Brad Wardell's Blog


Gamespy plays with beta 1

Published on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 By Brad Wardell In GalCiv II News

Gamespy's Allen Rausch has a hands on preview of Galactic Civilizations II up.  Allen reviewed Galactic Civilizations I for Gamespy, so he is quite familiar with the game (it received a 4 out of 5 star review then).  His conclusion: "If the Stardock team were just to drop those parts of the first game into the improved elements we've seen in this beta, the sequel would already be much better than the original. Make any improvements at all (and Stardock says they're working hard on them) and Galactic Civilizations II could be on its way to becoming a classic. "

Check out the whole thing..

WinCustomize Spring 2005 CD

Published on Monday, April 18, 2005 By Brad Wardell In WinCustomize News

Last week the Best of 2004 WinCustomize DVD came out.  This week the Spring 2005 WinCustomize CD arrives.  The CD includes most of the skins, themes, icons, cursors, and wallpaper found here on WinCustomize.com. And it comes with a special version of the WinCustomize Skin Browser to help you organize and apply them. It's like having a local copy of the website on your own personal computer! Proceeds from sales go to help paying for the considerable costs of running this site.

 

Age of Empires III looking great

Published on Sunday, April 17, 2005 By Brad Wardell In PC Gaming
<P><SPAN class=postbody>The latest Gamespot preview of Age of Empires III is most impressive. <BR><BR>This year could be quite a good year for strategy gamers (now if we could just get a Total Annihilation 2) with Civilization IV and AoE 3 coming out (not to mention some of the others liek EE2 and such). <BR><BR>I don't know about the rest of you, but 3D in ground-based strategy games have often had mixed results.&nbsp; On the one hand, 3D engines provide so much flexibility but on the other hand, how do you keep the units from looking like polygons?&nbsp; Total Annihilation got around this by having their units be robots.&nbsp; But strategy games with actual people running around had it a bit tougher.&nbsp; </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=postbody>I think the first strategy game I played that had a 3D engine that really sold it was Rise of Nations.&nbsp; But I think the buildings in that were still sprite based.&nbsp; </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=postbody>Clearly though, judging by the screenshots, Age of Empires III intends to raise the bar to a new level.&nbsp; </SPAN></P>

US Government economic charts

Published on Sunday, April 17, 2005 By Brad Wardell In Politics

It is very common on-line to see people debating passionately about a given topic despite the fact they know next to nothing on the subject they're talking about.  I recently wrote about this issue here.  Passion is good.  Passionate ignorance is not. 

For economic discussions, here are some useful charts, courtesy of the congressional budget office.  They're not "spun". They're just figures that help people know how tax dollars are collected and spent. How they are used, twisted, or manipulated differs from person to person.  But for starters, let's just put them out there so that others can at least have some grounding:

Chart 1: http://www.budget.house.gov/chart0125051.pdf

This chart displays where tax money comes from and what it is spent on.

Chart 2: http://www.budget.house.gov/chart0125052.pdf

This chart is useful for displaying the historical trends on the national debt. How much debt we have compared to our overall economic output.

Chart 3: http://www.budget.house.gov/chart0125058.pdf

This chart shows the growth of different kinds of spending. This is useful in showing that non-defense discretionary spending has been the fastest increasing category.

Chart 4: http://www.budget.house.gov/chart01250512.pdf

This chart displays how many people are working in the United States.

Chart 5: http://www.budget.house.gov/defensegdp030905.pdf

This is national defense spending as a % of GDP

Chart 6: http://www.budget.house.gov/discret2chart030905.pdf

This is how much we have been spending on education at the federal level for the past few years

Chart 7: http://www.budget.house.gov/growth4chrt030905.pdf

This is the unemployment rate over the past 35 years.

Chart 8: http://www.budget.house.gov/incomtax030905.pdf

This chart displays who is paying the taxes. For example, the top .6% income earners pay about 27% of the taxes. The bottom 36% pay less than 5% of the taxes.

