Quantcast Asynchronous Games: Future of Casual Gaming? - Ozymandias

Asynchronous Games: Future of Casual Gaming?

Apologies for the lack of posts recently - it's been a rather busy time at work as I caught up from my Peru trip, and I've been traveling all over the place for a variety of work reasons. I'm actually returning from San Francisco even as we speak, and writing thanks to a recent beta of Microsoft's Live Writer offline blogging tool. Although not the subject of this post, I did want to mention it as it's a fantastic tool. Check it out if you do any blogging. It appears to work with most sites, and it's definitely made my blogging "job" a whole lot easier!

Anyway, while I was in San Francisco I was able to meet up with Mark Deloura (ex Sony developer relations manager, now with Ubisoft) and Jane Pinckard (she of Gamegirladvance.com) for a couple of drinks. Was great catching up with them of course, but during the course of the conversation we started talking about an interesting area that's not currently being covered by casual games - namely, asynchronous games.

So what are async games? Simply put, imagine a game where you don't have to have a person (or a group of people) playing with you at the same time - you basically take turns. Checkers or Chess is one simple example, and the old play-by-mail wargames are another (albeit with significantly greater delay between turns). Today you see a few games that fall into this mold. Civilization has had a play-by-email mode for a few versions now, and there are X-Com-like clones like Laser Squad Nemesis that also enable it. Although I don't know for sure, I suspect some of the upcoming Live Arcade board games such as Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan will have turn-based play which lend themselves to asynchronous play should the game designers desire, and I'm sure there are plenty of others as well. What's interesting is that we don't see is a lot of these asynchronous games in the casual space yet... and I suspect we'll start seeing more in the future.

Why? Simply put, we're moving into a world of connected gaming devices. Microsoft has announced the Live Anywhere initiative, where we're looking to take the Xbox Live service and enable it on multiple devices such as consoles, the PC, and mobile devices such as phones. Sony has announced connectivity between their (sadly doomed, at least for v1) PSP and the PS3, and Nintendo has enabled wireless connectivity between the Nintendo DS and hinted at wireless connectivity between the DS and the Wii. These platforms are now technically enabling wireless connections between devices and people; what's missing are the games that allow people to play on these platforms at the times and places that best suit them.

Think about it - today when we sit down to play a game we pretty much do exactly that: sit. We have to choose a time and place and tether ourself to the experience on a single device, even if that experience is being played on a portable gaming device. What's missing is the ability to start a game and continue it in some meaningful way. Why can't I start up an Advance Wars game with three other friends, and set the rules such that we each agree to do two moves a day (with automatic moves applied if you don't check in)? Why can't I then continue that game on the bus with my handheld phone? Why can't I review the overall tactical map when I'm at work on my PC?

There's no technical reason blocking this. The platforms I described above allow you to connect and communicate, so that's reasonably easy (although it's obviously my hope that we make Live Anywhere the absolute easiest way to enable this). There is a cost inhibitor, however, in that there's design time needed to take a game and make it best-suited to work on a platform's capabilities. And depending on the platform(s) you're developing for, you may well have to budget 2-3x the development cost of the game to create the different versions (ie, one for console, one for handheld, one for phone, etc.) As a quick aside, it's worth noting that XNA Studio is one attempt to solve this issue, as it comes with the XNA Framework that enables developers to basically "write once, publish many."

My guess is that as these connected platforms take off and gamers demand to be able to stay connected with their friends wherever and whenever they play, we'll see a greater investment into asynchronous games. Just off the top of our heads, Mark, Jane, and I came up with a bunch of great old games we'd love to see redone in this manner. Imagine a new version of The Incredible Machine, but with full 3D and physics, and turn-based gameplay where each player has a bucket of items they can place to either help or hinder the current objective. Or an Advance Wars meets Risk sort of game, with many people battling it out over a world map over the period of a week, with a tactical overview map you can always check in on. Toss in a basic map editor so you can create next week's battlefield while waiting at the doctor's office and you really start seeing the potential.

