LeapFrog and the great third party software saga

Since LeapFrog released the Leapster handheld gaming device in 2003, there has been a great deal of controversy over the lack of third party software on LeapFrog devices. Initially, there were absolutely no third party games on LeapFrog gaming systems. LeapFrog executives cited a number of marketing risks as the reason for this, much to the dismay of people like Ian Bogost at Water Cooler Games. Bogost and others continued to call for LeapFrog to allow third party software, and in 2005, they gave in. Sort of.

Scholastic became LeapFrog’s first third party developer, but, as Bogost writes in his article “LeapFrog Leapster Update: L-Max and Third Party Development”, Scholastic and LeapFrog had created less a third party software agreement and more a “co-marketing and co-distribution plan”. HP, Disney, and other companies entered into similar arrangements with LeapFrog, thus creating what they called a “developer network”. This isn’t exactly what those who called for third party LeapFrog software had in mind because it doesn’t allow for independent game developers to make games for the LeapFrog systems.

Now, I don’t claim to understand the intricacies of LeapFrog’s marketing department. I can’t say what would be good or bad for the company itself. What I can do is talk about where I think LeapFrog can benefit from independent third party software and where i think independent developers can benefit from developing for LeapFrog.

From independent developers, LeapFrog stands to gain new and innovative types of educational games. Independent developers could create games that educate children in new and interesting ways rather than sticking to safe, preexisting formulas. Independent developers could also create new characters and narratives that would be found exclusively on LeapFrog systems, and have the potential to give LeapFrog its very own Sonic or Mario- a character that defines the company. Of course, the most obvious benefit LeapFrog would gain from independent developers would be a massive increase in the number of games made for the system. This type of expansion could ultimately make LeapFrog’s systems into competitive consoles. The true potential of LeapFrog’s gaming systems hasn’t been fully explored, and in all likelihood, it won’t be until LeapFrog truly allows third party software.

Independent developers have a lot to gain from LeapFrog as well. From what I can tell, developing for systems like the Leapster seems relatively cheap and easy. A successful LeapFrog title could help get an independent company off the ground with very little investment on the front end. There is also something to be said for developing exclusively for LeapFrog. Take into consideration the idea of creating a Mario for LeapFrog. The company who develops this hypothetical character stands to gain a lot, not just from games featuring said character, but from the merchandising juggernaut that would inevitably follow. Bottom line, if LeapFrog allows third party software, it would open a whole new world to independent developers.

In my reading on this subject, I’ve found very little information published after 2006, so if anyone has heard any further developments about third party software and LeapFrog, please let me know. Ian Bogost’s articles about LeapFrog, which i cited earlier, can all be found at http://www.watercoolergames.org

Responsibility, the great price of freedom

Modern parents are strange creatures. They perceive threats to their children in every shadow and seek to protect them from imagined monsters that rival any their kids might conjure up. This bizarre need to shield kids from everything has taken dodgeball off of American playgrounds and made us wary of any toy with a Made in China sticker on it. Outside play is all but impossible when parents believe that if their child steps outside even for a moment, some crazed kidnapper will come snatch him up.

Undeniably, this absurd fear for the safety of our children comes from the maniacal spin that the media places on everything it reports. The media would have us believe that if a toddler plays in his front yard, he will be kidnapped. If a girl makes a MySpace page, she will be stalked and raped. If a boy gets his hands on Grand Theft Auto, he will shoot up his school with his father’s hunting rifle. Of course, when logic is applied, it is clear that responsible parenting could prevent all of these tragedies. The toddler won’t be kidnapped if his mom or dad watches him while he plays. The girl won’t gain a stalker-turned-rapist if her parents monitor her computer activity and control the amount of information she puts out on the internet. And the boy won’t become a murderer if his parents lock up their guns and address his apparent psychological issues. This all probably seems like common sense, and it is. But, where the media is concerned, logic does not apply. Logic doesn’t attract viewers. Logic doesn’t make for interesting and dramatic stories.

To compound the issue, we live in a society where people are encouraged not to accept responsibility. Parents would rather blame their kid’s potty mouth on television for its rampant cursing than blame themselves for teaching their children not to curse. They would rather blame their son’s pornography addiction on the internet’s lack of censorship than blame themselves for not monitoring his computer activity and teaching him not to indulge in such temptations. They would rather blame their child’s violent tendencies on those horrible violent video games than blame themselves for buying their kid M-rated games.

The fact of the matter is, the First Amendment, our most valuable freedom in this country, allows people to say “bitch” on TV. It allows Jenna Jameson to bare all on film. And it certainly allows game designers to make bloody games. It allows me to keep this blog and say whatever I want in it. It even allows the media to constantly shock the world with its dramatic horror stories.

The First Amendment assumes that people are smart enough and responsible enough to decide for themselves what they believe and don’t believe, what they read and don’t read, what they watch and don’t watch. It also assumes that parents are doing their jobs and raising their kids. It assumes that if little Johnny begs for Manhunt 2 this Christmas, and Mom and Dad don’t want him to play a violent M-rated game, they won’t buy it for him. No matter how much he whines, he’ll just have to settle for Ratchet and Clank or maybe a new bike.

People just don’t seem to realize that when they cry out for the government to regulate video games, movies, and music based on their content, they’re asking for their First Amendment, their most valuable freedom, to be taken from them. And for what reason? Because they don’t want to accept the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. Because they’d rather let the government control what we’re allowed to say than decide for themselves what media they allow in their homes.

The point of all this is that parents today believe that things like violent video games are a threat to their children. This may true to some extent. 8-year-olds have no business playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. However, all parents have to do to protect their kids from this threat is not buy them M-rated games. That’s it. What parents don’t realize is that they are the single biggest threat to the video game industry. Politicians would leave the issue of censoring video games alone entirely if their supporters didn’t cry out for them to do something about violence in games. There is nothing people in the video game industry can do to defend themselves from this threat except hope against hope that parents and politicians will stop their senseless war on video games and on the First Amendment itself.

Responsibility is the price of freedom. That is the bottom line, and it is something that people today have clearly lost sight of.

Let the blogging begin.

I’m told on good authority that it’s wise to keep a professional(ish) blog. So I’m doing just that. This is my first entry, coming to you directly from White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, where it’s a miracle we even have an internet connection.

White Sulphur is a good place though. The town is small and the people are friendly. It’s nice sometimes to come here and escape the reality of the rest of the big bad world. Despite West Virginia’s reputation for ugliness (we’ve all seen the pictures of strip mines and trailer parks), this area is quite lovely. I challenge anyone with a prejudice against West Virginia to come here and say anything different.

It’s fall, and that means college football is in the air. It’s been a strange and exciting college football season, and right now it looks like WVU stands a good chance to play in the national title, which would be incredible. I love football, both professional and college, which seems to be an uncommon trait among my contemporaries.

I guess that should bring me to the actual point of this blog, which will be (among other things I’m sure) game design. I intend to post as coherently as possible about whatever game-related things come to mind.  Ideally, that means I’ll be doing a lot of posting. Of course, all that will depend on how busy I get in the coming months.

Right now, It’s about 20 minutes til game time, so I need to bid the cyber world adieu for the time being. Go Mountaineers! Go Noles! Go Jags!