Chart 9: http://www.budget.house.gov/lgstdeficits030905.pdf

This chart displays the worst budget deficits since the post-war (world war II) era as a % of GDP.  Reagan has 4 of the top 10. Bush Sr. has 1. Clinton has 2.  Oh, and George W. Bush? Zero of the top 10.

Chart 10: http://www.budget.house.gov/netinterest030905.pdf

This chart displays how much of the budget is consumed paying interest in the debt. In 1996 it reached its peak consuming over 15% of the budget. Last year it was less than half that.

Chart 11: http://www.budget.house.gov/lgcausdeficit030905.pdf

This chart shows what is causing the deficits today.

So there you go.  Next time you get into a debate on taxes, spending, deficits, etc. These charts should be helpful so that you at least have a good idea what the facts are.

 

Now is not the time to argue for higher taxes..

Published on Saturday, April 16, 2005 By Brad Wardell In Current Events

One has to wonder about the sanity of anyone who would, the day after April 15th (tax time in the US) argue that we aren't paying enough taxes.

I invite those who think they're undertaxed to write a big old check to the government so that they can pay their share.  Because in my experience, the people who scream the loudest for more taxes aren't paying their share.

The ones yelling that the "rich" should pay more taxes are typically people paying trivial amounts of taxation already.  They're either people who pay little because they don't earn very much money, or they're wealthy people (like John Kerry or John Edwards) who know how to play the tax game to avoid paying taxes.  Think Bush and Cheney haven't paid enough? Check out John Edwards and Kerry who pay relatively little in taxes due to playing games with personal LLCs and the like.

I pay taxes.  I pay a LOT of taxes. I also happen to believe in progressive taxation. I believe that the wealthy in this country should pay more, even as a percent, than others because it was their (our) luck to be born in a country that provides such opportunity. 

But at the same time, don't yell that I should pay even more in taxes.  For me, as a working person, taxation represents time I am spending working for the government.  Let's take a public school teacher, for instance. 

I have friends who are teachers.  One I know makes $46,500 per year.  She works 182 days per year with each day being 6 hours.  She sometimes works a few hours on a weekend grading papers and such. So let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she works 8 hours per day. That's 1,456 hours per year.  After deductions, she pays 15% federal taxes.  That's 218 hours each year she works for the federal government.

In 2004, based on my schedule, I worked approximately 2,700 hours. After deductions, my rate rate was 33%. That means I worked about 900 hours for the federal government.  That's over FOUR times more hours I was indentured to the federal government than my teacher friend.

Forget the money for a second, let's look at it as a purely labor point of view.  I was working for the federal government nearly as many hours as my teacher friend worked for herself.

And what do I get in return? Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids get to go to special schools? Does the government send me a basket at Christmas? Obviously not.  In the private sector, if I was putting 4 times the effort into something I would get extra appreciation.  I don't have spend extra on cable because I work more hours and earn more money do I? I don't pay extra for water or electricity.

Most people I know who scream about taxes don't work anywhere near the number of hours I and others like me do.  They have no idea that the typical person who makes a lot of money also works a lot more hours. 

I look back at the past year and don't look just at how much money I paid in taxes, I look at how many hours I spent working not for my family but for the federal government. And then I see ungrateful people screaming I should have to work even more hours for the government -- often people who barely work full time if at all.

Now, someone might say "Nobody is forcing you to work all those hours". Very true.  I could have chosen a different career.  But if people like me did that, there'd be a lot fewer jobs.  We provide jobs for people who in turn make money to support their families.  Our economy is absolutely dependent on people who are willing to work a lot of hours to create new opportunities.

The only question is where the threshold is where it's no longer worth working so many hours.  I already work over 900 hours a year just for the federal government (and another 165 for the state government).  I'm sure there's a point where I'd say "Screw it. I've got plenty, I'm not going to put in these hours anymore."  Is this the result that tax-increase advocates want though?

