HPAVC/HPAVC CD-ROM.iso/CGDA.ZIP/CGDA.TXT

Text File | 1994-09-16 | 125KB | 2,393 lines

                             THE CGDA REPORT

           Newsletter of the Computer Game Developers Association
                       Volume 1, Premier Issue 1994

             <<PLEASE READ LEGAL INFORMATION ON LAST PAGE>>

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************

                     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

[phone], extension 5
fax: [phone]

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 [phone], 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 [phone] or [e-mail].

******************************************************************************


                               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 [phone]; [phone] fax

Rep. Lantos's office can be reached at [phone]; [phone] 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 [phone].

******************************************************************************


                               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 [phone] 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; [phone]
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; [phone]
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; [phone]
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; [phone]
(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; [phone]
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; [phone]
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; [phone]
(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; [phone] 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 [phone].

*****************************************************************************

                            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 [phone].

******************************************************************************

                                  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 [phone].

** BACED is the Bay Area Computer Entertainment Developers group. For
information about BACED South, contact Dave Walker at [phone].  For
information about BACED North, contact Melissa Farmer at [phone]
ext. 209 or send email to [e-mail].

******************************************************************************

                             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: [phone]
                           CompuServe: 70363,3672
                              GEnie: K.GLINER
                                AOL: KGliner
                        Internet: [e-mail]

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 [phone] ext 5, or
[e-mail].

                               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

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************