEnie is currently limited to a proprietary C compiler on their Mark III software system, they are working to expand their development capabilities to support an HP/UX UNIX environment. GEnie is currently working with their developers to convert existing game products to ANSI C on UNIX systems. AVERAGE DEALS: One of GEnie's emphases has always been online games. There is a rumor that development money has dried up; however, advances against royalties are possible. GEnie is known to provide more development advances than any other service. Royalty rates range from 10 to 20%, depending on the product. THE IMAGINATION NETWORK (INN) Oakhurst, CA (40,000 members) CONTACT: Mike Kawahara; (209) 642-0700 ACCEPTING: Proposals for any style game, as long as it's graphicsbased. TOOLS: INN is a UNIX shop, running mostly on networked 486 machines. INN also has made a public commitment to having 50% of their future products come from third party developers. AVERAGE DEALS: INN is aggressively moving to acquire third party product. Royalties range from 5 to 10% in most cases but can be negotiated. Upfront money is available for those with a good track record in the computer games or online market. KESMAI ARIES, LTD. Charlottesville, Virginia CONTACT: John Taylor; (804) 979-0111 (Kesmai is a provider to third party services. Products currently available to GEnie subscribers. Soon to be available to subscribers of Delphi and Concentric Research Interactive Services (CRIS).) ACCEPTING: GUI and FE based games only for DOS, Windows and/or Macintosh. Particularly interested in sports games; however, proposals for any style game will be given consideration. TOOLS: Kesmai ARIES is a UNIX shop. They can handle UNIX varieties for SUN, SCO, LINUX and HP/UX. There are libraries available to support the developer in communications and multi-user connections as well as some basic protocol functions. Developers can do their development either on their own UNIX system or on the development machines at Kesmai. AVERAGE DEALS: There are no average deals with Kesmai ARIES. The royalty rates are negotiable based on the experience of the developer in online and computer games market. Development funds and advances against royalties are available for those with a good track record. MPG-NET Key West, Florida (10,000 members) CONTACT: Shaune Morley; (800) GET-GAME ACCEPTING: Proposals for any style game as long as it is graphical. TOOLS: MPG-Net is a UNIX shop. The company supplies libraries for Communications, Client/Server interface and GUI development for DOS engines. The developer can either develop on their own host (which must support BSD Sockets) or develop on an MPG-Net computer by dialing in over the Internet or through the CIS network. AVERAGE DEALS: Royalties can reach as high as 40 cents per hour depending on the experience of the developer and the amount of development fees and advances against royalties negotiated. PRODIGY New York (2.2 million members) CONTACT: Liz Santucci; (914) 448-8000 ext. 8568 ACCEPTING: Proposals for any style game TOOLS: Prodigy is currently retooling their system to shift away from a NAPLPS to a more universal development environment. It is best to contact them directly for details on development possibilities and tools. AVERAGE DEALS: Rumor has it that Prodigy is generous in development fees. There is not much known about their royalty rates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CARRIE WASHBURN has worked on numerous multiplayer games, including MultiPlayer BattleTech and Island of Kesmai. She is currently working on an online version of Empire Deluxe. The basic contents of this article were developed as part of the 1994 Computer Game Developers Conference lecture she presented with Richard Mulligan of Interplay Productions. The games mentioned in this article can be found on the following networks: CIS: Island of Kesmai, Sniper! AOL: Neverwinter Nights, Rabbit Jack's Casino (also on QLink), Quantum Space. GEnie: Dragon's Gate, GemStone III, Island of Kesmai, MultiPlayer BattleTech, Cyberstrike, MUD II, Hundred Years War, Air Warrior, RSCards Poker (as well as Bridge and Chess), NTN Trivia, Galaxy. INN: MultiPlayer Red Baron. Prodigy: Rebel Space, CEO. ****************************************************************************** FROM COMPUTER GAME TO VIDEO GAME AT SEGA by Nic Lavroff I have what must be one of the best jobs in the world. I work at Sega of America headquarters in Redwood City, California as associate director of product acquisitions. My job is to find great product to convert to run on our video game platforms. Games come to me from two sources: our parent company Sega Enterprises Ltd. (in Japan), and the ranks of computer game publishers. My group is equipped to handle all aspects of the acquisition process, from initial evaluations all the way through final negotiations. Sega platforms include: --Game Gear color portable (3.5 million installed base) --Genesis 16-bit home video game console (14 million installed base) --Sega CD Genesis add-on (1 million installed base) --32-bit Genesis addon called the 32X (due out Christmas 1994) --Sega Toy called the Pico (due out Christmas 1994) --Saturn 64-bit home video game console (due out in 1995). Some of our recent acquisitions have been "Eye of the Beholder" for the Sega CD (FCI and Pony Canyon) and "Doom" for the 32X (Id Software). We consider three things in any potential acquisition: 1. First, it has to be feasible. There is no point in evaluating a CD-ROM title for the Game Gear, for example. Processing speed of the target platform also is important. 