Archive for Mike Hansen
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
It’s exciting times for digital board games. The board game industry is on the upswing and digital ports of games are being cranked out with increasing regularity. Still, with all this momentum, will digital board games every make a real dent in the larger casual and social game industry? Can digital board games compete in a world currently dominated by kamikaze pig-hating birds and turnip farmers?
I say, yes! Because when they’re done well:
Digital board games have more draw than casual and social games.
Casual and social games strive to keep players engaged for as long as possible. The games aren’t complex so the only way to keep people playing is by adding more content and more achievements. When it comes down to it, most people don’t play these games for the challenge but rather to see what’s next. Casual and social games layer achievements on top of new content in the hopes of coaxing players to try the level again to earn that third star or to keep harvesting until they receive a ribbon of green-thumb greatness, but the result is not a deeper or more satisfying game play experience. It’s just more of the same with the illusion of newness. Eventually most players grow weary of new spins on the same old game and switch to the next new game.
Compare the social game reward model to that of digital board games. The reward of digital board games is intrinsic - based on depth of experience and not extrinsic rewards or breadth of content. Most board games become more interesting as you play them. The rules melt away as more complex strategies and tactics reveal themselves to the experienced player. You get your friends to play, not because the game gives you a reward for playing, but because you want to share the reward of the experience. You find yourself talking about past games with your buddies over lunch. You think about new strategies on your morning commute. In short, you don’t play to pass the time - you play to play.
I’m reminded of my favorite board gaming quote by Dr. Reiner Knizia, “When playing a game the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning.” The purity of the goal is the essence of what makes board gaming fun. Compared to the goal of “just one more level”, digital board games have an engagement advantage that’s tough to beat.
Mike Hansen
CEO, Mirthworks, Inc
Follow us on Twitter
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
As much as I would love to play games all day my life requires that I also perform more mundane tasks like working and unclogging the kitchen sink. These time-consuming chores, while annoying, have pointed out some big design flaws with most online gaming platforms, mainly:
They ignore the fact that I have a life outside of playing games.
Social games like Farmville do an excellent job of catering to the busy lives of today’s player by delivering a platform that supports access from any web browser and with a design that focuses on real-time interactions rather than turns. Ease of access and play flexibility are a cornerstone of the success of the social game market (a market that is predicted to grow to over 5 billion users by 2015) and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be a cornerstone for the growth of the digital board game market as well.
Of course most digital board games are far more complex than Farmville (thankfully!). Digital board games are typically designed around disconnected turn-based play - a fundamental difference that requires some design features to meet the needs of busy gamers. In a disconnected turn-based play model, essential features should include:
-> Letting the computer step in. Allow the person setting up the game (the organizer) to specify a time limit for turns, at which point the computer makes the next move. This allows the game to progress at a predictable pace if someone is unavailable or if someone completely drops out of the game.
-> Replaying moves. Before taking a turn the game should allow players to watch what moves their opponents have made to get to their current position. It should also allow for replay of these moves if the players want to see them again later. This is a critical feature for supporting the feeling of a continuous experience.
-> Planning ahead. Many games would benefit from allowing the player to queue up their decisions given their assumptions about the state of the game. As long as these assumptions hold true, the computer can execute the player’s moves for them. If the assumptions do not hold true the game can simply prompt the user for their turn.
-> Built-in communication. At a minimum, games should support chatting. Ideally they support a richer dialogue including commenting on specific moves. Tying communications to game events would further the feel of play continuity and connectedness with the other players.
Not every game will play well in a disconnected mode. Games that require careful thought during a turn (such as Alien Frontiers) will work great - even better with the features I’ve suggested. But when a game requires many frequent, trivial decisions it may be best to require all of the players be present. Either way, the game platform should equip the organizer and the players to make those decisions with features that support accessibility and flexibility.
Yes, the realities of our busy lives can be a gaming buzz-kill. But there’s no reason why technology can’t step-in and help us play and connect with our friends – even when life demands that we must go to work or unclog the kitchen sink…again.
Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:21 pm
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
Everyone enjoys feeling like a winner. With clever marketers who reward you for “checking in” at their retail stores and online games that reward regular play with achievement badges we’re all being granted a warm & fuzzy self-affirming sense of accomplishment.
It’s all a great, big gimmick.
Most achievements do little more than drive repeat plays. For online board games the goal of achievements should not be limited to keeping people playing but rather making the gaming experience more compelling.