Some thoughts on Will Wright's Spore project

Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005 By Brad Wardell In PC Gaming

Will Wright, the designer of so many of the greatest games of all time (Simcity, The Sims, etc.) has a new game concept that could potentially blow them all away.  But it's not just a game idea, it's also a philosophy on making games.  Let's talk about the former before talking about the latter.  The game idea sounds incredible.  In fact, I could imagine it being potentially the best game ever made (for people like me anyway) if it can live up to that potential. Given Will's track record that seems a definite possibility.

The game is called Spore. In Spore, you start out as basically being bacteria.  In an almost Pac-Man-like setting, your little bacteria has to run around and feed itself while avoiding predators.  As you feed yourself, you are rewarded by being able to reproduce and enhance yourself a bit further by designing new pieces for yourself.  Eventually, you are able to build entire bacteria cultures which in turn get more and more complex until pretty soon you've built an entire world of sentient beings. And pretty soon you're running that world and going out into space. It's a pretty amazing concept.

The second part is the part that I think is more important.  Will Wright has been around since the beginning and he's watched with some trepidation as the game industry has ballooned into requiring dozens of content producers in order to make a modern game.  Game budgets are starting to look a lot like the budgets for a major motion picture. This has had some serious negative side effects such as the loss of originality and creativity because the risks of doing something unproven are so much higher as well as driving away smaller players.  Game studios are increasingly looking more like game factories.

But with Spore, Will is trying to make a game in which the exciting content is created by the user.  The development team integrates the content creation into the game as part of the fun.  The user, in essence, is creating the content instead of teams of developers/artists.  Now, the articles I've read have made this sound revolutionary.  If it is Spore that gets the game industry to wake up and start realizing that content creation can and should be part of the game play when possible rather than purely something to throw hordes of overworked developers at then it is revolutionary.  But this concept has been the core of Stardock's business model since 1999.

Our last game, The Political Machine was one of the best selling PC strategy games of 2004. It was nominated for strategy game of the year by Computer Gaming World. Published by Ubi Soft.  In other words, a pretty major title release for last year.  However, we created the entire game with only 3 full time people on it in 6 months. That includes putting together the multiplayer features (including a game lobby) and developing a 3D engine.  We did not license any third party technology.  So how is this possible? It's possible because we made use of the content and tools that our existing non-game software creates such as DesktopX (www.desktopx.net). These tools and the content they create allowed us to focus purely on the underlying game mechanics while streamlining actual content. The player, in this example, does not create very much of the content so it's not very analogous.  But the tools we used to create the content are so advanced and powerful (far more so than any game project could justify) because they exist in the other market we develop software for -- the desktop customization market.

In the desktop customization market, developers such as ourselves create the software and then user communities create the content.  In short, our users are our partners.  One such product, WindowBlinds, has millions of users.  It allows users to change the look and feel of the Windows GUI.  However, we don't actually create much of the content to change the Windows environment.  Instead, is relies on the content creation abilities of its user community.  That user community congregates on websites such as WinCustomize.com and Neowin.net where people create content for programs like it and share it with one another. These aren't obscure sites by the way, they receive millions of unique visitors each month.  Outside the game industry, the concept of empowering your user community to create and share content is well established.

In our next game, Galactic Civilizations II, much of the content will be created by the player themselves.  For example, one of the most popular features with beta testers is the ship design feature.  Instead of us designing, modeling, and then rendering hundreds of ships (at great cost to us) for players to choose from, we instead give players pieces of ships in almost every imaginable shape and size.  Players then put these pieces together -- creating their own unique ships. Just like with programs like WindowBlinds, empowering the user actually makes the program more appealing.

Similarly, the user interface is just a bunch of DesktopX objects (in .dxpack format even) allowing users to just go to the DesktopX website and start changing it completely.  By providing libraries on our websites, users can trade and use all kinds of things we never would have thought of.  In the end, we expect most of the content for the game that people are using in years to come to be created by the players themselves.  After all, who's better situated to know what the player wants? The player or some game designer?