2. Next, we have to be aware of potential limitations relating to input devices. If the game requires a mouse, the market may be more limited. 3. Finally, the game must be suited to our target audience. A game like "Doom" will be fantastically successful on our platforms; a crossword puzzle game will not do so well. Usually we can evaluate a game in one to two weeks. We try to get independent evaluations from at least three analysts in each of Sega's marketing, product development and third party licensing departments. Games are rated on ten attributes: concept, graphics, sound effects, music, play control, depth, challenge, play value, presentation and comparison to similar titles in the marketplace. All reviewers' evaluations are weighted and averaged, and the scores from all reviews are then averaged to produce one final score. If that is favorable and the execs sign off, the next step is to negotiate a deal. Negotiations can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months, depending on what is at stake and how many lawyers are involved. It is not unusual for a contract to go through ten or more drafts before everybody agrees. Terms vary depending on how the deal is structured. We usually pay a royalty based on unit sales, but the amount of the royalty as well as the advance depends on who actually does the development. If we do it, the amounts will be smaller. Sometimes we will just buy a license and undertake the development ourselves. On other occasions, we will hire a developer to convert their code to our platform as a "work for hire." When that happens we end up owning the code for that specific platform. The product acquisitions department usually only handles already-coded games. Game concepts that still must be produced would go directly to Sega's product development department. But both departments work closely together. If Sega will not publish a game, that does not mean it would not work on any of our platforms. Often games of high quality are not pursued due to marketing reasons. Sometimes these games are picked up by a Licensed Third Party Publisher. They may have more room in a particular category, or may be able to handle smaller production runs. Most of our submissions come from developers and publishers we already know. Our research on this is done mostly through the various trade publications, with a fair dose of footwork at both Summer and Winter CES. We also are approached by many developers directly. The world of floppies and cartridges is coming together, and not just in the new territory of CDs. For a good design, the choice of platform can become just another distribution decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIC LAVROFF is Associate Director of Product Acquisitions for Sega of America, Inc. Developers interested in submitting material should contact him at Sega of America, Inc., Third Party Licensing, 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 400, Redwood City, CA 94065 or call Acquisitions Coordinator Tony Smith at (415) 802-3240. ***************************************************************************** THE FUTURE OF SOUND by Doug Cody We're now over the top in 1994; the summer solstice has just passed. So what's the up and coming thing in game audio? Software-based, MIDI-controlled digital mixing, and more of it. Why, you might ask, when specialized hardware can do a better job? For one reason: virtually all audio cards have a DAC, making it the lowest common denominator in audio hardware. Both music and sound effects can be played simultaneously on a single DAC, via mixing. This, combined with a powerful base CPU, the 486, is creating an environment where every game developer can now spend CPU cycles on real-time mixing. In fact, I'm willing to predict the future sound card may be nothing more than a 16bit stereo DAC. The feasibility of digital mixing on the PC was proven through the early shareware MOD file players. The MOD file is roughly akin to a MIDI file but also contains digital samples for each instrument used in the sequence. This technology was derived from the Amiga, which had four digital audio channels in hardware. On the PC, the shareware programs will mix the four channels via the CPU and play it out the Sound Blaster DAC or, worse yet, the PC speaker or Adlib FM chip. In 1991, with a base platform of a 25mhz 386, a MOD file player could provide real-time mixing of 4 different sounds, provide pitch bend, panning and volume scaling. Of course, for a 386, there wasn't a whole lot of CPU left over for other work. Now, three years later, the base platform is a 33mhz 486, and moving up by a factor of DX2. Ever since MOD file players became popular on the PC, game designers have been delivering more titles using digital synthesis for both music and sound effects. Software-based solutions have become vogue. This year's most popular example is "Doom" (Id