wtf why would you not record the Q&A at the end???

I've watched maybe like 10 conference talks like this so far, and this is the first one to rock the boat at all. What's wild is I didn't realize the industry needed boat rocking on this level - but it does.

"more and more away from being an artistic exercise and more and more of being an engeineering process..." "by the time you fullfill those constraints, there is not much room left to do anything interestng..." "structurally invasive... changing bearing toward the audience" "those constraints invade the work, and changes the work that could be produced..." "the shape of a container dictates what can be contained" "anyone who tries, that kind of enderver with full forthrightness, with full honestly, and not just kidding themselves that they are trying to do that, but really really, putting everything they have as a design into trying to do that, then even you don't make it, it puts you into a rare and previledged group of individuals. " what a boss.

It stopped before the Q&A at the end. That makes me a sad panda.

I bored my gf so much by watching this video that she took out her phone and started playing a free to play game.

Thank you Jonathan Blow and Brian Moriarty for being true to yourselves and the best game designers out there.

The game 'Journey' inspired feelings of awe

Have never played this guys games but after this speech I would sure like to. And Yoko Taro’s games have inspired awe in me so I am sure Jonathan can too

Great talk. The business model you choose for a game has great impact on the design.

The Witness proves you an amazing dev Jon

I try to tell people this kind of stuff all the time, about game design having a lower ceiling and being self mutilated from inception, but it rarely ever takes root. I hope people take heed with what he's saying, as he knows his shit.

34:07 Papers Please made by "Lucas Covar"? lol It's Lucas Pope!

Excellent Lecture.

Ahh, the person who is designing a video game that will force me to buy a PS4 by the end of year. One of my favorite designers. And a talk that gives me hope that this free-to-play model is all just another phase.

Very inspiring guy! It's so nice to see someone who really cares about games - about the truth of games.

I am looking forward to the witness so much!

Great speech. Last ten minutes especially is so inspiring.

I was clapping by myself at the end, haha, *awesome* talk.

An amazing talk! Jon Blow puts a LOT of thinking into these subjects and I believe he's right about it.

Man, I love this guy.

You really do understand.

Goddamn, the stuff Jonathan Blow says toward the end, you'd think this was spoken word poetry! It's so amazing and inspirational.

Thank you!

Interesting talk. Thanks

Why no video of the questions??

Great talk. If they only goal of any creative endeavor is to make money for the creator (or the publisher), then we're trapped in an endless circle of moving money around for cheap thrills, which is ultimately meaningless. If instead we take the risk to create experience that potentially change our perspective, and inspire or push us to advance ourselves, even in some small fashion, then we are actually providing a valuable service to Humanity. Ironically, that provides a much better value than the easy buck.

Great stuff

Not all games can be F2P, thanks Jonathan! Insightful.

Does anybody have a link to the clip he's talking about?

I came into this video already contemplating that I want to leave my company - lo and behold, he shows a game from my company as one of the "bad" instances. I need to make a decision, do I want to make game that I enjoy playing, or buy a condo this year?

This is what separates art from science. Science grows through construction and refinement and the flaws are obvious and uncontroversial. True art grows from criticism, I'm sure that Jon's games would be much worse off if he hadn't been slowly developing his own ethics on gaming. Mainstream games are too similar to science. Their mechanics and visuals are refined to 'perfection' and they employ psychological tactics to entice and keep players in. Ironically, both braid and the witness are trying to express something sciency. They express the scientific phenomenon of discovery, the 'ah ha!' moment in research, through playing with time and (what appears to be) graph theory. But it is the love of this feeling that the games are about, thus taking that 'ah ha!' moment into the realm of art. Anyhow, I hope some day that Jon starts focusing more of his energy on what he wants to do with games rather than what others are doing wrong. Unfortunately, since a lot of folk haven't even considered his criticisms before, I don't really see that happening. I'm not saying he isn't productive, just that it's a shame there aren't that many developers on Jon's side. Even Ed McMillen, as much as I love his games, is way more focused on the fun of his games than the artist potential. I guess to make a comparison to music, candy crush is like Miley Cyrus, Ed is like Alt J and Jon is like Ravel. Sorry if this seems pretentious, I guess if I can't write this under a Jon Blow video, I can't write it anywhere!

the microphone shadow on the canvas

for papers please it could be interesting to have a bribing system to have people overlook stuff you want to do. Add a way to get bribes from people and add your own money. I think that, though a different game in a way, could be a good game.

