A First Short Story

Hey friends! I’ve just started the Neil Gaiman MasterClass on storytelling, and it’s fantastic. In one of the lessons, our exercise was to write a short story based on some instructions. Knowing the instructions before you read will ruin the story, so I’m going to put the instructions at the end. Enjoy!

From the start of my first session with him, I could tell that there was a lot of work to be done. He was intelligent, maybe even dangerously so, and his views were… different. As therapists, we can’t simply tell a person that their worldview is wrong, or that the feelings they’re feeling are not justified. We can’t try to persuade a client that they should be more like us, or use average people as a standard against which to measure them. Rather, we have to work together to unearth some of the deeper issues and allow the patient to come to the realization by themselves that change is needed. We have to be the catalyst for the change that they come to perceive is for the best, even if they don’t have that perception at the start of the sessions.

He had an aura about him, different from anyone I’ve ever worked with. Charming, yet dangerous– in the way that a psychopath might convince you that they mean well. I shouldn’t use the p word so quickly, I hadn’t done a full assessment and it would be wrong to cloud your judgment about this character before we get to that part of the story. But there was definitely something about him that was almost magical, but in a way that inspired distrust. It took a big step for him to come here, and I don’t want to sow seeds of doubt in his mind about my intentions, so I tried to keep those feelings internal. Honestly, I wanted to get to the bottom of this story out of my own curiousity and intrigue as much as for my practice. My private session notes should help me tell you about him.

“Session 1: Feeling weird about this client. Brings into the room with him a weight, as if the air got thicker the moment he entered. Very friendly and smiling. Might feel like he doesn’t need therapy…”

His clothing was obviously not from around here, and I was sure I had to ask about his childhood to give me an idea of how he got to where he is today. He told me he was born in a country, but I had never heard of it and I didn’t want to seem ignorant so I simply assumed the Arabic name implied somewhere in the Middle East. I make a mental note to look it up afterwards, and it slipped my mind about five minutes into our discussion. He talked about his parents, about growing up without siblings, and about his fascination with birds.

“Father demanded a lot from him: school, music, religious studies, etc. Always expected more from him. Mother wasn’t really present in his childhood, very quiet compared to father. Died in his teens. No mother figure…!”

He was always measured against perfection, and nothing was ever good enough. Most in this situation would show a lack of confidence, an anxiety about their worth. And yet I got a sense of confidence, even overconfidence from him. It turns out, after some digging, that this made sense. His father’s pressure was an awful burden, but he did end up learning a lot and being the top of his class in all of the schools he went to. Certainly his social life could have used some help, but he didn’t rebel like some others would have done in that situation. Instead, he strived to prove that he actually was that good, and actually strived to prove to his father that he was better not only than these expectations, but better than his father in general. They grew distant as he passed into his late teens. Their interaction became more formal, almost transactional. I’m not sure if this was due to the loss of his mother, a lack of open communication, or something else.

One day his father was taken by imperial guards while he was out buying food. He came back to a note saying something to the effect of “we’ve taken [I can’t pronounce his name so I won’t try] to the palace for questioning, he will return shortly”. Well, here we are, 35 years later, and there was never any sign of him.

“Trauma, loss of both parents. Never really concluded his relationship with his father. Maybe explore that relationship more? Mentioned something about ‘sahar’ when talking about his father’s disappearance, maybe that’s a place? Unsure.”

We finally reached the present day, and started discussing why he actually came to my office today. Why today, and not before? Why come at all? He had reached a point where he knew he would do something unreasonable if he didn’t have an outlet for his feelings. I say feelings because there was a whole pile of them: frustration, anger, disdain, envy, all jumping on each other and fighting to burst out of his chest the second an opening appeared. If that metaphor sounds painful, you might be able to start to understand what he was going through. In his position though, if he snapped or even if he showed signs of being about to snap, it could cost him more than just his job. He held pretty important information about the dynasty, their history, their military operations, and more. He couldn’t simply be “let go” like some servant who tended to the gardens.

“Talks about biding his time… (until what?) Having trouble communicating about his goals, his future, seems to be making things up. Need to dig deeper.”

