Some thoughts on the timeliness of product release dates

It was recently brought to my attention that I have not posted in a while. I tend to update the blog in fits and starts when the inspiration hits me. In the interest of completing one more post before year end, I would like to share some thoughts I had this fall about the release window of the game Torchlight 2. In this post on the Runic Games forum, I compare Torchlight and Diablo, but more importantly, provide analysis for some key business decision making. This post was made several months ago.

"Dear Runic Games:

Let me just start out by saying I absolutely loved Torchlight 1 and your previous work on Mythos (I was in the old beta) and the old Diablo games. The purpose of this post is to hopefully convince you of certain market trends as I see them because I want you to be successful and to continue making great games.

The success of any online multiplayer game like Torchlight 2 depends on two major factors. First, is the game itself. I have no doubt that Torchlight 2 will be a quality game that I definitely want to play and would be happy to fork over full retail for. The second is an online community to keep the game going in the long term and to also generate interest in your next project(s). While I am definitely excited for my first point, I am very concerned about the second. You posted not long ago your belief that Torchlight and Diablo 3 are very different games and that the sale of one should not affect the other. I think there are a few key points that you have not thought carefully enough about in this regard.

1) Fans of Torchlight are the same player base as fans of Blizzard and Diablo. Your player base will definitely be cannibalized by the Diablo 3 release. In order for players to remain interested in playing your game, they will want the one thing missing that we all wish you had put into Torchlight 1, multiplayer and a community to go with it. Sure, some will buy the game to play single player, but for long term sales and brand recognition, multiplayer will be a must. Diablo 2 is still played by tens of thousands of players in the US alone because the community is still there and there is still support from Blizzard. Also, there hasn't been a good alternative like Torchlight 2 to wick away those players.

2) When a player tires of playing one point and click hack and slash game, they will not take a break in order to play another point and click hack and slash game. My right hand tires of the incessant clicking after a while and the answer is rest or a different control scheme, not a different game using the same repetitive motion. Also, playing an alternate game of the same genre and control style is flat out boring.

3) It takes time to create and build a long-running online community. I'm sure you know this already. Late November/Early December is too close to the Diablo 3 release. You need months, not weeks, to build a Torchlight player base who will not just jump ship to Diablo. This is for a few reasons also. Whiel I applaud your stance that quality games need not cost $50 just because they are a new release, I worry that player will feel no commitment to Torchlight and easily stop playing. After all, they did not invest $50 in a new game, but only $20. This is barely more than a month of World of Warcraft subscription. You need to provide an incentive so that players will continue playing your game after Diablo 3 is released. A higher level, geared and experienced character existing in an established online community is the best way to do this. Players will not want to abandon the toon they put so much time and effort into.

Runic, I say all this as a 15 year fan of Blizzard games. I know where I stand. I will buy both Torchlight 2 and Diablo 3, but when it comes time to make a choice of which game I will be playing and which game I will be asking my friends to get to play along with me, the choice will be clearly Diablo if you do not release your game in the immediate future. I am a history teacher. My time is limited and I plan to stop playing other games when Torchlight or D3 comes out because this is my favorite genre. There is no way that I have time to play both your game and Blizzard's. You and Blizzard are my favorite developers. I hope you read this and understand that one of your fans just wants you to be successful and to continue to make great games in the future, rather than be dwarfed by the competition. Please release your game and give it the time to grow that it deserves.

Thank you for your time."

The Confidence Game

Tall, dark and handsome. Let's just get this out of the way right up front. I'm not particularly tall, definitely not especially dark and, well, handsome is up to you. How can a man be successful in this world without this holy trio of physical traits? Confidence. Celebrities have it in droves and it's what separates doers from watchers.

The History of confidence in America might be traced back to Native Americans. Tribal cultures have typically depended strongly on a powerful, confident tribal leader who had to make the tough decisions. During the revolution, terrified, yet confident members of the Continental Congress argued over the form of a future body of government.

Why look at confidence as a human trait? Here in modern America, confidence is looked at as the most important personality trait a person can have, throwing modesty out of the window. In America today, people on TV can behave in the most ridiculous ways and it is accepted because they did it with confidence. Conversations from viewers are typically filled with, "That's so funny" or "That was awesome/cool/amazing/sexy." This is typical of what people might say about actions on reality shows like Jersey Shore or Survivor. Anything is allowable in the name of entertainment. Just make sure there is plenty of bravado and confidence and it will be fine.