Which show is the drama at 2:04?

This is a fantastic speech and sorry to be so off topic but is that his stomach rumbling at 16:51?

You're not alone pal :)

I agree with most of the points made in the talk. There will always be a market for both types of games, as you can't really play an awe-game while you commute. But I like the 'call to action'-kind of attitude. I wonder what JB thinks about episodic games (Final Fantasy Dimensions for iOS, for example), where the first part is free so you can get at least a feel for the game. This, because the junk games definitely make it harder for awe-devs to make their game pay upfront. Oh, and if that guy in the quote had ever been to the pyramids of Gizeh he wouldn't have included them in the list. Man, that must have been the most disappointing tourist trap I've ever been to.

Jonathan Blow hold an interesting talk where he compares the history of games with the history of TV series and movies. While at the same time explaining what is wrong with many F2P games in a simple way. #gamedesign #f2p #gamedevelopment #jonathanblow

44:00

Dat garage band loop

Wow. Great presentation Jonathan. I can't help but feel some of the issues you've raised are the largest criticisms of some of the largest games currently on market such as Bungie's Destiny and various MMO's. Games one invests both time and money into grow an expectation to be carried away in some sense of awe as you put it. Yet to me at least, despite wilfully wanting to embrace them and be carried away in emotional elation, I've found the latest experiences hollow, void of any true depth, and disingenuous. Hopefully as time goes forward the gaming industry matures and rests into a more mature medium than the current trend.

The clip he's talking about: watch?v=6SZMn_711s4

Please tell me how games like LOL or DOTA2 (F2P games) would have been any different as P2P games. I mean hell, even if they just gave you all the skins and released more skins every so often as paid DLCs, the game still hasn't changed at all. F2P can be done well.

I very much appreciated how Jonathan objectively deconstructed how the commercial constraints impacted the structure of product. I do not agree with his subjective feelings about F2P game structure. He is elevating deep narrative engagement, and rather ignoring the fun of mechanics and puzzles. My own subjective opinion is that there is an audience for all of these. I feel like he is a chef complaining about people eating fast food instead of enjoying only epic 2 hour feasts. Yes, a lot of the freemium models are cheap Zynga knock-offs, but one CAN create engaging games that connect to players under the F2P constraints, much like how a chef CAN cook a good fast food meal without becoming McDonalds. Both take a lot of planning, passion for the end result and acceptance of the possibility of a lower profit margin if not enough of your audience values the difference. I submit 5 Guys and In-N-Out as very successful examples of great product in the McDonalds sphere. I like to think my own Tail Towns Friends on Facebook is a pretty good F2P that is a positive engagement for players.

So... that Marshall McLuhan (media anthropologist) quote in the title comes from Jonathan Blow? This man was one of a kind already, I can't believe he's also into the scholar side of multimedia. I was in awe before than anyway.

Satoshi Tajiri believed so much in Pokemon that he took pay cuts in order to see his dream come to fruition....all these FTP games are about is making money. I think the lesson is, dont let the pursuit of money water down your art, or really any selfish gain...such a thing is really unpleasant to the taste. That also goes for "fan service"...you cant please everyone, so why try.

I really really value two things in art, and they're at odds in f2p vs paid games 1) accessibility. I want every child, office worker, parent, and world leader to be able to play the game, alone or with loved ones. F2p makes games veeery accessible. 2) Creator's vision - customer focused. I want this game to be one thing - an experience crafted for people to gain happiness/meaning from. Not an ad, not a scam, not a time waster. Paid games usually do that best.

TSK. TSK. TSK. Augh!