It may take a while, but I sincerely believe the concept of asynchronous gaming will become just as embedded into the gaming consciousness as a desired feature as co-op has become. It'll be interesting to see which casual games start the trend.

That leads to an interesting question... what casual games would you like to see developed that have asynchronous-friendly designs? Could be old classics that you miss that just need an updated twist, or entirely new game ideas. Maybe it's a classic boardgame that's just begging to be released as a casual game. Would love to hear them, and who knows, it's quite possible some of the casual game developers out there or people exploring XNA Game Studio can take the idea and run with it.

That said, it is very important to state that this is a public blog and I have no control over who might read and use your idea. If you want to share an idea in the hope that someone might comment on it or help make it better, feel free. But if you think you might want to develop it yourself, you should not publish it here as there's nothing keeping anyone from taking it and running with it. Just don't want anyone to get bitten accidentally. Smile

Look forward to the discussion!

Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | live it!

Comments

Habenero said:

This could be dangerously addictive, esspecially if they had that feature built in to Football Manager (Worldwide Soccer Manager for you guys accross the pond!) I could imagine it. You must play a month every night, or the AI will do it for you! You could get some great seasons in.

It could cause even more divorces! LOL!!!

# October 18, 2006 3:26 PM

Bruce said:

Reminds me of a part in my all-time favorite book (The Worthing Saga) by Orson Scott-Card.

He envisaged a society that rewarded high-achievers with the ability to suspend their life across the ages using a drug called Somec.  The greater the achievment, the more time you could spend in a suspended coma, without aging a day.  I won't discuss the fascinating social implications this had on the fabric of society, but included in his book was the idea of people that played "world domination" games on a massive-scale.  Like Grand Chess Masters, those who were highly successful/skilled at the game, became celebrity super-stars, and as such, were allowed to skip across the ocean of time, waking only long enough to make their next "move" in what was effectively a "real-time" game based on historical Earth.

So I like your vision and salute it, but I don't see it evolving into a "paradigm-shifting" way of game-playing for several years (if not decades) yet.

the future of gaming awaits, and it could be very interesting, I'd go so far as to say a very real commentary on humanities evolution -perhaps

# October 18, 2006 5:01 PM

Kypdurron5 said:

I take offense with the whole "doomed" PSP sentence.  Sure, it's not doing as well as the DS...but then again no other console in the history of the planet has done as well as the DS.  It's a great system.

# October 18, 2006 5:24 PM

Rob Cannon said:

I would love to see some other modern boardgames delivered in XNA.  How about Ingenious, Lost Cities, Peuro Rico or For Sale?

# October 18, 2006 5:54 PM

Ozymandias said:

Re: "I take offense with the whole "doomed" PSP sentence.  Sure, it's not doing as well as the DS...but then again no other console in the history of the planet has done as well as the DS.  It's a great system."

It's just a reflection of what I'm seeing. Publishers aren't creating games for the PSP because they're not selling. Name 5 *interesting* PSP games coming down the pipe... hard, isn't it?

I fully expect Sony to announce a PSP2 in the next year or so with a hard drive and the ability to download games to try and resurrect the PSP business. But I just don't see the current PSP surviving... UMD is already dead as well. :(

# October 18, 2006 9:20 PM

bowserboy said:

I'd like to see a simplified version of the Warhammer board games (turn based as they are) that you could play like that. Not like the current DoW stratergy games but more like a literal translation of the game onto consoles and mobiles or whatever.

# October 19, 2006 1:33 AM

imaginedbug said:

Isn't the question whether or not teens and people in their 20's who generally aren't (very) familiar with old school internet turn-based games (email or BB-based games) will be interested in the concept of waiting for your partner to finally make a move so you can continue playing?

Don't all "experts" agree that we're living in a so-called instant gratification society, where we want to see the results of our "hard work" right away? Doesn't that instantly doom the idea of turn-based, or asynchronous games for the majority of the current gaming demographic? Or is the idea for giving CPR to this type of games meant as an attempt to add new people, generally older than most gamers, to the world of gaming?

