analysis

No Man’s Sky – Release The Coding

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

Last time I speculated on what would come next for No Man’s Sky. My take is that though it may have a good life (5-10 years) it’s going to end eventually. The comparative lack of interactivity is probably the killer.

My friend Serdar noted something that jumped the gun a bit in my analysis of the future – namely, that the studio should consider releasing the code. I was going that direction and wanted to expand on it.

So at some point I think NMS will end-of-life, and I’m leaning towards five years. But in that time – and at that time – Hello Games could do a few things.

First, I think they should release a planet generator that allows people to tweak various parameters – or randomize it. Serdar referred to the idea as a generator for Roger Dean Album Covers. I heartily concur. People might even pay a few bucks for it.

Secondly, the above planet generator? Pair it with some non-interactive exploration and music. After seeing what could be done on Panoramical, imagine what it’d be like to just jam to procedural music and scrolling alien landscapes?

Third, and foremost, at some point they should release all or most of the code of the game. Maybe license it, maybe free. Have the final legacy of No Man’s Sky (which will truly be foundational if it’s what they say it is), be the launching of even more children. It would doubly cement Hello Games legacy, and give innumerable people and groups and games a boost.

NMS could truly be world-changing. However there’s one more thing . . .

I think there will inevitably have to be a No Man’s Sky Next. No Man’s Sky-er. The Noer and the Manner Skye. Whatever.

Hello Games is going to learn an enormous amount of lessons from this. They will learn more about their code. They will learn more about players. They will release patches and updates and experience the limits of what their engine can do. They will, in short, be equipped to create a sequel that would outstrip what the original could do.

So, with NMS having a probable limited lifespan, my thoughts are this:

  1. Begin research for No Man’s Sky Next immediately.
  2. After a year or two release the “Roger Deanifier.” It’d also probably give any cooperative coders and 365 days of static a boost yes, I want them to team up with the guy behind Panormalical, OK?
  3. 3) As things calm down, begin work on No Man’s Sky Next – using the current NMS as a bit of a testbed.
  4. 4) When ready to release No Man’s Sky Next, drop the code of the original game on the internet.

Would releasing the code empower competitors? Doubtlessly, but you can be pretty sure they have and will have plenty. Releasing the code just cements the possibility of it.

And of course if done right, NMS Next would live on far longer than the first, becoming a doubtlessly deserved fixture.

– Steve

No Man’s Sky – What’s Next?

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

As noted due to my interest with No Man’s Sky I’m blogging about it as it fits my interests in computers, media, and of course procedural generation!

I’m looking forward to No Man’s Sky. I expect it to be a hit. I expect it to be huge. I’ve also wondered that after that “huge hitness” what’s next for i?

This is worth asking because if NMS is a hit, what happens afterwards may be a model for other, similar properties. NMS’ broad scope and procedural content make it stand out – but as there’s many procedural games with broad scope out there and/or coming.

Or in short, I assume what happens to NMS may provide a template for future games and concurrent ones.  I want to try and guess now.

Here’s a few things I see:

* GO LONG TERM: It sounds like NMS is going to be around for awhile, and with a galaxy to explore there’s certainly many places to go. We’ve seen long-term games with broad content have endurance (Minecraft, Terraria) and others with similar ambitions (Starbound). NMS is something I can see people playing obsessively, though . . .
* NEEDS MORE: Even hough I’m jazzed for it, I’m not sure the current content set would keep me playing regularly beyond 3-6 months. I think NMS will need to add more content and features over time to maintain interest, else it’ll be for dedicated explorers (which may be the goal).  Dedicated explorers would probably play this for 1-3 years.
* MAY ENTER PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS: NMS has been on Colbert, been in the news, it’s got the kind of buzz that could make it become “A thing” like Minecraft – something everyone hears about and many try. If successful, it will inspire others to try the same thing (much as Minecraft did), and may give it a longer life.  That will also inspire imitators (I imagine at some point procedural games will become comparatively common).  That gives it more life.
* WILL LIKELY GO TO ALL PLATFORMS: If NMS is the big hit that I suspect it is, I think there will be an obvious effort to get it to other platforms (I’m at least sure Microsoft will want it on X-Box, but I think the X_box will become a sealed PC next iteration so it might not be an issue). There’s no reason not to extend it, and I imagine there’s demand.  (The fact Starbound is on X-Box intrigues me)
* HOW FAR CAN IT GO? The limit of NMS is that its own limits work against it. Hard/impossible to find people. No/little building or influence. As big a booster as I am I’m not sure how far NMS will go before it seems that there’s not as much interest. People do like interaction and exploring and pimping out equipment isn’t like building castles.  I also wonder how much they can add on to a game with so much procedurally balanced content.

