Legal? Ethical?

Wizkids has filed suit against Wizards of the Coast. While I have no particular love of Wizkids, I think it's ironic that a company that is known for innovation (Wizkids, I mean) is being threatened by a company who hasn't done anything innovative in nearly ten years (that would be WotC.) I wouldn't count "borrowing" the idea of pre-painted plastic miniatures from Wizkids innovation...would you?

I worked at wizards when "Punch Bots" was being created. It was a neat idea. Apparently neat enough that somebody thought a patent was in order. Hey, it sort of worked with trading card games! Of course, Punch Bots and all the other games they thought up using the idea the patent supported were abandoned before they saw the light of day. Again, Hasbro-era Wizards has trouble dealing with innovation. A couple of years later, Wizkids releases Pirates of the Spanish Main. At a basic conceptual level, not too different from what Wizards abandoned (aside from the patent) years before. Wizards informs them of the patent, but rather than a let a good idea die on the vine, as WotC did, they push on and release a very successful game.

There's a very good chance that Wizards has a valid patent and Wizkids will have to rethink how (if!) it can continue producing a genre of game they pioneered. That would be a shame.

I hope that Wizkids knows what it's doing and can prove that the patent is invalid. Otherwise, it sets a precedent where it's possible to patent game mechanics with no actual game or publishing plan in place, then legally ask for and receive compensation after somebody else does all the hard work...actually produces a successful game.

The legal question is whether or not the WotC patent is valid. The courts will decide.
The ethical question is whether or not coming up with an idea alone is real innovation or whether making the idea into a successful product is.

Ask anyone. Ideas are easy. Success is hard.

-Adam!!!

Viral, Hardcore, Vanish

All hobby games (not video/computer games) go viral, go hardcore, or vanish.

Viral – Enough people play that the game becomes a staple of play in gaming settings. Examples include: Dungeons & Dragons, Magic, Pokemon, Settlers of Catan, Risk, Monopoly, HeroClix. Board games don’t tend to go viral with the same energy as collectible games, but I do believe the all the top selling board-games owe their success largely to a viral-type effect. Nowadays many games are designed from the outset to go viral, and if they don't their failure is assured. Games from big publishers that are canceled quickly almost always fall into this category.

Hardcore – Relatively small fan-base, but large enough to sustain the game provided their needs are met. Precarious situation because new fans are hard to attain and the existing fans are hard to keep. Nearly all games (all things, really) have a hardcore following to some degree. Hardcore games are often discussed online far more than they are played (because they never went viral, opponents are hard to find.) When games are designed to be hardcore games, they can be very successful whether or not they go viral. It is more difficult for a publisher to support a game designed to go viral but instead gained a hardcore audience. Hardcore friendly games are easier to create because almost anything can achieve some level of hardcore following. The only question, is the following big enough and spendy enough to support the game? Spendy fans are often important to the Hardcore game. The more you charge, the less you have to sell to make a profit and the smaller your Hardcore audience has to be in order for the game to succeed.

Vanish – Cease to be published. In some cases a game is meant to be a limited run, so vanishing isn’t always a failure. Usually the goals of the publisher haven’t been met and it’s obvious they never will be.

Many games aren’t designed from the outset to ‘go viral’ or ‘go hardcore’, but in hindsight it’s usually easy to see why games had the success or failure they had. TCGs are largely dependent on going viral for success, and tend to be designed with that purpose in mind. Most RPGs, on the other hand, are designed for hardcore success only.

On the other hand, making something go viral is relatively hard to so (despite what the viral marketing books tell you!)

-Adam!!!

The Non-Gamer

Gamers and game designers (and I mean, paper gamers, not video gamers) seem to think they know something the rest of the world doesn't. They don't mean it in a bad way, but so many game reviews on fan sites like boardgamegeek include what a "non gamer" will think of the game, usually in the context of "this game is easy enough for a non-gamer to play it."

Easy.

Gamers=Smart Non-Gamers=Dumb (or at least, unwilling to think too hard)

While there are certainly a few exceptional games, requiring a time or learning commitment that goes beyond what a normal person would endure (gamer or not), I reject the idea that a good game requires some special status in order to be enjoyed.

Gamers aren't smarter than other people. Individuals may be more or less willing to play certain games based on complexity, but I reject that their status as gamers weighs heavily on this willingness, other than to conceded that most gamers fall into the willing category. With everyone else, it's hit and miss.

When discussing rules creation and game design, gamer vs. non-gamer is frequently a topic of discussion. I think the real discussion should be more honest. Complex vs. Simplistic and Good vs. Bad. There's nothing wrong with simplistic, but bad is bad. Trying to label your audience ineffective and possibly foolish. If you must label anything, label the game.

-Adam!!!

If I could produce the next Battlebots Show

Battlebots was one of my all-time favorite shows, which was cancelled years ago. The robotic combat community has speculated for years why the show didn't ultimately succeed, and why it never made a comback.

If it did make a comback (it's not) this is what I'd do:

Have the entrants establish a Builder's Association. The group's job would be to represent the best interests of the builders regarding contracts, rules, and other controversial aspects of the sport.

Film every fight like it would be seen, because it would be. For a TV show, every fight would be available on the web following the TV airing, plus unaired 'bonus' fights. By the end of the series, the entire tournament would available on-line. Additionally, all the fights (even those not making it to the web) would be released as a DVD.

If possible (Viacom wouldn't go for this), encourage fans to post clips of fights on community sites like youtube. Also, on the official website, encourage builders to blog comments and answer questions regarding the fights after airing.

The Battlebox would remain a central character in the show. Saws, Hammers, and Spikes make even the less exciting robots exciting. Additionally, there would be space between the arena and the walls with a low wall, allowing robots to be KO'd by being thrown from the ring (ala Robot Wars)

Each fight would be preceeded by a short interview with the builders, discussing the machines, the matchup, and strategy. After each fight there would be a short interview with both the winner and the loser.

Each show would feature between 4-6 battles per 30 minutes. Between battles, updates from the pits would provide 'behind the scenes' action, similar to drag racing coverage.

On Air Staff -
* A pair of announcers giving play-by-play and color commentary during the battles.
* A single "box-side" interviewer, handling the pre and post fight interviews.
* A single roving interviewer handling the pits.

Battlebots, the show, spent way too much time profiling the builders, who often were portrayed as silly or crazy (whether or not this was accurate is besides the point!) The show also relied on course or adult humor for laughs, which was inappropriate for a show that appealed to children.

On the other side, less professional robot presentations relied entirely on the combat, which to even the most dedicated fan, can be tedious. Interviews and backstory between fights go a long way to providing context to the action, and providing a richer and complex presentation.

More to come (like it or not!)

-Adam!!!