Software), with four channels of digital mixing and FM synthesis. Some titles from Apogee have up to eight channels of digital mixing. Where does MIDI fit in the digital picture? In simple terms, MIDI is nothing more than a control language which fires off sounds. It just so happens that most MIDI sounds are musical instruments. General MIDI goes one step further and defines what sounds are available for playing. In most cases, manufacturers have designed their wave table cards so the General MIDI instruments can be either customized or replaced altogether with user-defined sounds. MIDI does have an important role in the future of PC based audio synthesis (some debate how much of a role due to inherent limitations, but that's a subject for a later time). By using MIDI to describe the sequence of sounds, the underlying sound system can be made very flexible. This is important since we're about to look into how hardware assistance can be used in this model. Up to this point, my premise has been this: today's title developer is looking to create an audio software solution that fits as much hardware as possible. The DAC is the most common, most flexible piece of hardware. With the advent of cheap powerful PCs, software digital mixing is now a feasible solution. It is the lowest common denominator across all sound boards. Okay, software solutions are fine you say, but what about all the other hardware out in the market, such as the Turtle Beach Maui card, Advanced Gravis's Ultra-Sound or the Creative AWE 32? These cards can all perform digital mixing. What about DSPs? By taking the perspective of MIDI-controlled digital mixing, these hardware pieces fit nicely as hardware accelerators. Unfortunately, each one has its own unique approach that requires custom handling not always within the scope of the developer's designs. From listening to the software community, the hottest audio card would be a RAM-based wave table card with an MPU-401 interface. This card would allow developers to upload their sounds into on-board memory and be played under MIDI control. In reality, no card perfectly fits the bill. There's no doubt that the available hardware can provide better sound synthesis, but there are tradeoffs: custom (i.e. overly complex) hardware interfaces, proprietary software libraries that cannot be integrated, or not enough onboard memory to load the entire sound set. Above all, the biggest roadblock is the lack of a standard data format for digital sounds. Without a standard, title developers will have to ship unique sound files for each supported audio card. With a market of many competing hardware architectures, efforts are afoot to create standards for both software and data. Last year VESA set forth to solve the software interface issues. In February of this year, the VESA Audio Interface was ratified as an official VESA standard. On the data format side, the Interactive Musician and Audio Professionals Association has recently been formed to address these and other, broader concerns. The group's intent is to develop industry standards through association and alliances with other standards organizations. Until these standards are incorporated into hardware designs, software-based solutions will be the order of the day. Software digital mixing is moving not only across PC operating systems but across hardware platforms too. Here is a quick look at what is available as well as stuff in the works. In the DOS market, there are many software libraries that provide digital mixing. Most are custom in-house designs that are being written for in-house title development. Of the many commercial libraries available, the leading two come from Human Machine Interfaces and Non-Linear Arts (formerly Miles Design). Both of these packages provide digital mixing of up to 32 sounds. In the Windows world, Integrated Circuits Systems (ICS), the parent company of Turtle Beach Systems, has just announced a software digital synthesis engine available for license to any software developer. This system was developed by Seer Systems with funding from Intel. The important point here is that digital mixing is finally making its way to Windows. Microsoft, on the other hand, is working away on their digital mixing solution with a possible release in Chicago. MIDI-controlled digital mixing will soon become available on the Macintosh too. Apple is enhancing their sound manager to include MIDI sequencing which can drive either digital audio or external MIDI devices. By using a MIDI-controlled digital mixing approach, today's game developer can create a software solution that fits as much hardware as possible. The DAC is the most common, most flexible piece of hardware available. Digital mixing then provides the lowest common denominator approach, and fits nicely within the power curve of today's machines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DOUG CODY was a founding member of Media Vision (the company's first software engineer). He has been actively involved with game developers over the past four years, and led the VESA workgroups to create the VESA Audio Interface. ****************************************************************************** THE HUNT IS ON-- TO HIRE OR BE HIRED by Kay Sloan Many of you