The strangest thing about this discussion was that when he said he deserved a higher rank, and that he deserved more respect, I believed him. I couldn’t see a reason why not, to be honest. Despite that heaviness in the room, he had an air of perfectionism, confidence, and knowledge which made me think that his boss, “the Sultan”, could do well to be replaced. Without judgment I proceeded. He was obviously frustrated, his talents and his skills were absolutely not being appreciated, and it was as if you could feel his father’s soul hovering above his chair, weighing on him heavily, telling him that he’ll never amount to what his father was capable of.

“Motivation: proving to his father that he is better than everyone, even this ‘Sultan’. Drive for power, fame, glory. Doesn’t seem concerned with wealth, trying to fill this gaping hole in his life with power. Dangerous, but not diagnosable in any way. Yet.”

He was frustrated, but he said that this frustration would end when he found it. It. We talked about “it” for a long time, and he refused to tell me what it was.

“End of session 1. Next time: find out what “it” is… my guess is that it doesn’t exist. Power won’t help fill the hole in his life. How to proceed?”

Finally, we found it. Well, we found what I assume is some metaphor for it. “A diamond in the rough”. What did that mean? He was looking for it—looking for someone, rather. I tried asking him if this “diamond” was maybe a part of himself, but he dismissed that as quickly as he dismissed the questions about whether or not he ever truly loved his father. People had died trying to find whatever it was, and he needed this thing, this person, to feel fulfilled. At this point, I was a few hundred times more confused than when we started. There was clearly this narrative going on in his head, a narrative that was absurd and magical and wild and yet he talked about it as if it were fact, as if it were normal to believe that a cave in the middle of the desert held the answer to all of his problems.

What was in this cave? The more he talked, the deeper the story got, and the more tangled the web became. It became impossible for me to determine what was real and what was metaphor, what was suppression of trauma and what was fantastical imagination, what was diagnosably schizophrenic and what was simply a man who had seen more than I had, in a land very far from my own.

“Session 2: Talking about magic, crazy stories and worlds. Schizophrenia? Maybe schizophrenia, really not sure. Validate his experience then dig.”

As a therapist, you have to walk a fine line. You have to believe that the experience that this person is having is real. The experience, of course, is the experience that they are living, not necessarily the sequence of events they claim have happened to them. His feeling that this cave, whatever it was, would solve his problems, was very real. His frustration that he couldn’t find this “diamond in the rough” was equally real, and neither of these are things that any trained therapist would dismiss. But there was more there, so back into his imagination we dove.

There was a princess: a stubborn and strong-willed princess in jewels of jade who refused to play her role. There was the Sultan: a round, bird-brained man who was easier to influence than this man’s pet parrot. There were princes, and when he described the princes that came to court the princess it was as if you were transported into a world of vivid colours, music and dancing. You could lose yourself, it all seemed so real—and yet, here we were. A frustrated 45 year old with a lacklustre upbringing, striving for power and dominance like the rest of them. Whether it’s silicon valley or wherever he came from, the story seemed to be the same.

I knew what had to be done. It was a long shot, but it was worth a try.

“Clearly very imaginative. Use his metaphors, work on real practical solutions using his metaphors. Maybe suggest schizo treatment—not yet. Everything means something: the cave most importantly, the Sultan (if he even exists), the princess. The diamond. Yes, the diamond. Must be central to the story.”

Back in we went. We were nearing the end of the session, and I knew that we had one more session before I would recommend actual drugs for schizophrenia. We made a plan of action. Look deeper for this diamond in the rough. Look for something deep within, know your worth and believe in your ability to find this thing that you seek. Reflect, mull it over with your pet parrot if need be (he told me he did this often), and go to that cave once you think you’ve found it. Go to the cave, and get the treasure you seek. Avoid the distractions in the cave, and bring back the tool you need to reach fulfillment. You can be more, you can do more.

This, of course, was all going to take place in his head. He became so animated when describing the story that I felt it would be a good idea to let him run with it, and see where we were at when he came back next week. He didn’t seem at risk of actually hurting anyone, not this week at least.

“End of session 2. This is a crazy idea, hope he can reach these depths of his mind without it becoming dangerous. High risk high reward, maybe don’t tell supervisor about this one. Doesn’t seem physically dangerous or violent however, so might be safe. Next week, if delusions continue, consider medication.”