It is amazing what we now view as acceptable behavior just because it is done with confidence. Conservatism, modesty and values fly out the window. Why is this important to discuss? Confidence is an important human trait. Along with fear, anger, happiness and shyness, confidence has allowed humankind to achieve success.

Imagine, if you will, mankind in a state of nature. There is no technology, no civil society and no laws. Confidence is what allows individuals to explore, to overcome their fears of vegetation and animals and to innovate new ways to survive. This trait is needed to maintain life. However, we no longer are at a survival level. Humans thrive on this planet and confidence isn't needed like it once was.

So, what do we do with all that confident energy? We ride thrill rides, jump out of planes, take all kinds of risks, all for the purpose of giving an ancient trait survival trait an outlet. Is this a criticism of confidence? Certainly not. It is a spotlight pointing out an imbalance. Americans are nothing if not imbalanced in the way they live. Humanity should strive to find balance in order to improve social and moral values, not excuse misbehavior away as humorous simply because it was done with confidence.

The Civil War and Today's America Part 2

You might be asking yourself how the civil war has anything to do with today's America. It is definitely not an obvious comparison to most. America is so different today than it was back then, what with smart phones, the internet and about ten thousand new laws in place. Not to mention that slavery has been over for a long time and race relations are supposedly much better than they were. Take a moment and recall the causes of the war, the crippling of state power and the economic interests of a large segment of Americans not being represented in the National government. Sound familiar? It should. The middle class has been under attack in this country for all of my twenty plus years of life and the working class has been hit over and over with regressive taxation and abuse by the wealthy.

I struggle with a belief that the next great civil war in the US will be fought over civil rights, security and class. As I promised in my last post, this will be a limited analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act, race relations from the perspective of a white male in NJ and other issues dealing mainly with the economy. Again, my goal is to answer this question, "Are we living in the the second great antebellum period of United States history?"

This discussion will begin with the Patriot Act. I will definitely not go deeply into my beliefs about this piece of legislation, but will only say that I feel as though it is an outright attack on our civil liberties in favor of security. Also, as long as prisons such as Guantanamo Bay exist and our speech is so completely monitored by our government, we are not truly free in America; at least not as free as we used to be and believe we are. The Act is essentially a huge expansion of government power allowing for 1) easy access to any electronic communications made by citizens to anyone domestic or abroad, 2) a reduction in checks and balances that historically have existed to make the process of arrest and investigation deliberate and slow in order to be both complete and error free, 3) the elimination of legal loopholes that allow American citizens to go free when their rights are not respected during an investigation, most notably Miranda rights, 4) an expansion of surveillance on American citizens under the guise of increased security against terrorism and other increased government powers. My first thoughts when I read this legislation were about the name and about how much these provisions remind me of George Or well's 1984, in which the government controls every aspect of every citizen's life through excessive monitoring. All of these together equate to an increase in federal power at the expense of state power, one of the major issues facing America during antibellum.

Of course, to be against a bill called the Patriot Act is viewed by the uneducated masses as being anti-patriotic. Of course, those of us who know a little bit about American government and political theory understand that criticizing the government and its policies is not only patriotic, but a duty of every American in order to check and balance its powers. Politicians are experts at using language like this to pressure the legislature into handing out yes votes in order to remain electable next cycle. What senator or congressman in his or her right mind would vote against something with the word Patriot in its title? It would likely be career suicide regardless of what the bill actually was about, simply because the ignorant masses will think of them as unpatriotic, voting them out of office as soon as possible.

In addition to this law in particular, the government has also supported on numerous occasions provisions for gun control, citing public safety. Regardless of your position on gun ownership, I think we can all agree on this one point. Every good government should serve and fear its people as its primary goals. The people should not fear its government. Today, I believe that the American populace definitely fears its government more than ever before. I ask this fundamental question. In a United States without a large, independent standing militia (keeping in mind that the National Guard is government controlled), how are the people supposed to stand up against their government when its leadership oversteps its function of serving the people and becomes tyrants only interested in maintaining or growing the power of those in office? A disarmed America is a compliant America. Some might argue that I am missing the part of the debate where the NRA is one of the largest and most influential lobbying groups in the country, or how states fight for the right of gun ownership. Think about the gun amendment of the constitution. At the time, Americans feared invasion by Britain and wanted every citizen to be able to individually protect the nation if the necessity arose. When the next great civil war begins, who will have all the military power? Certainly not the general populace. The US military will put down any insurrection, no matter how just, no matter how needed, in order to protect the interests of a small group of predominantly rich, white men.

