I’ve just finished Will Wright’s Masterclass course about game design. I almost didn’t look at it because I’m not working on games. Thankfully, I was still interested enough to take a look, and I recommend it to anyone who’s designing systems of any kind. https://www.masterclass.com/classes/will-wright-teaches-game-design-and-theory Will Wright is known for games like Sim City, The Sims, and Spore — all very complex open-ended simulations. The knowledge he shares about designing these simulations are super valuable, not just for games. It’s the most compelling course about how to design systems I am aware of. Now, Masterclass has a pretty high paywall, so I was looking for material on the web from him that comes close, and I found this YouTube video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CdgQyq3hEPo It’s much older from 2003 but clearly a lot of his ideas from then made it into the Masterclass. Don’t skip the Q&A, lots of interesting stuff in there too. Think of his Masterclass as a longer, refined, more detailed course with exceptional production quality. If this sounds like an ad, it probably is. I’m not affiliated with them at all and don’t get anything from promoting them. I’m just deeply impressed with the quality (which also applies to other classes I’ve watched). If you end up watching it, please let me know what you think.

Thanks, I just saw that the other day and was wondering about it.

also highly recommend for anyone who wants to learn more about using game design to help them rethink interactive applications

I'm very happy that GDC are putting all their talks up on YouTube now.

It does make me wonder, what's the point of having these talks at a conference for $2000 vs just someone organizing putting the talks directly online I'm not saying there is no point in the conference itself. I go and meet people and friends and I will be at GDC this year. But, about 4 years ago I stopped going to talks because 3 out of 4 are horrible and they will all be online where I can more easily put them on 1.5x speed, switch to something else if they suck, and re-reference and share them if they're great. Which brings up the question, why have the talks at a conferiecne in a room with 50 to 300 people in the first place vs just direct to youtube with maybe some website "call for youtube talks on topic X by date Y" Is this something left over from pre-youtube days or is there something unique about sitting in front of a lecturer. IIRC Khan Academy was founded on the idea that lectures (students sitting at a desk taking notes while the teacher talks) is an outdated concept. They argued that those lectures should just be online where students can view/rewind/pause/etc and that time with the teacher should be for asking questions on the material, getting guidence and help. Maybe that's true or maybe it's not but if it is true then it would seem like conference lectures are mostly the same.

@gman Seems like most big conferences have at least two audiences: the already well-connected community, who ignore the talks and it’s basically just a big family gathering for them. But then there are also those who come for the first time, not as well connected (yet), perhaps wanting to become part of that community of regulars. For those these talks are often a good place to go to make those new connections — they give you lots of material to talk about in the breaks with the other strangers there. A good collection of talks are also an instrument to convince people to come there at all — some people need a reason for themselves to overcome inertia of just staying home (especially if they aren’t well connected yet) and for their companies to pay for it because of the “valuable knowledge sharing in the talks track”. Some conferences also have a lot of a third type of audience: the industry representatives who seldom have something substantial to contribute and are basically just there to find customers and sell you stuff. They usually serve the function of paying for most of it and in exchange they are allowed to be annoying. Sort of like physical ad banners plastered all over the valuable content. ;-) I’ve been to GDC several times, was involved in organizing WWDC and Tech Talks for Apple, and I’ve been experimenting in the small with new event formats (mostly retreats and “learning sprints”) for those who don’t care about talks and find that an antiquated concept — it was surprising to learn how important these lectures still are, for all the wrong reasons.

Ok but funny enough there are often overflow rooms where you watch the talk on a video, and their are event remote viewing rooms (Google I/O has those) where people watch on a video at a remote location. Might as well organize meetups to watch the youtube videos together by that example. I'm not saying there is no value in a live talk but something has changed. The fact that you can give one talk, put it on youtube and most of the planet can watch. Many people have argued we don't need trade shows like E3 anymore. They're left over from the 70s and 80s before we could just post a video/webpage online to get the word out about some new product. Some of the shows are dying. Whether they're dying because there's no more market or dying because online info replaces the need I don't know. I think similar things can be said for conference talks. In fact if you want to push for change you'd label these talks as elitist events only for people of privledge given that they basically shut out anyone who doesn't have the money for the conference nor the money to travel there 😛 Change the conference to round tables or developer hours. Make each room have experts for differnet tech/apis and people can come ask questions or something as another way to set a topic.

I’m not a big “sportsball” person, but I feel there’s also a social dynamic going on here similar to big sports events — it’s much more interesting to be there or to see it live. So there’s the personal connection and community bit, something about that it’s an event and you’re there as it happens, and then there’s value in content or services offered there. All clumped together in these event formats. It seems a natural tendency for us tech people to think about how this all can be optimized by breaking it into components and delivering the components on separate channels because that’s so much more efficient. In the end we’re still social beings and sometimes we just like to do inefficient, irrational stuff and prefer our benefits clumped together in events like that.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing there is a point to meeting up. That doesnt' change the fact that the world of today is different than the world of say the 1980. Both had conferences. The format hasn't responded to that change. Again the Khan Academy example https://www.wired.com/2017/05/the-mechanical-universe/ If the college lecture is dead then it may only be matter of time before the conference lecture is also dead for similar reasons. The perceived benefit may be based on clinging to the past and tradtion not on current reality. Possibly the conference should morph into a different format with more emphasis on talking person to person and less on sitting it chairs listening to a lecture.

Hey, @gman, sorry if it comes across as arguing. I’m just trying to refine my understanding of the situation with events and share what I thought might be a useful perspective. I didn’t really think one of us is arguing for and the other against something, and that we’re just talking about different aspects. I was looking more at the “Why?” and you seem to be more about the “Now What?” — both equally interesting questions, I think. Totally agree with your assessment of what’s wrong with the lecture format and wish we find something better. I even tried several times and came up with something that seems to work for those who went through the experience, but misses all the necessary ingredients to get people to try it in the first place (those who did were practically all friends who just went with “oh, sure, I’ll come to your event because I trust you to do something interesting”). If we had offered classic lectures and perhaps one or two famous speakers, it would’ve been much easier to convince other people to come (and perhaps even spend money on it). Even though we ultimately all seem to agree that that’s not a good reason (anymore). That’s what’s puzzling me.