look at the recruiting profession as a necessary evil -- or maybe even an unnecessary evil. I hope to change your mind in this article and let you see how a recruiter can really make your life easier, and to give you some insight on how best to take advantage of our services, whether you are looking to hire or be hired. If you are an employer I am sure I don't have to tell you how difficult it is to find good talent. It is the job of the recruiter to know where the talent is. Our biggest advantage is that we don't have the same restraints that you do when it comes to calling into your competition. You already have some access to people who are actively on the job hunt who may respond to advertising (along with about 3,000 other people who can barely read). Even though in our fast-paced industry there are numerous factors (mergers, restructuring, Chapter 13, etc.) that can put someone out of work (besides incompetence), the truth is that there is a good chance the people responding to advertising are not the cream of the crop. It is the employed talent that you probably want. Every recruiter knows that even the most satisfied employee can become a candidate when the right opportunity is presented. Many of you are reluctant to allocate money from your budget to pay a fee. But what you need to consider is the amount of time that is wasted (and therefore the amount of money wasted) during the hiring process. Do you spend endless hours going through resumes and interviewing only to end up hiring the first person that is remotely suitable and then spend the next two years complaining about your choice? Wouldn't it be better to let someone help you with the screening and send you only the best candidates so that you can be doing what you are really paid to do? It doesn't take too many weeks of being shorthanded and allowing projects to fall behind before you realize that the fee is a small price to pay for finding the best person quickly, the first time around. Something often overlooked is the recruiter's ability to bring the two parties together. Many times offers are not accepted, or never made based on poor communication between the candidate and the employer -- not because of an unsuitable match. A good recruiter has good lines of communication with both parties and is able to help alleviate misunderstandings and help with negotiations. I have often made the difference in whether a job was accepted or not by helping candidates understand what is realistic for them to expect in terms of money and title, something you the hiring employer would probably not be in a position to do. The best way to utilize a recruiter is to establish a relationship with one or two you feel you can trust. You need to make sure you are working with someone who knows your industry and your company. It is also important that you work with someone that you like and trust. Even though we work independently and are not officially on your payroll, we are still representing your job opening and your company. If you think the recruiter is obnoxious, or boring, or dishonest, or too pushy, then so will the people he or she calls to tell about your position, and unfortunately it will reflect on your company. It is also important that you do not engage a recruiter in a search if you are not serious about filling that position. It is a waste of both of your time, and a good recruiter may not want to risk wasting his or her time the next time you call and are really serious. By the same token, if a recruiter is continually sending you inappropriate candidates you may want to look for a different one. For a recruiter to be most effective you need to supply them with as much information as possible (which is why, if your time is valuable, it is important to limit the number of recruiters you use on any position). The better the job description and the more honest the salary range the more likely they are to come up with the right candidate. It is also important to provide information about your company and why it is a good place to work and why they might want to live where you are (assuming relocation is involved -- the Chamber of Commerce can sometimes help with this). The recruiter needs as many tools as possible to present your opening in such a way as to spark the interest of even happily employed people. The other important factor in the hiring process (not just with recruiters) is to move as quickly as possible through the interviewing/offer stage. Probably the most common reason that the perfect candidate is lost is that a company takes so long to make a decision that they lose interest in the position, lose respect for the hiring manager, or accept another offer. Another misconception many of you have is that you should put as many recruiters as possible on a position rather than retaining just one good one. You might think this will multiply the number of suitable candidates you receive, but it is more likely to discourage the recruiters from continuing to work on your positions. Therefore you will actually receive only the candidates they currently have in their files. You may also give the impression to the industry that you are having difficulty finding someone; therefore, there is something undesirable about