In regard to the topic of race relations in my view, you must know a little bit about my personal history. I am a twenty something white male who grew up in a lower middle class family in what most of my peers would refer to as a wealthy town. I lived in a housing development that quickly transformed from predominantly white, to predominantly Latino, variations of black, Asian and Middle Eastern. The school I went to had a population of roughly 3,500 students, only about twenty to thirty percent of whom would be classically labeled as minority. Of the remaining white population, roughly seventy to eighty percent were first or second generation Italians. Being mostly Polish, German and Irish, I was what I considered a white minority. The students, as teenagers tend to do, were struggling to find an identity and mainly identified ethnically more than any other factors such as interests, hobbies and socioeconomic status. Basically, the school was a good representation of what I have seen so far in this country, a series of self-segregated social groupings with a few exceptions. I have never believed in the notion of a melting pot, where different cultures mix so thoroughly that distinctions are difficult to make between people of different racial backgrounds. Though this certainly does happen over time, the time it takes for this viewpoint to come to fruition is greater than the short lifetime of this nation thus far. I more believe America is a mixing bowl. Different ethnicities live together in the same bowl, but often separately. Homogenization of cultural differences does occur slowly, yet almost imperceptibly. Have you ever visited an inner city? Perhaps a China Town, or a Little Italy? These places exist in our country because of this lack of melding. Is racism alive and well in America? You betcha. However, it is no longer limited to white Europeans' beliefs about black Africans. All ethnicities in this country have racial stereotypes about each other and a certain level of hatred for perceived differences. Not only that, but special holiday periods such as Black History month continue to point out how our populace believes we are quite obviously different and need to study those differences. Shouldn't awareness of other cultures and histories be an obvious goal of American Education without the need for such specialized attention? In summation, we are no less a racist nation than antebellum America before the war. Don't believe that unfair and unequal laws don't exist in today's America either. Affirmative action, hate crime legislation and anti-terrorist profiling has created a nation of unfairness and irregularity.

In regards to slavery in particular, is our working class not in an almost slave state? This socioeconomic status often leads to a fatalistic belief in that the only way to be upwardly mobile is to become famous or commit crime. This does not sound like the mobility promised to my peers and me when I was a youth being told that I could do anything I wanted when I grew up. Sure, given the right parents, the right school and the right opportunities I could grow up to be, oh I don't know, a history teacher or some such. However, take any of those away and I'm just one more working class gentleman with no ability to increase my salary. A lack of choice is what defines slavery throughout history. Whether that choice be taken away by a personal belief or by a master with a whip, Americans are living enslaved to those in power.

I believe that the election apathy I have witnessed in my lifetime is not necessarily an indication of submission to an oppressive government. Though our leadership has done a great job of molding public perception into a belief that there are no tyrants in office, that all laws passed are in our best interest, the big cooperation controlled propaganda machine we call the media has been losing the faith of the people. The internet has expanded our minds in its ability to allow us to communicate our ideas free of censorship and spin, despite big brother watching every second. The American people's economic interests are again under attack in much more complex ways. It will only take one unifier, one charismatic leader to speak the obvious truth to the people in order for the oppressed masses to rise up against this government. Fortunately, that leader is not me. I simply observe and report. Election apathy may be a sign of something else, a growing disdain for voting for career politicians who no one trusts. I see a day coming when our government will experience votes of no confidence, where neither major party is greatly supported. This may also once again turn into notions sussession from states who think they can do better. Again, I will restate my initial hypothesis. The next great American civil war is coming. It is not a matter of if, but when.

I would like to end this post with a quote from my favorite historical author, John Locke.

"Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves or put into the hands of any other an Absolute power over the Lives, Liberties and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power...whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the people..." - John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

The Civil War and Today's America Part 1

I often wonder when the next civil war will be in this country. It is not really a matter of if in my mind, but when. The original civil war was fought over social and economic issues that were incredibly important to the nation at the time. As we continue into this brave new world of terrorism, super-sized government control and technology that is advancing faster than our ability to make moral decisions, it is important to remember what is at stake. In this two-part post I will examine the USA PATRIOT Act, race relations in America today and other modern issues. My hope is to aid the reader in deciding an answer to this question, "Are we living in the the second great antebellum period of United States history?"