What does a compelling use of achievements looks like? Some would say that game-specific strategic achievements are the answer. For example in Amun Re “Win without building a farmer” or in Alien Frontiers “Win a game without using the Colonist Hub” would be pretty cool strategic achievements. They at least provide for more interesting goals than just playing the game a specific number of times. However there may be some unintended consequences with implementing these kinds of achievements, including:
-> Exposing Strategies – Some strategy-based achievements may expose a game strategy to a player before they have the chance to discover it on their own. Not only does this undermine the game’s integrity, it also …
-> Discourages Creative Exploration – If a game designer publicizes a specific number of strategy-based achievements it may suggest that there aren’t any others. Instead of empowering the player to search for new ways to play the game, game play becomes an exercise in checking the box for each achievement.
-> Mucking Up a Game – Achievements can create a hidden agenda by enticing players to play in a way that is less than optimal. While this may occasionally be harmless it could result in a poor gaming experience for other players.
I’ve no doubt achievements play an important role in keeping users coming back to a casual or a social game but digital board games shouldn’t rely on these gimmicks nor should they sacrifice the quality or the integrity of a game in the shameless pursuit of growing site traffic. Rather they should focus on implementing a superior gaming experience by offering achievements that reward a balance of player loyalty, consistent participation, and improving expertise.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc - Catch us at Origins 2011, booth #845
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
When was the last time you enjoyed a playing a game that left you feeling like a complete idiot? Did you leave that experience feeling like you wanted more? Probably not; and yet far too many computer games feature Artificial Intelligence (AI) that’s way too difficult for less experienced players to learn from and way too basic to help more experienced players.
So the trick must be to design a “normal” AI – one that appeals to moderately skilled players, right?
Well, not exactly. Turns out that tactic has proven to be a bit tricky as well. Take the case of Klaus Teuber. Klaus faced this challenge with one of his Catan offerings a few years ago. Based on the player feedback received on a previous game’s AI, he developed a moderately difficult computer opponent for his next game. Unfortunately his efforts to achieve normalcy actually alienated the moderately skilled players he sought to appease, leaving him to define a “normal’ AI as being one that’s “…as good as [is] required for an occasional Catan player to win against a computer opponent.”
Yep. That’s about as clear as mud.
Maybe the problem is that we’re expecting our AIs to do too much? As your mom has likely told you, when you try too hard to please everyone you usually end up pleasing no one. Thus the smarter approach to AI is to stop designing it to be the elusive “normal” human player and start thinking of it as a learning tool. Simply put: a good AI should help newbies learn how to play AND help more experienced players learn how to play better. Further, online game designers should augment these AIs with interactive tools that teach new and moderately skilled players how to win. For example, the Scrabble IPad application has a built in “Teacher Feature” that points out the optimal move. Over time you progress from grasping basic game strategy to making the optimal move on your own - and it’s pretty darn satisfying! For complex games this style of learning as you play can go a long way towards lowering the intimidation barrier and lessening the learning curve for new players - all while keeping them excited about besting their real and virtual opponents.
Do I think we should do away with computer opponents? No. But what an AI shouldn’t try to do is to replace a human player. I don’t need or want phony encouragement or scripted smack talk from a computer. And given the choice, I would much rather brag about crushing my friends than someone else’s ideal of a good player.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc - Catch us at Origins 2011, booth #845
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
In my last post I expressed some opinions on social games or “funware” as delivered by platforms like Facebook. While virtually harvesting turnips may be all the mental stimulation some of us can handle, I have a hard time seeing how clicking on virtual veggies could be mistaken for game play.
So how can you tell if you’re actually playing a real game these days? I suggest the following rule:
It's not a game if I can't win and more importantly if you can't lose.
Today we're inundated with online activities marketed as games. Clever marketers have figured out how to “game” consumers into giving them free advertising by lowering the achievement bar to the point where mere participation is rewarded with public accolades and bogus titles (for the record: I’m not the Mayor of anything). This trend towards gamification is about loosely applying game mechanics to drive community behavior. Its aim isn’t to challenge your thinking, to improve your skills, or to bring you and your friends together for the purpose of structured play; it’s about making games be the sugar coating that helps their sales medicine go down.
It's not the definition of 'game' that's important but rather a respect and appreciation for the fun delivered by a full-fledged gaming experience in all its challenging, devastating, good-time, smack-talkin’ glory. I realize playing a real game won’t convert every FarmVille addict into a hardcore board game geek but I’d love to think that some of them might appreciate the difference between clicking to play and playing to win.