The notes I’ve been reading from, these don’t reflect the whole story. Over those two weeks, I stayed up at night reflecting on this strange man and his strange understanding of the world. This could have been a basic case, but there was something different happening here. During the days leading up to his third session, I made notes to cover the different things that might come up. I slept horribly the night before his session—I didn’t sleep much, and what little sleep I had involved dreams of caves and magic and treasures beyond my wildest imagination. In my dreams I flew across the sky on a magic carpet, and I saw all the things he had talked about in his stories. It all seemed too real, and I must get to the bottom of it.

“Session 3: …never showed up to therapy.”

The instructions for this exercise were to choose a folk tale or fairy tale that I know well, and pretend I’m a therapist treating one of the characters from it. Then, write a scene in which I discuss the character and their life and problems. Hopefully you figured out who it was!

This was the first time in a long time that I’ve written something purely creative, and it was really fun. Very much looking forward to more writing exercises!

Thoughts and Questions From C2 Conference

Hi friends!

Last week I was lucky enough to get a ticket to the C2 conference here in Montreal (Creativity + Commerce, as I found out it was called once I was already there). There were a lot of cool things to see and do, but I wanted to talk about some of the inspiring thoughts I got from the talks that I heard while I was there.

The first talk was about “leadership for the innovation culture”, though I would argue it was actually about “how to encourage creativity and innovation”. The talk was interactive and involved playing with play-doh (isn’t that what all professionals do?) and interacting with people you don’t know at your table. A few different exercises led to a few different lessons, and I made a few observations that were unrelated to the lessons:

Task 1: make 3 shapes, whatever shapes you want – Observation: people are very different! It fascinated me that some people made cubes and spheres while others made thin pieces that they shaped into triangles and squares laid flat on the table. I’m curious to know what influenced their decision and what experience led them to make these different shapes instinctively.

Task 2: take a model you made, then cut it in half and swap halves with the person next to you. Then, put the two pieces together in objectively the best way. Then, take your creation and their creation and together, discuss what would be the best way to put those together. – Observation: it’s interesting to see the different personalities come out when discussing what is the best way to do something artistic. Are they assertive? Do they care? How much effort to they put in before giving up? Do they feed off your energy or fight it?

Task 3: make a model of a still-life in front of you, in our case this was a cloth, a lemon and a rose. Then, shuffle seats and try to add to the person’s model as if you were them – Observation: some people really tried to make the model “better”, as in more true to the original. Others tried to understand how the person was seeing the model and what they were trying to achieve; what was important to them, was it texture? Form? Proportions?

This talk also made me realize that often the discussion around the exercise is more exciting than the exercise itself. We had a whole bunch of emergent little stories that popped up as we thought about what the other person was thinking while making their model, and as well talked about how we felt giving creative control of our work to people we don’t know.

Another fun, more concrete bit of learning, was that the top two skills employers are looking for in 2020 are creativity and fast learning when looking to hire (from a survey of a bunch of tech companies).

The second talk, which was an interview about AI and work and a million other things, was highlighted by talking live with David St-Jacques who is currently on the International Space Station. So freaking cool.

The next thought came from the discussions that I had with someone who runs a company that makes educational apps for doctors. To be honest the field doesn’t matter much, but he said that when he interviews, the most important things to millennials that he’s trying to hire are the social change / meaning behind the work and the work-life balance. This isn’t surprising to me, but I think it indicates a general change in the way we view work. If this is the way that people see work, this makes me think that the CEOs of the big companies in 20 years will be the socially responsible, environmentally responsible ones with a focus on work-life balance, and that we’ll see enjoyable work conditions become the norm. This led to thoughts about the future of work in general, but that could be at least a whole post by itself.

The last talk was about branding and was fascinating! It was given by Debbie Millman, author of Brand Thinking, and basically told the story of branding from when it began. This, according to her, was long before we had writing. From the first time when we had symbols that represented something, and people agreed on what they represented, we had branding. A couple of fun facts I learned included the fact that the Marlboro man came almost a hundred years after Marlboro made their first filtered cigarette which was marketed towards women and failed miserably. Another fun fact was about how cartoon characters were drawn on cereal boxes. Look at the image below to see the old depiction of them vs the new one. Other than the colour (and the fact that the first one has grey spots on it because I couldn’t find a good image), what do you notice is different?

Look at the eyes! You’ll notice that nowadays, and since several decades ago, characters on cereal boxes look down at children, instead of up at them. This is because a child looks up at an adult and sees the eyes in the way these cartoon eyes are drawn. This gives them semblance of authority, and makes them more relatable to the children.