the job or the company, and that is why so many recruiters are calling for the same opening. There are several reasons that someone looking for a job should use the services of a recruiter. First of all, our services are completely free to you. We work full time at knowing where the jobs are and what companies are good places to work. That is obvious. What might not be so obvious are the advantages of having a recruiter represent you. A good recruiter is going to present your background only to employers with whom they have a relationship. Because of this you can be assured that your resume will be seen by the right people. If you are sending your resume in response to ads then it is probably getting lost in a pile somewhere and may never be seen by the right person. If you are still employed then confidentiality is important. When a recruiter sends in a resume it usually goes directly to the person with the authority to hire. This assures you confidentiality as well as a far better chance that your resume will be seriously considered. Once again it is important to make sure that you work with someone you believe will represent you well. I do my job based on relationships. If I do not have a good relationship with the employer then I am probably not going to be as effective for you. If you don't like the recruiter, there is also a good chance the person doing the hiring may not either, and may not want to talk to them or deal with them -- which means that they may not ever find out about you, or even worse, decide not to interview you at all because they do not want to work with that particular recruiter. What that means to you is that the company cannot hire you for at least a year unless they want to pay a fee to the recruiter who first presented you to them. So do not indiscriminately give your resume to every recruiter who asks for it. No matter whom you are working with you should insist that you be notified before he or she presents you anywhere. This actually protects both of you. Whether you are looking to hire or be hired, when looking for a recruiter you should attempt to get a referral. The reason I have continually written about a "good recruiter" is because there are so many bad ones out there. Statistics show that a huge percentage of recruiters have been in the business six months or less. What we primarily do is network. You can only get a strong network by building relationships, and that takes time. Even among those who have been recruiting longer than six months, many have changed industries numerous times due to flux in hiring, economic downturns, or they have such a bad reputation that they must continually find new industries where no one knows them. A recruiter can be your best friend -- or your worst enemy. Do your homework, get a referral, and you'll never want to go through the hiring process without one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ KAY SLOAN is a headhunter (a.k.a. executive recruiter) who has specialized in the software publishing industry for eight years and has focused exclusively on interactive entertainment for the last four years. She can be contacted at (909) 585-3226. ****************************************************************************** QUOTED "In order to regulate violence, one must first define it -- a task researchers have been unable to agree on for over thirty years." -- Prettyman and Hook, The Control of Media-Related Imitative Violence, 38 Fed. Com. L.J. 317 (1987). "While we talk about a voluntary ratings system, the reality is that retailers will require products to be rated." -- Randy Komisar, President and CEO of LucasArts Entertainment Company, at the Public Symposium on the Impact of Video Game Violence on Children. " . . . to imitate what the motion picture lobbyist Jack Valenti led his colleagues to do a quarter-century ago simply won't work today." -- Richard P. Ferdner, former chairman of the film industry's rating system for twenty years, referring to a movie-style rating system for video games. "When you see it, you know it." -- Dr. Arthur Pober, Executive Director of the IDSA's ratings board, when asked what constitutes gratuitous or excessive violence in a video game. "It's important to ponder how appropriately Mortal Kombat would have fitted into the living rooms of the 1930s in Nazi Germany." -- Representative Tom Lantos (D-California) at the Public Symposium on the Impact of Video Game Violence on Children. "The Software Publishers Association (SPA) is promoting an alternative rating program which would be less reliable than the IDSA approach. We ask . . . that you make it clear that software initially rated by publishers will not be carried." -- taken from a letter to major retailers sent out by Senators Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Kohl (D-Wis.). ******************************************************************************* TIMELINE SEPTEMBER 6 DADA Meeting* 7 BACED South Meeting** 20 BACED North Meeting** OCTOBER 4 DADA Meeting 5 BACED South Meeting 18 BACED North Meeting 31 Deadline for Charter Memberships to the CGDA. NOVEMBER 1 DADA Meeting 2 BACED South Meeting 15 BACED North Meeting * DADA is the Denver Area Developers Association. For information contact Mark