Mike Hansen
CEO, Mirthworks, Inc
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
I really don’t understand the popularity of Facebook’s “social games” like FarmVille and CityVille. What’s the attraction of playing a game you can never win? And yet these types of mind-numbing games (if you can call them that) are growing like gangbusters. As of this posting CityVille is capturing a ridiculous 88 million monthly active users. Comparatively there were about 4,500 active users on Yucata for March 2011.
While I’m not a thrilled at the idea of turning designer games into Facebook fluff, I have played the Lost Cities adaptation and, I’ll admit that it was more entertaining than Bejeweled (not that the bar could’ve been set much lower). Still, the Lost Cities adaptation is getting about 20 thousand monthly users and I can’t help but wonder how many of these players even know that a fantastic physical version of the game exists?
What should we learn from Facebook games?
1) Don’t ignore the web. Yes, the mobile space is hot right now, but the web is here to stay. The web as a market should not be lost in the excitement to create game apps.
2) Help nontraditional gamers ease into a game. The insane popularity of Facebook’s social games leads me to conclude that people are looking for fun ways to engage and interact online, and if we want designer games to get the same kind of play time that CityVille gets, the industry needs to remove some barriers to entry for the average player by:
-> Providing high-quality, easy-to-follow tutorials showing how to play - and how to win.
-> Allowing players to play against an A.I. that isn’t set to “Uber Expert” mode. No one wants to feel like an idiot, nor should players see games as more work than play.
-> Offering more free “lite versions” of games.
3) Market to other channels. If designer games are only marketed on BGG and other known destinations for board game geeks, how can the designer game industry grow? Much as Facebook’s social games have successfully marketed to non-gamers by emphasizing the ease of play and the social aspects of their “games”, the designer game industry needs to do a better job of marketing and delivering its games to a broader array of potential consumers.
I hope that, someday, the designer game industry speaks out loudly and uniformly against the allure of mindless “social games.” I want to see this industry rise above the notion that designer games are the sole domain of geeks and techies - but without abandoning its principles. And with the right marketing and game delivery platforms, I believe designer games can address the fundamental needs of every player to be engaged, transported, educated, and – most importantly - entertained.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
The digital game market is on a steep growth trajectory driven in large part by the popularity of smartphone game apps. According to a 2010 report by the technology research firm, Gartner, it was projected that the worldwide smart phone application market will grow from $6.7B in 2010 to ~$29B by 2013. This same report also highlights that 8 out of 10 of the 4.5 billion app downloads in 2010 will be free. Of those free downloads, mobile games are by far the most popular with free games typically deriving revenue from advertising – often in the form of banner ads or with full-screen ads that appear between levels. Such advertising-sponsored apps are expected to generate almost 25% of mobile app store revenue by 2013.
What does this mean for the future of free web-based games?
“Free to play” sites that offer marketing exposure without ad-revenue are dinosaurs
Before the smartphone mobile app industry came along, the only options for smaller board game designers and publishers was the rare PC game or some modestly successful pay-to-play sites. Many more small designers found it was easier to let fans create free web-based digital versions of their games in the hope that it would drive sales of their physical board games - but it’s been difficult to correlate availability of a free digital version of a game to physical game sales.
So it’s not too surprising that the growing popularity of free, ad-sponsored mobile games has led more and more small board game designers and publishers to withhold their permission to publish free digital versions of games on the web without a direct revenue stream. Case in point: The popular game designer, Dr. Knizia, recently pulled all (or most) of the free licenses of his games, making it clear that he’s focusing on the revenue opportunities of the mobile market. GMT has similarly stated their intentions to take the mobile market more seriously.
How can “free to play” digital game sites save themselves from extinction?
Change doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. Many free web-based sites offering digital versions of board games will sustain themselves by embracing an advertising-driven revenue model that allows them to share a cut with the games they host. They may even co-opt the mobile gaming model of offering players free versions of games with upgrades to paid versions sans advertising. Free web-based games could potentially help drive mobile game sales, as long as the correlation can be clearly demonstrated. Free to play sites could also try to sell the physical versions of the games they host to help them build some hard revenue numbers for skeptical game designers and publishers. Or, they could simply target smaller designers and publishers who may not have enough exposure to get their games ported to commercial digital offerings.
Whichever options they pursue, providers of free web-based digital games must adapt to a shrinking pool of designers willing to allow their games to go digital without the promise of a revenue stream.