The talk was full of great and interesting points, but the final one I’ll talk about here was about branding and our effect on it. Millman talked about the fact that in this day and age, we have the power to control and change brands more than we ever have before. It used to be the case that a company decided their image, and you either chose to buy into it or not. With the advent of social media, influencers, etc., we’re in a place where we can influence a brand by choosing what we want from it. If a certain style of person starts wearing a particular brand, and that spreads within their circles, the brand will pick up on this and start catering to them. This can be powerful when a group that associates with a brand decides that they care about things like environment and social responsibility… the brands have to listen to their audience, and will change their image (and practices, if you’re optimistic) to reflect this. This can also be dangerous, as we saw with Lacoste getting roped into white supremacist outfits a couple of years ago.

There was a ton more that I heard and thought at the conference, but I figured I’d share a couple of these here so that I can better remember them and so that people who read this are (hopefully) entertained. That’s all from me!

Reflections on ‘Sapiens’

It’s been a while since my last post! I’ll try to get on it more often. I guess that’s more for me than it is for you, but oh well. Now you know that I’d like to blog more often.

Today’s post is a reflection on the book Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari. This book came highly recommended by some friends, and I found it absolutely fascinating and eye-opening. It tells the story of humankind from the time before we were recognizably human up to today, hitting all the major points of development like the advent of writing, money, religion, etc. I wanted to talk about a couple of big points that made me think, and as usual, try to give people something to reflect on as opposed to summarize the book or teach what was learned.

The first major idea was the idea that Sapiens destroyed everything we’ve ever touched, ever. Since the time that we were tribes of chimp-like creatures, we’ve multiplied and obliterated everything in our path. Even before industrial deforestation, before the industrial revolution and the associated pollution, before global warming was a thing that we knew about, we were killing thousands of species and leaving desolation wherever we went. The giant mammals of Australia are a good example; these giant mammals had never seen predators like us, who managed to invade their territory by boats, and by the time they could learn that we were dangerous, we had already slaughtered them all. Bonus: I learned about the diprotodon, a cute giant wombat.

Another idea I found very intriguing was the idea of money, capitalism, communism, and humanism as “religions”. On religion, Harari says:

Religion can thus be defined as a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order.

We know that football is not a religion because it was clearly invented by humans and has a well-defined set of rules and rituals. According to Harari, a religion must “espouse a universal superhuman order” and insist on spreading this belief to everyone. Capitalism is an interesting example of this, because it seems to exist outside of individual humans and while it’s not associated with deities, it has a superhuman way of controlling the entire world’s behaviour. It may not spread in the form of missionaries like other religions, but it spreads through education, culture, and I would argue it’s a strong meme (in the sense of actual memetics, not internet humour). Something to ponder!

Lastly, the idea that agriculture was the beginning of the end for humankind is an idea that resonates very strongly with me. It’s something I had thought before, and he does a great job of explaining this without explicitly saying it in his book. I think a lot of the problems we have in society today and have had throughout the history of modern society have their roots in the fact that we changed from a nomadic hunting and gathering animal to a sedentary, farming one. The range, at least in my opinion, is huge. Materialism (especially exaggerated, damaging forms of it), depression from loneliness, bad eating habits, a culture where work takes up more than half your life, bad sleep habits, disease, the list goes on. I have hundreds more questions about this when thinking about how individualism came about, at least partly from sticking people in tiny houses that they “owned” and separating them from their tribe. So many questions!

But I won’t ask them all here, I’ll simply tell you that overall the read was fantastic and I highly recommend it to everyone. It also makes a good gift!

Tough Questions to Improve Your Leadership

A few weeks ago was the Game Developer’s Conference in San Francisco. GDC is where a bajillion (I think that’s the official figure) people talk about games for a week, and we get full of knowledge, tons of new contacts, inspired and tired. I was fortunate enough to give a talk at this conference called “Tough Questions To Improve Your Leadership”, which is available on the GDC Vault here, but unfortunately it’s not made available to people who didn’t get a GDC pass.

The view from the podium!

I wanted to write about this talk because not everyone was able to attend the talk, or went to GDC, or has access to the Vault. I gave out a handout during the talk to follow along with, and it listed the questions I brought up in my talk. Here they are, and you can download the sheet here if you wanted to actually fill it out yourself or with your team.

Along with these questions are some of the sources I used, or keywords to search that are related to the questions and could help you learn more.