Free-to-play, aka, Pay-to-Progress's biggest sin: **Doesn't respect the gamer's time nor space.** i.e. Brave Frontier, Burning Blade, Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Smurfs Villages, etc. They go hand-in-hand with _grindfests_: Defiance, Destiny, Eve, Guildwars, Path of Exile, Warframe, WoW. They are monotonous "games": Genocide, get phat loot, rinse repeat for 100 levels.

starts at 15:26

Team Fortress 2

I think he raises some good points, though he isn't really seeing things outside of his own perspective. Which is the problem a lot of people have, so I will not fault him for this. Specifically I mean his opinion on f2p games and their movement on people. It is easy to say, Candy Crush is not a good game, but this isn't really taking into account other people's experiences with the game. Obviously, if you do not believe Candy Crush is a good game, then one would be forced to assume that the same opinion can be applied to games like Tetris or other puzzle games. They are made with different goals in mind, a game's purpose isn't to expand on the bounds of human understanding but rather, as an art form, to communicate the intentions of its developer, to the user. Think on this a moment, a game about driving a car through flaming hoops, can be shown in many different lights, however, it depends entirely on the intention of the developer, and how he/she wishes to communicate to the world, or the users. The car could be out running a giant monster that stands for something intensely personal to the developer and allow the users to interpret the meaning of this in many different ways. The car could be customizable and allow the user to purchase things to do so, or allow them to purchase another life so they can go on without losing their recent progress along the road. The car could have turbo boosts on the bottom and suddenly the game is about timing and challenge, allowing the player to brag to their social circles on how far they made it. The point here is, that the game can mean so much more than just transcending our current understanding of the universe, yes I said it can mean more than that, by being about having fun. One person could be having a bad day, or just trying to go home and they don't have time to sit in front of their gaming consoles, or perhaps are waiting in line, or using the toilet (admit it, you've done it) and their world could use a little brightening up. So they turn on their phones, and play a game. However, the compensation model for mobile games doesn't work the same as it does on other systems. Which brings us to how the f2p model 'works', and I mean works as in, it is the correct way to do it. Small purchases over a lifetime of a gamer allows for players to pay in a manner that benefits them in the best way, a network of micro transactions across a large user base gets the game, and its developers the well 'earned', and I say earned as in they produced what was asked of them and typically more, so they are getting paid what the user allows, money. In short, there is an old saying "Man cannot live on bread alone." The same applies to all things in life, I enjoy deep story driven things, but with various things that increase my stress throughout the day, I need something that can actually help with that, some people get enjoyment out of going to the beach (travel expenses) or going fishing (equipment and licensing expenses) or watching a movie (....movie expenses? yeah...) or hanging out with friends, which usually leads to getting something to eat, watching TV or playing board games (expenses, expenses, expenses.. ). You get what I'm trying to say, I however, just play games, that's it, and there are a lot of people like me, hence the mobile game market and the f2p model. I can play hundreds of games for free and focus my attention on the ones that I actually enjoy, thus giving my time or money to that developer, whether from watching ads or paying for game currency. Will there be deep thought games on the mobile? I do not know, but the real question should be, SHOULD there be deep thought games on the mobile? Now that is something that will be determined by the users, once more people develop for mobile platforms in the future, we will see where that goes. Until then, the market is flooded with a dominate amount of games designed in the f2p fashion. My case, of course being, that this is NOT a bad thing. To reference the quote in the video, "The shape of a container, determines what can be contained." Well the container of the phone, is currently shaped as something that can be positively used for the user, by being something simple, that will be fun for the user. (Notes for the Reader: the caps are used only to emphasize the words, not for yelling.)

Had me until Gone Home... walking simulators ehhhh u too soft Blow

What absolute bollocks. Balance of Terror from TOS is as dramatic, exciting and tension filled as any show on TV now. Twin Peaks is also a greater work of art than any show of TV on at the moment and I highly doubt David Lynch would say the constraints of TV got in the way of his vision or art. And in a lot of cases great art is the result of constraints and limitations. Great TV is being about being able to write a fantastic 25/45 story, not prolonging stories into entire seasons.

I don't think his analogy with television holds at all. In the 70s and 80s, audiences were limited by a handful of shows on tv. They were forced to consume whatever was shown. The producers could get away with producing low quality. They watched Six Million Dollar man because there wasn't much else there. Plus there were fixed time slots... fixed number of shows that could be shown per day... on few channels. Today, there are millions of games... free and paid... available instantly. Variety of levels of quality, variety of styles. Nobody's playing Candy Crush because of a lack of good quality games. They're playing Candy Crush because they want to play Candy Crush.