This change is a good thing
When game designers and publishers earn a little coin for their efforts, we all benefit:
-> The industry sees more small game designers quitting their day jobs to focus full-time on designing great games.
-> Board game geeks get more new games and well-built digital offerings of their favorite games.
-> Game designers increase the reach of their games to new consumers they may never have touched had they tied themselves to a “free marketing exposure” digital distribution model.
Unconvinced? Check out this nice post from Brad Cumming’s blog.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
As the new owner of an iPad 2 I must admit: the device is an impressive computing platform with broad consumer appeal. So it’s no wonder there’s been so much buzz around the iPad as gaming platform. If the discussions emanating from places like Brad Cummings’ (excellent) blog are any measure, well-designed digital versions of physical games are far more than a wish; they’re an expectation of today’s game consumers.
But before gamers and game publishers alike start labeling the iPad as the holy grail of digital gaming, I think we should all take a step back and assess the iPad’s influence in a broader context.
First, let’s consider some numbers:
• Based on the BGG Operating System stats from 2010, less than 1% of site users used an iPad for accessing the site. Compare that to the roughly 95% of users who used Windows/Mac/Linux. • In 2010 BGG reported more than 14 million unique visitors - an increase of 27%.
Now, let’s look at these numbers from a game publisher’s perspective. What should they mean to them?
• Game consumers want digital games: The enthusiasm for the iPad as a gaming platform is the long sought-after confirmation that game publishers have been waiting for that, yes, there really is a consumer appetite beyond the physical game.
• Don’t fixate on a platform: If BGG’s numbers are any indication; they point to a potential customer base for digital versions of physical games that’s 94% larger than the iPad audience, alone.
• Digital gaming isn’t a trend, a fad, or a fluke: The wild growth at sites like BGG demonstrates an increasing demand for digital game consumption.
In short, game publishers need to look at the bigger picture and start digitizing their games to meet the needs of players, rather than platforms. At ~15,000,000 units sold to date, the iPad is a stunning success, but hardly the only way consumers will access their favorite games online.
I’m not knocking the iPad; it is a great start, but it’s not the end game.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc
-
Mike Hansen
United States
Florida
-
As a 41-year old business guy with a wife and two kids, gathering with friends to play a game in person is a luxury I rarely get. Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy playing games with my family, but I've accepted the fact that they're never going to indulge me with a game of Die Macher or Dominant Species. Even if they would, playing with my friends is a very different kind of fun - a welcome opportunity for the arcane gaming references, snappy banter, and ego-bruising snark my family can’t appreciate.
As my game nights with friends have become increasingly rare and difficult to coordinate, I turned to the web for some online alternatives. I figured if we couldn't all get together in person, maybe we could meet-up virtually? Somebody must have engineered a platform that addresses the needs of us busy grown-ups who want to play games online with friends, right?
Not so much. Over and over again, my search was met with ad-riddled websites full of clunky games and no way for me to organize and structure play with my friends. So it became my goal create something better. I wanted to create a way to capture as much of the fun of an in-person game night with friends using a smarter and easier online platform featuring the kinds of games we love to play.
As I started researching the viability of these ideas, I uncovered some larger problems with the game industry. First, the industry seems reluctant to embrace digital offerings as a core staple of their business model. While I don’t think digital games should replace physical games, I do think they can and should live symbiotically. I know this isn't necessarily a popular stance, but I think it's the only sensible way for the industry to grow. Second, board game designers and publishers need a better way to expose their games to a broader audience. Digital versions of popular games shouldn’t be a niche market nor should they result in a complete redesign of the physical games you love. There’s got to be a middle ground that honors the original spirit and intent of the game designers as it helps them to attract new players.
For these reasons and many others, I've co-founded Mirthworks. My goals for us are to:
-> Remove the barriers to online game play by bringing players the great games they already love in a digital format, and on an online platform that works for their busy lives.
-> Partner with game designers and publishers to bring their brilliant games the play exposure they deserve.
Will digital games ever break free of the niche market they serve today? What do we need to lure today’s online gamers away from other digital game offerings? What will the board game industry look like 10 years from now? What should it look like? Frankly, I don’t know the answers to these questions. But I can’t wait to explore these ideas with you through the Mirthworks blog.
And to our larger competitors, I say, "Bring it." At Mirthworks, we believe the more people who share our vision and our passion for games, the better. Let’s open the floor to debate. Let’s agree to disagree from time to time. But darn it – let’s play. Game on.
Mike Hansen
CEO Mirthworks, Inc
http://mirthworks.com
|
|