Are you your own worst boss? How could you improve your own leadership by improving how you take care of yourself?
Seth Godin blog post – “Are You Your Own Worst Boss”

How do you make your employees or colleagues feel like they’re appreciated, heard and empowered?
For this question, I asked the audience to break up into groups and discuss this with the people around them, then write down those answers.

How much cognitive diversity does your team have? How can you promote that?Cognitive Diversity Harvard Business Review
Cognitive Diversity Forbes Article
Six Thinking Hats Exercise

How much psychological safety does your team have? How can you promote that?Psychological Safety Harvard Business Review
Psychological Safety Google Study
Cognitive Diversity and Psychological Safety HBR

Are you the rock? Are you the static, immovable force that doesn’t sway in the face of opposition? Do you show vulnerability? Can you be both? How do you see yourself on this topic?
The Power of Vulnerability – TED Talk by Brené Brown

Do you fall prey to the Sunk Cost Fallacy?
Daniel Kahneman – Thinking, Fast & Slow (book)
“How We Think About How We Think” – about Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky
Sunk Cost Fallacy, Loss Aversion, Prospect Theory

Do you ever do things because of your role and not because of your knowledge or expertise?

Do you ignore statistics because you think you’re “different”?
Justin Kruger and David Dunning – “Unskilled and Unaware of it”
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Daniel Kahneman – Superiority Bias & Planning Fallacy

Do you reward extroversion over introversion?
TED Talk by Susan Cain – The Power of Introverts

What project management tips could you learn from other studios?
For this question, I asked the audience to trade papers with the person next to them and write an idea on the other person’s sheet.

Do you fill the space in meetings? Try not doing it, see what happens.

Does your team know where do you want to be as an individual in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? Do you know where they want to be?

How adaptable is your organization? Have you ever answered “that’s just how we do it here” or worse, “that’s how we’ve always done it” when asked about something you do in your company?
Adaptability

How effectively is “work time” used at your studio? When are people at their most productive? How do you help or hinder this?

Do you know the quality of the tasks you’re doing, assigning, or being assigned? Do you know which tasks are “chores”?

Do you communicate your vision or your feelings properly to your team?

Have you considered the unknown unknowns? How do you plan for those?
Daniel Kahneman – Thinking, Fast & Slow (book)

Do you give advice that you shouldn’t give?
Source: literally everywhere, myself included.

The talk went really well, and I was really happy to see a full room. In fact, I was expecting it to be a smaller room and not full, and it was way bigger than expected! I’m not sure if people came because it was part of the Producer Bootcamp sessions or because of the content of the talk, but I’ll take it, whatever it was. It was also the first time I was speaking alone on such a big stage in the games industry. Last year I did a talk with the lovely Tanya Short, which you can see on the GDC Vault if you have access.

I’m just realizing now that every video ever posted or to be posted of me giving talks will show me in a t-shirt with an animal on it from our game, Ultimate Chicken Horse. I guess I should just make sure to rotate through them often enough…

I’m looking forward to more talks in the future, and I hope that the talk and/or this article was able to help people on their journey, be it in game development or any other industry.

Bonus! Some other stuff I drew inspiration from but didn’t use directly:
Seth Godin on the Tim Ferriss podcast
Alex Dorans – 5 Signs That You’re Compromising Your Approach to Quality
Brené Brown on the Chase Jarvis podcast

How Did My 20 Year Old Self Think My 30 Year Old Self Would Be?

A good friend of mine asked me this question today, on my 30th birthday. Still weird to write that I’m 30, especially when I often feel 12. But this question was an interesting one, and while I can’t know exactly what I was thinking, I have some idea of what I expected and didn’t expect. It’s a nice thought to ponder, and I encourage you to ponder it.

I didn’t expect to be working in the games industry, co-founding a company, or doing any work related to running a business at all. At 20, I would have been in cégep (the school we have here in Quebec between high school and university) and just switching out of music and into sciences. My goal at that point was to become an architect, to design work and living spaces that affected people on a daily basis, without their knowledge of it. The dream of creating a universe in which a person can explore and go about their daily life, the idea that each person who connects with this world I’ve created will have a different reaction to it… this was what I really liked about architecture. After that description, it shouldn’t surprise anyone (myself included) that I ended up in video games.