In our upcoming, unannounced massively multiplayer RTS, we are able to greatly decrease the cost while at the same time trying to make the game much more appealing to players by putting much of the content creation in their hands.  When you're creating virtual worlds, giving the players the tools to design, skin, customize their world is a win-win for them and for us.  Instead of having to design, model, and texturize hundreds of buildings and units, we merely provide a handful of basic types and put the rest in the user's hands.  Another bonus - it keeps file sizes smaller.

The game industry should be looking at their customers as partners.  Given the direction we've seen in the past few years, that's going to require a lot of change.  Consider the out of control copy protection schemes.  If we can't get game companies to stop looking at gamers as potential thieves, we'll never get them to empower users to be their partner in game content creation.  But hopefully, as we're starting to see with the back-lash on copy protection and DRM schemes, there will be enough economic incentives to encourage gaming studios to start designing their games in such a way that the player generates and controls the content where possible.

How OS/2 matters to game developers

Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005 By Brad Wardell In GalCiv Journals

OS/2 is a lesson every ambitious game developer needs to know about.  OS/2 in 1994 was so much better than any alternatives that it should have been the defacto OS.  It ran DOS, Windows, and OS/2 programs side by side. It was very stable (rarely crashed).  It had a very easy to use, object oriented interface (Similar to what we finally have in Windows XP) and it had preemptive multitasking and a DirectX capability called DIVE.


Yet, despite all that, despite being from IBM, Windows won.  And it should be a lesson to developers that having the best product - be it a game or whatever, is not the whole story.  Your ability to market and distribute your creation trumps the quality of the game in terms of real success.  That is why a good publisher or distributor is worth their weight in gold.

If a publisher can get your $40 game into the stores and can pay you on time and allow you to sell lots of units, then getting $10 a unit is a great deal for the developer.  Woe to the game developer who focuses on percentages instead of on how much they'll gross.  Because it's better for your game to sell 100,000 units in which you make $10 a piece on then to sell 2,000 units in which you make 100% on each sale.

The story of Galactic Civilizations II

Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005 By Brad Wardell In GalCiv Journals

Long long ago there was a hyper-advanced civilization that had colonized the galaxy. They are called the Precursors.  Eventually, they split into two races who went to war with one another.  Just as the final battle between the two was being fought, they disappeared.  This was hinted at in the first game but not truly explored.

Thousands of years later, new civilizations slowly started making their way into space.  But they lacked the ability to travel great distances.  They built a series of "star gates" that enabled ships to travel between them but it was a massively expensive and inefficient mechanism and didn't really enable colonization as much as it allowed for different races to have some basic relations.

The humans, however, were the youngest of these new races and they also were much more reckless in terms of trying out new technology.  They adapted the star gate technology to design ships with drive systems that effectively could travel much faster than the star gates could and weren't reliant on them.  In short, ships could travel anywhere in the galaxy on their own.

However, this has a negative side effect - now all the civilizations were in a race to colonize and claim as much of the galaxy as fast as they could.

The story of Galactic Civilizations I dealt with that race to claim the galaxy.

In Galactic Civilizations II, we now have the consequences -- the vile and evil Drengin Empire have emerged as the dominant civilization. And they are beginning to conquer the other civilizations.  In The Campaign game (which is different from the regular sand box mode) the player has to go and try to unite the other civilizations to fight off the Drengin.  But in the midsts of this, they will all discover that there are far worse things in the universe than each other.

Best of 2004 WinCustomize DVD

Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005 By Brad Wardell In WinCustomize News

WinCustomize.com has released the BEST of 2004 DVD.  We took the highest rated, most downloaded skins, themes, icons, wallpapers, etc. from last year and put them onto this interactive DVD.  It comes with a special version of the WinCustomize Skin Browser that makes it a snap to navigate through and apply the contents (it's very slick).  Over 4 gigabytes of the best content that was uploaded to WinCustomize.com can be yours.  100% of the proceeds of the DVD go to help paying for the massive bandwidth costs of this website (and by having the DVD, you'll be able to access our content locally saving even more bandwidth).

Last year saw some fantastic creations and you can have them all and help support WinCustomize for only $24.95.