"Sinister ends"? As in trying to make money? I'm not sure these are any more evil than any other corporate tactic such as advertising, marketing, or brand building. While his point is very good, it is a little off base. He is financially stable and successful. Most indies are not and have to resort to creating games with F2P "evil" models. Doing something experimental and risky typically does not pay off. Braid was a huge success, but there are thousands of indie games that push the boundaries but don't make money. If I had no monetary concerns at all, I'd love to explore interesting game mechanisms that push the genre in new and interesting ways. Unfortunately, the reality is that I'm a struggling artist who has to "sell out" to be able to live. Not that I feel there is anything wrong with F2P things -- if that isn't what you're interested in simply don't play them. However, many people do enjoy games like Candy Crush Saga, so I fail to understand necessarily how they are the end of the world. EDIT: 7 years later and I view F2P fine if it is created in a way to not abuse people's emotions and mentality. But that doesn't seem to be the case for most F2P titles any more so I can see a justification for the hatred of most of them.

"People playing Candy Crush at the airport probably didn't play games like Final Fantasy VII" - a little bit arrogant, don't you think? References? How can you tell a person has more or less history with games and if such a person is more able to judge what's a good or a bad game? This is the most relative issue you could possibly use as an example. Unless I've missed the part research data is mentioned.

He ignored non pay to win free to play games

ugh...I have jonathan's hairline. it's annoying.

Man please! stop moving from side to side!!!!! It's driving me crazy.

I couldn't focus on his words sometimes, because he was smacking his lips so much, especially after drinking water -- good God, can't you, like, turn the mic away when you're doing that?.. Anyway, to the point of the talk. I can't really call this talk good -- first of all, he states obvious facts (Candy Crush is not Final Fantasy, breaking news, guys!). Second of all, what's the bottom line "go make games like Papers, Please, or Gone Home, or Final Fantasy, but don't do games like Candy Crush Saga"? Well, the difference is not about the drama and/or the laziness of the designers. The difference is in monetization techniques. You can either pay 60$ for a new game on PC, complete it in 10-15 hours, then buy DLC for 20$, play 5-10 more hours, then buy another DLC... rinse, repeat. Or you can just login to Facebook, play 5-10 minutes a day, without paying anything -- and have your "thirst for gaming" gone in that timespan. And without having to pay 60$ for your game too. I'm a midcore gamer, and I love to play free iOS games like Trials Frontier, or various Marvel fightings... But I also enjoy games like Papers, Please, or Dying Light (as of the latest), or even the Final Fantasy he's mentioning. Those 2 types of games don't really correlate -- if I'm on a ride home on a subway, and I have some spare time, I can play Trials, or Candy Crush, or Subway Surfers. I don't need a submersive gameplay and atmosphere, when I have only 5-10 minutes to play. There's really no point in being aggressive to F2P games and their monetization model -- the amount of successful games that are really forcing you to pay them is really, really small. And if you don't want to, noone's forcing you to play them -- that's the real bottom line here.

90% piracy on PC? Huh? Is this a geographical thing? I can't remember even seeing someone play a pirated game on a PC since the 1990s.

Got damn it! Does he have to spoil game of thrones episodes?

I think his points are a little too one-sided. Like in general he's just a bit too snobby. He's saying things I regret saying when I discuss media and get too snobby. Don't be so matter-of-fact and universal with your opinions.

Micro-transactions can continue to live in the world of gaming as long as they don't interfere with the experience of the player and are only paid for appreciation of the product.

Hmm... The only way that this talk doesn't make Blow a hypocrite is if he gives away his games for free. He's trying to make the iOs model games seems morally wrong. He's acting like the money making model for home systems/consoles didn't shape the type of games developers made, and that his traditional, non-arcade games are somehow more pure. As an example, RPGs weren't possible at the arcade -- there was no way to make money from them with the pay-for-play model -- so developers didn't make them; on the other hand, the constraints of the home systems made RPGs extremely marketable, so developers made them, and still make them, and make LOTS OF MONEY doing so. The money making system of the console systems dictated the design of the games, not just with RPGs but many other popular genres of games such as FPS and sports games. iOs-style, free-play games are not a threat to Blow or the "traditional" developers exactly for the reasons he gives explaining the evolution of the mobile-gaming model. The types of games he likes and wants to play (and wants you to play) are not possible on iOs EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE MONEY on iOs. They DO make money on console systems.

dont waste time. all about paying for free game. do it in 5 mins pls

Johnny Blow is a tedious man.

poor speech