At 20, I thought that meditation and mindfulness and subjectivity of experience was too spiritual and hippie-dippie for me. I’m certainly not what you’d call a “spiritual” person now, and science is still the absolute only thing that I try to use to describe our experience in this world, but I think that I’m connected with myself in a way that I never could have been ten years ago. In fact, I think all of that has happened in the last year or so, thanks to some great people around me.

I would have thought that by now I would be married, and maybe thinking about children. I didn’t imagine some perfect suburban house somewhere with a backyard and a white picket fence—I always assumed I’d be living in a smaller space, closer to downtown. But I did picture myself married like my brother was a few years back. While we’re on the topic of homes and families, I didn’t picture myself owning a condo, but hey here we are. Here I am, I guess. Hopefully you’re not here in my condo right now.

Overall, I didn’t think that I would be in the spot that I’m in, and I’m extremely grateful for it. I also know now that if I were still my 20 year old self, I wouldn’t have the capacity to be grateful for it, because I didn’t unlock that part of life (that part of the brain?) yet. Besides being happy that I’ve made it 30 years on this earth without any major diseases, without any traumatic injuries, and without, well, dying (knock on wood), I’m also happy with how I’ve changed over the last ten years. I think if you asked my friends, I wouldn’t be noticeably different from how I was ten years ago, and that’s fine. Under the hood there’s more going on, and I’m glad for it.

How about you? What did ten-years-ago you think that you’d be like ten years in the future?

On Death and Immortality

At the gym today, I listened to a Very Bad Wizards podcast about the fear of death, and about what it would be like to live forever, and I thought I’d share some thoughts. It’s a podcast that I absolutely love, with philosopher Tamler Sommers and psychologist David Pizarro, although sometimes you’d think their educations were reversed.

I’m going to present a few hypothetical lifespan cases, and I’m curious to hear which one you would choose and why:

  • Live forever
  • Drink a magical elixir that keeps you alive every day, but if you decide not to drink it you die
  • Live 300 years, assuming you age proportional to your years, so a 299 year old would look like a 90 year old now
  • Live a normal lifespan and don’t know when you’re going to die, but assume around 75-90

In all of these hypothetical cases there’s a huge dependence on how much satisfaction you derive from living. If you don’t feel deeply satisfied with your life, and don’t believe you could become that way, then there’s no reason to think about immortality because it would be a (figurative) death sentence. This blog post isn’t meant to be about achieving satisfaction in life though, so I’ll leave you that and talk about immortality today. So, given the above options, which would you choose?

To me, living forever has some obvious problems. First of all, you would see family members and friends die time and time again. The people you become most attached to would leave, and the only way to not live in a miserable cycle of death would be to detach yourself from those people or detach yourself from the emotions that make you feel close to them. Eventually, you’d need to find fulfillment in other walks of life outside of personal connections to family and friends, and I could see that leading to a depressing and empty existence. You also run the risk of not needing to push yourself to do, well, anything. If you have forever to do it, why bother doing it now? Part of the satisfaction we get from accomplishments involves the timeliness of them, and I could see that slipping away as time becomes a non-issue for your immortal brain. Lastly (though there are probably a ton of others), you would simply get bored. I think that we try to pack in as much as possible in our short time on this earth, and that short time span drives us to become the best we can be given this restraint. Part of what fuels that exploration, curiosity and growth is the fact that we simply can’t get everything done in time, but we should certainly try.

How about drinking an elixir to keep you alive? Also what would it taste like? Would you go mad drinking the same flavour elixir every day? Is it purple? I imagine it’s purple. Anyway this option allows you to just end it when you get bored with seeing the same stuff over and over and over. Seems simple enough, and seems like a good choice. As they mention in the podcast, vampires will often retreat to their coffin for a couple hundred years just because they get bored of the scenery and want to wake up to a new world every once in a while. The hibernation option wasn’t presented here, but this choice would allow you to give up once you got what you needed from life. But the same problems about a lack of time pressure exist as in the infinite case, and I could easily see someone devolving into a boring blob of sensation-seeking meat with bigger things on the ever-retreating horizon, never actually reaching those things because they’ve got the time to do them later.

A 300 year life seems like it might not be so bad, if we ignore of course the economic, political and ecological issues that would come along with the first generation of 300-year-olds. For me, it would allow me time to learn more things, explore more of the world, learn to play cello (though I plan to do that in this short lifetime anyway!) and see more technology change throughout my life… sign me up! There are likely some issues I haven’t though of yet, so maybe just put me on the wait list for now.