My prediction on NMS is that it’s got up to 5 years of life in it, but I can’t see it bearing large expansions.

However, an interesting question is how it could not be expanded on, but retrofitted.  With all that code and all that work, it might be better if Hello Games focused on No Man’s Sky II and made it truly long-term.

– Steve

The Trumping Ground

by

With Campaign 2016 proceeding with all the dignity of a parade of Chihuahua’s on meth, I’d like to chime in with a theory of what may happen to Trump and his supporters in 2016. It’s one that, the more I examine it, the more possible it seems, though that could be me deluding myself.

I think the Republican elites want to eject Trump and his followers from the party, and is willing to take the hit for the long-term gain. In short, the Republicans leadership is ready to jettison at least some of the angry white male base they’ve cultivated. These people (and Trump) will doubtlessly form a third party or pseudo-third party – think of it as a Dumping ground (or Trumping ground) for people too troublesome to keep in the party anymore.

I think that the Republican elites can see the value.

The Typical Trump Voter

OK we know the drill. Trump scores unusually well with the older, white, less-educated set that skews male. We’ve heard about it for awhile, and it’s clear that this demographic also tends to be pretty damn racist, which isn’t a recipe for long-term success in our diverse country. These are oft the people targeted by the Southern Strategy.

I’d also add that, to judge by what I see of Trump’s support, it’s also seriously into conspiracy theories. This isn’t surprising giving Trump’s birther past, but also not surprising as the Republicans and Fox News (but I repeat myself) have been pushing conspiracy theories for ages. However in time it seems that the truly riled up Republican Base has gone pretty far off the plan – and they’re more and more likely to get information from Alex Jones and his like, and will hate Megan Kelly on command.

This isn’t a demographic you can predict or control, and I imagine there’s a little buyer’s remorse among the Republican elite. I don’t think they actually like these people

What got me thinking that the Republicans may jettison them is the National Review article by Kevin Williamson (link to commentary as I’m not fond of the National Review plus it has limited access)   that pretty much says that the uneducated white voters really need to get their crap together or their communities can die off. If someone in the National Review is saying this, then you know others are thinking it, the National Review just has a little less internal monologue.  I suppose I have to give Williamson points for consistency.

And when there’s open talk of derailing Trump, its pretty obvious members of the party don’t want to deal with these folks anyway.

So Let’s Game This Out

So if Republicans stick with the Trump contingent (probably a good 1/4 to 1/3 their numbers) and let them drive the election, the Republican party ends up enabling a voting bloc they don’t like and is easily manipulated (by people not them). They get a president who, let’s be honest here, would be a disaster (as the Economist notes). They drive more people to theDemocrats (if only out of fear) and finally brand themselves as being everything that . . . a lot of people thought they were anyway.

Racist, promoting ignorance, conspiracy-theory crazed, potentially violent, bigoted. If Trump gets the nomination, Republicans will suffer a branding problem that may be the most epic failure in American political history.  All for people that the elites and some of the general public doesn’t like.

Now roll this effect not just into the presidency (where a Clinton triumph would be a refutation of some 20 years of hating her), but the downstream races. The senate is within grasp of the Democrats, and the House might be conceivable (if only by next election). Trump would also cement a hideous image of the Republicans for many people, including young ones who may be imprinted for life.