Baldwin at (303) 278-3506. ** BACED is the Bay Area Computer Entertainment Developers group. For information about BACED South, contact Dave Walker at (408) 998-4608. For information about BACED North, contact Melissa Farmer at (415) 453-6450 ext. 209 or send email to CerraAngel@aol.com. ****************************************************************************** IN FUTURE ISSUES Steve Fawkner.......................Wargame Design Noah Falstein.......................Directing Interactive Video Don Griffin.........................Interactive Music Peter Oliphant......................Name Recognition Ellen Guon..........................Affiliated Label Programs Katherine Lawrence..................Additional Writing Evan Robinson.......................Books Every Developer Should Read ****************************************************************************** THE CGDA REPORT Editor-in-Chief...........................Kevin Gliner Editor....................................Jim Cooper Contributing Editors......................Ellen Guon Charles Kramer Guest Authors.............................Doug Cody Jeff Johannigman Nic Lavroff Carrie Washburn CGDA President............................Ernest Adams CGDA Steering Committee...................Ernest Adams Jon Freeman Kevin Gliner Susan Lee-Merrow David Walker Online Representative.....................Kevin Gliner The Computer Game Developers Association is supported and sponsored by the Computer Game Developers Conference (CGDC). Changes of address, submissions, letters to the editor and queries about the CGDA should be addressed to: CGDA 5339 Prospect Road, Suite 330 San Jose, CA 95129 Voicemail: 415-856-4263 ext. 5 Fax: 415-965-0221 CompuServe: 70363,3672 GEnie: K.GLINER AOL: KGliner Internet: kgliner@netcom.com To order back issues of the CGDA REPORT send a check payable in U.S. funds to the "Computer Game Developers CONFERENCE" at the address above. Back issues cost $5 each. SUBMISSIONS Contributions to the CGDA Report are more than welcome, even if they're just letters to the Editor. Be sure to include return postage if you want it back. For writers' guidelines, contact us at the address above (if inquiring by regular mail, send a SASE). We accept no responsibility for unsolicited material. ADVERTISERS The CGDA Report is accepting advertisements for future issues, so long as they are relevant to game developers. That means tools, employment openings, conferences and so forth. Ad copy must be black-and-white, camera ready. Classified ads for those seeking work also are available. For more information contact Kevin Gliner at (415) 856-4263 ext 5, or kgliner@netcom.com. CGDA ONLINE Further discussion of these articles and other industry issues can be found on : * GEnie (Computer Game Design Roundtable, Category 22) * CompuServe (GAMERS, section 11). CIS will soon be expanding this section into an entire forum devoted entirely to game development (look for announcements in section 11; the new forum will be called GAMEDEV). * America Online (Computer Game Design Forum) * and in the Internet newsgroup rec.games.programmer. ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** This describes the only terms by which the COMPUTER GAME DEVELOPERS' ASSOCIATION, 5339 Prospect Road, Suite 330 San Jose, California 95129 ("CGDA") permits you to distribute copies of this machine readable version of this edition of the CGDA Report (the "Report"). BY COPYING, USING OR DISTRIBUTING THE REPORT, YOU INDICATE YOUR AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS. A. OWNERSHIP: Except to the extent expressly licensed by CGDA, CGDA owns and reserves the exclusive right to distribute the Report as a whole, and owns the right to use the "CGDA Report" as a trademark in connection with it. Other marks are the property of their respective owners. B. DISTRIBUTION: You are permitted (and encouraged!) to distribute copies of this edition of the Report in machine readable form, so long as: [1] No copyright or trademark information is removed; and [2] The copies are complete and unaltered as released by CGDA. C. THE REPORT IS PROVIDED "AS-IS". NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE AS TO IT, OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF ITS CONTENTS. YOU HAVE NO REMEDY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM IT, INCLUDING SUCH FROM NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, EVEN AFTER NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. D. MISCELLANY [1] You will hold us, our officers, directors, contractors, employees and agents harmless from damage, loss and expense arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions in copying and distributing the Report. [2] With respect to every matter arising under this Report you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts sitting in San Francisco, California. [3] The Computer Game Developers' Conference, Inc., a California corporation, presently operates CGDA. [4] Except as may be explicitly noted otherwise, the views expressed in the CGDA Report are those of their respective authors, and may not be those of CGDA. Compilation Copyright 1994 CGDA All Rights Reserved ****************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************