Freedom was one of the largest reasons for the American Revolution and had roots in English writers such as John Locke and Thomas Pain. These men, and the revolutionary thinkers who came after, believed that the head of government should exist in order to protect and promote the safety, happiness and property of the people. Property in this sense was not just land, but possessions, investments and interests. When British colonists felt thoroughly opressed by taxation and felt ignored by a lack of their economic interests being represented in England, they decided to separate. This separation has easily be seen as more of a succession from England rather than an internal revolution. This sentiment was again seen during what I refer to as the first antebellum period in the US.

Causes for the civil war usually are typically whittled down to the issue of slavery and because of this emphasis, it is useful to examine the issue from a historian's viewpoint. As a history teacher and as a teacher who has been in several districts for a few years, it still amazes me how little students in public schools know about the issue of slavery in America and how they know nothing at all of slavery elsewhere. While, I won't fully examine the issue in this post, some thought must be given in order to understand the issue. Generally, the consensus tends to be that evil white men enslaved innocent black men, women and children for their own economic gain. This is an extremely racist view, not only because it assumes that white men were inherently evil and ambitious imperialists, but also because it assumes that Africans were like children, lacking in intelligence, martial defense and civilized resistance. However, racism was the key idea when it came to slavery and the idea that more advanced civilizations should conquer less civilized peoples was a strong belief in Europe for centuries.

It is a common misconception, especially with students, that 1)slavery has never existed before white Europeans oppressed black Africans and 2)the abolitionist, free North had no ill will toward freed Africans. This couldn't be further from the truth. Slavery has existed in several forms for thousands of years, including ancient civilizations such as Greece and Egypt. It never blinked out of existence throughout human history and still continues in various forms today. Secondly, racism was a big part of being an American, even in the North. Northerners generally believed that it was not only immoral, but not economically necessary. The North was using a totally different economic system in which they had paid employees manufacturing products, not slaves. In reality, slavery was always an economic issue more than it was a moral issue. Unfortunately, students seem to miss this important concept.

The slavery issue eventually came down to Federal power versus State power. Keep in mind that the US was a series of independent colonies with their own government and power structure. These states were essentially countries in their own right unified under a central government in order to have unified military protection from foreign interests. At the time, the moral and economic debate of slavery transformed into a political power issue of who should decide whether a state would be free or slave. The Federal government, especially under the administration of the recent presidents leading up to and including Lincoln, were enacting policies that clearly demonstrated how the national interest trumped the state interest by introducing new, free territories into the nation. The South, feeling as tohugh its policial power was crippled and its economic interests were being ignored, decided to go the route of the US and succeed. Essentially the civil war can be seen as an attempt at what I will call the Confederate Revolution of North America. This revolution, unlike our own, ultimately failed. Slavery was abolished by Lincoln crippling the South's economy and military.

Look for comparisons of these events to today's America in "The Civil War and Today's America Part 2."

The Boston Massacre. Accident or Murder?

You are part of a professionally trained military unit. You work for the king of Britain. The year is 1770. Boston, Massachusetts is a cold and snowy settlement with citizens who hate you. Your king is a tyrant. He taxes them without giving them any say in government and they have had enough. However, you are a professional. Despite the formation of a mob in a public square, you will not do anything unless ordered. This is not a situation where it is your decision to act and there are others gathered by your side along with your commander. The snow is cold at your feet, the air crisp. Every voice of the crowd can be heard as well as the breath of your comrades beside you. Their hearts race with nervous anticipation of battle and a slight fear of the crude weapons the citizens of Boston have gathered. Stones are thrown at you and your fellow soldiers. You suddenly are reminded of David and Goliath and how a stone could easily kill or cripple a giant, much less a man. The situation is quickly becoming dangerous. Your uniform is more for show than for protection and your head is poorly covered. A three pointed hat can be easily penetrated by a musket ball, but a pitchfork or shovel or other hard and heavy objects easily maim or kill.

The mob is getting angry. You and your fellow soldiers keep hearing that key word, the word you are afraid to hear, "FIRE!" The crowd has been taunting you, asking, no screaming for you to attack. Where is your commander? You have lost his position in the commotion. A fellow soldier's musket goes off and a member of the crowd drops to the snow covered ground, now splashed with fresh blood. Again you immediately hear the command, "FIRE!" but where is it coming from? There is no longer any choice. Your weapon has been trained on the crowd this whole time and you fire. You fire as commanded, as is necessary to keep order and to maintain your safety. Several more in the crowd seek the comfort of death as musket balls penetrate their winter coats, spilling their life about the cold dirt.