The elite are left with a humiliated rump party.  Sure they have many states and governorships, but that may be next (and as I’ll note they have their own problem).

So why not jettison these voters now – if not directly, by doing everything to get Trump to leave and having them follow.

What The Gain Is

What’s in it for the Republicans?

A Republican party seemingly jettisoning the above baggage would be a different animal entirely. Less beholden to the various – well, let’s be honest – bigots – they enabled, they’d have room to move. A pro-business, pseudo-libertarian approach, nearly neoliberal, would go over well in many quarters. A direct rejection of Trump and a few reformations of policy would probably draw in voters.

Secondly, the Republicans get to run against the Trumping Ground rejects. They can do the whole “we refute these people, oh how did they get there routine.” Though we may all remember Willie Horton and the Southern Strategy and the like, this approach will gain ground as they will be saying the right things. They will be rejecting the Trump contingent directly, that will get at least some to trust them.

It’s hard to argue that someone is a bigot when they’r reject bigots.  Hell after all this the elites may mean it.

It may head off problems on some downstream races, and though they’d almost see two Clinton administrations, the Republicans could re-position themselves  for 2024. This is the party that got ahold of a lot of state governorships so they are pretty good at organizing (though with Louisiana and Kansas falling apart, that may be a problem that also bites them Trump-like).

Considering the choices, and the complete lack of affection, the Trumping Ground strategy may be the best bet for the Republicans. And I figure the party has enough smart people to see that.

What Of The Democrats?

Here’s the funny thing, the Democrats would love seeing the Republicans dump Trump and company as well.

First, it’d shatter the Republican party, handing them a victory for 2016, probably 2018, and maybe 2020.

Secondly, as this would confirm all the things people have said about the Republican party, there’d be the satisfaction of seeing it.

Third, they’d also be able to run against the Trumping Ground. It’d be a contest to see which party can run more against the cast-offs.

Of course that means the Democrats may have to split their efforts – even more if a Republican split emboldens the further left. But I imagine the gains are too much to even worry.

Everyone wins.  Except . . .

But What About Them?

But what happens to the people dumped into the Trumping Ground?

I’m not sure.

Look, the Republican leadership doesn’t like them. The democrats don’t like them and it’s personal considering the racial and bigotry issues.

Some of the folks that’d be dumped. They live in shattered communities, they’re behind, it’s hard not to feel empathy . .. but sympathy is a bit hard to come by when they supported Trump.

I imagine they’d end up having a kind of angry, chaotic far-right party. Some would clearly end up violent, but the party that’d form would be the kind constantly turning people off – along with members probably getting arrested. It’s likely some would go for outright violent, racist groups and get involved inc criminal activity, lashing out.

I don’t see a good end unless someone prone to social help – namely the Democrats – helps them deliberately or as part of a larger process of social reform. I don’t know what may come or if it will.

They really won’t have any place.

So That’s The Game

So that’s something I see more probably – originally I’d have given this 30% chance of happening. Now I’m to 50%. We’re going to see the Republican party reject Trump, and hope to push him and his constituents out, with them likely to form a third party. If Trump gets the nomination, they’ll blame him for the inevitable failure and do the same.

If Trump quits then they’re gone, shattered to the winds. If he stays around or has an inheritor, then there would be a third party. Certainly various media interests, writers, far-right politicians and so forth, would find them fertile ground,t his new party.  It might not be successful, but it’d be profitable for the grifters it’d attract.

But t’s not a party that could govern. T’d be a part of anger. It’d almost certainly be a party attracting and cultivating violent elements. They’d be more easily exploited.

In the end, it doesn’t end well. Maybe they’d break, fall apart, enough members would be involved in violent activities to get law enforcement involved, don’t know. But it doesn’t end well. end well.

Especially for the people left in the Trumping Ground.

  • Steve