The last option is the normal life-span life, which I guess we’re stuck with for now. Might as well enjoy it! …And still try to learn cello.

Here’s the link to the podcast, in case you want to explore in more depth. Just a disclaimer, in the first segment they remake classic thought experiments in philosophy using porn references and it’s absolutely hilarious.

How Does the Future of the Streamer-Developer Relationship Look?

In our sprint meeting this past week, the question of paying streamers to play our game on Twitch and YouTube came up. It led to a longer discussion and brought up some important questions that I’d like to bring up here, and without trying to reach a conclusion, make people aware of the things we have to consider for the future.

The conversation centered around the idea that we want some streamers to play our new update to our game Ultimate Chicken Horse a few days before the release, so that we can build some hype around the launch of the new content. How should we approach these streamers? Do we pay them directly? Do we go through something like the Twitch Bounty? Do we simply offer them the exclusive early content and hope they play it without compensation? There isn’t necessarily a clear answer for this question, so I’ll try to formulate some thoughts here.

The first thing to look at is the relationship between all of the parties. The ones involved here are:

  • game developers
  • streamers
  • Twitch, YouTube, etc. (we’ll call them platforms)
  • companies that pay for ads on those platforms (advertisers)
  • viewers of content (viewers)
  • purchasers of ad products (ad consumers)
  • people who buy and play the game (gamers)

So here’s what I think the current situation looks like, and the green arrow with the ‘?‘ is what my team discussed in our meeting.

If you look at the relationship between any two groups mentioned here, it should make sense; for example, platforms receive money from advertisers, and advertisers get visibility in exchange. Advertisers also pay streamers directly and get visibility directly through them. The cash comes back to them from viewers of the content which become ad consumers when they buy the products being advertised to them.

The relationship between the streamer and the developer is the more complicated one here. The developer creates games that the streamer can use to create content for their viewers, and content for the platforms to show to their viewers. In return, the game developers get visibility from the streamers (because of their viewers). The question we were discussing seems to be whether or not the creation of the game is enough to justify the visibility being given to the developer, or if there should be money involved that comes from the developer and not only from the advertisers (either directly or through the platform).

So if we look only at the money flow, it gets injected into the system by people who are engaging with the system, presumably funded by their jobs. The cash comes to the developers when the viewers are convinced to buy the game and become gamers. The cash goes to the advertisers when people become ad consumers. The cycle can continue because the developers, streamers, platforms, and advertisers are making money and the gamers and viewers are happily spending it.

I won’t claim to know what is best for this system or how we should go about ensuring that everyone is happy and well-paid. I’m glad the conversation came up in our meeting because I think it’s useful to write this kind of thing out, and it brings up some interesting questions:

  • Should developers be paying streamers directly for the exposure they give to the game?
  • What kind of precedent do we set for this interaction, in either case (developers paying streamers or not paying them)?
  • Who “owes” who more, between devs and streamers? That is, a huge influencer playing a small game is much more advantageous for the dev than the streamer, but a huge game being created and given for free to a tiny streamer is more advantageous to the streamer. Where’s the tipping point? Does it matter?
  • If developers are paying streamers, how do we decide the basis for the payment? Time? Viewers? Engagement? Actual game purchases?
  • How do we avoid viewers being turned off by constantly seeing what are considered “ads” (paid streams) as opposed to content that was chosen without bias by the streamer?
  • How do we open the communication between developers and streamers without going through platforms to discuss these things?
  • What do we think is fair to all parties (including advertisers and platforms)?
  • How much should the advertiser money (ad revenue) be going to the streamer as opposed to the platform?

Another thing that came up, for better or for worse, was the idea that indie game studios sometimes ride on the big marketing budgets of the AAA companies in terms of streamers getting compensated. If a streamer makes $30k for playing a new Ubisoft game, they won’t bother asking a small indie for $200 for the same amount of time in their game (for many reasons). If the decision is that developers should pay streamers for the visibility they provide, is it fair to ride on the back of these huge studios?

I realize that this post is asking a lot more questions than it’s answering, but that’s kind of the point. We don’t know what the future of this relationship will look like just yet, but it’s going to be us (developers) alongside streamers who will need to figure it out. We all want what’s best for all parties, and we want to be fair to all parties above all else.

What do you think about this?