Few times in history do we hear both sides of a story. I hoped in presenting a soldier's view of this event, it could be better understood in a more thorough manner. Consider this perspective and decide for yourself if one of the most famous atrocities of the British during its colonization of the American continent was indeed a massacre or just an accident perpetuated by a crowd of inciters.

Organized Churches

Sometimes I wonder if this is what the goal aught to be for Christians around the world. Extravagant buildings that really just glorify people rather than a religious creator? I don't think so.

Ever tell someone that you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim just for them to ask you how often you go to church or temple or the mosque? This is a very close minded, uneducated type of question, especially if you are one of many protestant denominations of Christianity.

This is a history blog, so I won't talk about my personal beliefs. However, to the many protestant Christians out there who go around gauging your friends' faith by how often they attend a building filled with the supposedly faithful, consider this. First, before I go into the Lutheran reasons why you're being unreasonable, follow this logic. Not every person who goes to church or temple or the mosque is a good, faithful person of that religion. Going to church alone does not equal faithful, good or moral people. Plenty of people go to church and then behave in sinful ways, including homosexuals who are accepted in many congregations in modern churches.

Now to some historical examples. Martin Luther, father of the protestant movement in Europe, believed and proclaimed that each individual Christian aught to preach the word of the Christian Bible. He taught that the Church, while a great place for people to gather for worship and to hear the teachings of the Christian Bible, was not the epitome of faith and devotion to God. The main function of the organized Church during the period Luther lived, was likely to allow the illiterate masses to hear what was in a holy book that they could not read.

This is why asking people about their attendance is a poor method of judgment, that is, if judgment is what you must do in order to interact with others. I often find that the person doing the asking has not attended in years if not decades... nice. Way to be a hypocrite and try to make others feel guilty at the same time.

The root of the issue is this. Churches are political institutions made up of specific doctrines that are followed by specific groups of Christians. This has been true since the beginnings of the protestant movement that began in the Renaissance. Each likes to interpret the Chirstian Bible in its own way, make its own rules, create its own rituals and enact its own policies. Those who choose to become members are bound to that institution's decisions and specific beliefs. For those of you who choose to go to an organized church, great. For those of you who are faithful and choose not to be part of a political body, that's great too. How about you both stop asking the Church question and find another way to judge your peers.

A few thoughts on religious faith

I had a conversation with a coworker today about religious faith. Besides being a bad idea, it made me think of an expression I've heard many times; "If you don't have anything, you don't have anything to lose." It's what makes a criminal dangerous and a religious fundamentalist terrifying. Throughout history, religion has been used for both good and bad. Here in the Northeast however, religion is fading. Traditional faith based values are waning. I certainly cannot advocate any single religion, but I find it to be a scary world where people believe that nothing they do in life will affect what happens to them in death.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in an afterlife and punishment for wrongdoings in life. The Egyptians believed that their very soul would be literally devoured by a dog god if they did not convince the gods that they had led a good life. Those who believe in reincarnation have always known that their social status or even their existence as a human beings hang in the balance if they do not live by certain principles.

No religious or secular system of morality is without faults. For those in society who don't live by society's rules could hypothetically still live as good moral people due to a higher belief system. When people decide that nothing they do in life has consequences, it frees them to do as they please. Inhibitions exist for a reason. When they are removed, chaos can ensue. Imagine if every member of a given society decided that rules don't matter, that consequences for their actions don't exist. What incentive would anyone have to do the right thing, to behave civilly, to not simply kill each other and take everything they want?

The political philosopher John Locke of the 17th century wrote about these very issues. Locke is known well for his social contract, the idea that humans have agreed to not kill eachother in order to survive. However, this is NOT what he should be known for. Locke described the origins of society from units as small as a family up to a kingdom. The system he described made a lot of sense, but only worked assuming the society feared consequences for living in chaos rather than order.

To me, a country of atheists is far more terrifying than a fundamentalist. The people who believe that this is it, that their life has no greater meaning, who fail to see that their actions affect people still living or don't care, are the ones who scare me the most. Faith is not without its risks, but it is a lot less scary to me than to believe in nothing at all.