# October 19, 2006 1:53 AM

Chris said:

Someone else beat me to it, but this reminds me a lot of old BBS games.  I remember playing a lot of Global War (a Risk clone where everyone had 1 move per day), and I had friends who were really into tradewars and VGA planets.  Something like this could work well on Xbox live, since it's the kind of thing where you could take 5 or 10 minutes to make a move in a persistent game before moving on to something else, and still get to play with friends.  I hate the way that online multiplayer has fostered "apointment" gaming-I like playing games, but I don't want to plan my life around being online at the right time.

# October 19, 2006 5:05 AM

Jimmy said:

I'm not so sure about async games 'taking off' with the casual crowd.  Async games generally:

1. Have extremely delayed gratification (as a game will easily take a week or more to finish)

2. Invite unfavorable comparison to board games, since they are the same but without the personal interaction with friends part

3. Invite unfavorable comparison to single player games, since playing with a person you don't see or talk to during play is so similar to playing with an extremely slow AI.

4. Are by design not 'accessible' games, but rather have some deep complexity that attempts to justify the hours of time you'll get to think about the game, if you want, between moves.

5. Do not work unless a set of ones' friends are also enthusiastic about the game (playing against random people makes '3' even worse!), which could be a pretty big barrier to someone who isn't a part of 'gaming culture' so doesn't see their friends picking up all the latest trinkets from, say, XBLA.

6. Had better be rock-solid stable and secure.  It's one thing for a game to glitch out when the matches are five minutes long.  If some bug in an async game ruins my epic week long battle, there's a good chance that's the last time I'll play that game -- or at least, that interest among my friends, which would be crucial to this type of game, would drop severely.

I still see them as a nice auxillary element to turn-based games, but nothing new or amazing in terms of penetration into the casual games space.  I don't mean to be too discouraging, of course -- anything could happen -- but keep the pitfalls in mind if you actually want to focus heavily on the async experience.

# October 19, 2006 8:11 AM

Jason Cross said:

When were you in SF? I wish you would have let me know, it would have been great to meet up for some drinks and catch up. Jane's an old work buddy of mine (she worked here before her current job with the GDC).

As for async games - Part of why they might not catch on in the traditional sense is the need to wait for the other guy. But I think a different kind of asynchronous game, let's call it a "contributory" game, might be a great thing for the casual game space.

Imagine a game where you play alone (or co-op or whatever), and the results of your play factor into a larger whole. The simple Advance Wars example is that you play a single-player AW game for one faction or another, and it uploads how well you do on a given map to a master server. It does that for all players, and updates a "global" map - showing which faction controls which territory. You can contribute to the overall war by playing your single-player game. Chromehounds works this way, only it requires online multiplayer for each battle. Obviously, it would work best in a game specifically designed for this kind of thing.

# October 19, 2006 10:26 AM

Ozymandias said:

Re: "Someone else beat me to it, but this reminds me a lot of old BBS games.  I remember playing a lot of Global War (a Risk clone where everyone had 1 move per day), and I had friends who were really into tradewars and VGA planets.  Something like this could work well on Xbox live, since it's the kind of thing where you could take 5 or 10 minutes to make a move in a persistent game before moving on to something else, and still get to play with friends.  I hate the way that online multiplayer has fostered "apointment" gaming-I like playing games, but I don't want to plan my life around being online at the right time."

Good call... I used to run a BBS back in the day (two lines!), and had a Tradewars door game running. Don't know why I didn't think of it - that sort of space trader game would be a killer!

# October 19, 2006 1:15 PM

Ozymandias said:

Re: "When were you in SF? I wish you would have let me know, it would have been great to meet up for some drinks and catch up. Jane's an old work buddy of mine (she worked here before her current job with the GDC)."

We may get a chance yet - looks like I'm going back tomorrow, might stay weekend depending on how a Monday meeting works out. Will drop you a line!

# October 19, 2006 1:16 PM

Ozymandias said:

... also known as "games you can play with your friends without having to be online at the same time

# October 15, 2007 10:53 AM

Ozymandias said:

Interesting Gamasutra article out today on a study from research group Electronic Entertainment Design

# October 17, 2007 9:25 AM