作者：Jared Lorince

Damion Schubert是Bioware《Star Wars: The Old Republic》的首席机制设计师，此前曾发表题为“Double coding: Making Online Games for Both the Casual and the Hardcore”的讲话。演讲中他强调摒除休闲-硬核二分法的重要性，称游戏设计师最好将玩家划分为各种不同投入程度的用户。我们随后有幸在演讲后同其 交谈，下面是谈话内容。

Damion Schubert from torwars.com

Jared Lorince（MotivatePlay）：首先，你能否详述自己关于休闲-硬核二分法的看法？

Damion Schubert：此观点将玩家划分得过于笼统，通常玩家不是着迷于游戏，而是着迷于某个类型的游戏，他们甚至不是着迷于某类游戏，而是沉浸于某款特定的游戏。关于不同玩家会进行不同活动的表述，我所要表达的是，游戏的活跃玩家通常只是着迷于游戏的某些活动。在MMO游戏中，玩家倾向变成硬核突击者或硬核PvP玩家，或是硬核角色扮演玩家。例如，有些硬核《魔兽世界》玩家在现实生活中从未进行过任何突袭活动。在他们看来，所谓的硬核玩家就是登陆然后在Azeroth世界中进行真正的角色扮演。这很好，很棒，这就是他们在游戏中的情感投入方式。在Facebook游戏中，我们同样会看到硬核装饰者，会出现Raph形容的硬核玩家以及PvP玩家，还有就是真正互相开战的玩家。这些玩家都在游戏中投入许多时间、金钱和精力，以自己的方式体验游戏。就目前来说设计师知晓这些群体属于特定功能设置或体验风格定义范围的硬核玩家就已足够，但商业人士最终真正关心的是实际投入层级。就Facebook玩家来说，这就是指有多少玩家在游戏中掏钱。这就是他们所关心的实际投入程度。就MMO玩家来说，这就是指玩家在维持订阅方面的投入程度。这属于基本要素，基于商业角度的思维方式。但最终我们需要打破角色扮演玩家、PVP玩家和突击者的界限，将他们融为一体，然后说：“这适用这些人，不适用那些人，这些人依然保持其投入程度。”但最终这都归结到相同的参数。这是否行得通？

这有它的道理，但我觉得其中存在的唯一问题是你是基于存在众多子游戏的角度讨论游戏。你可以进行突袭，你可以进行各种不同操作，要基于各种不同玩家风格维持投入程度迫使你需要优化所有这些游戏模式。所以你最终在众多游戏中传播你的设计工作，而非瞄准单一游戏。

就MMO游戏来说，从某种程度看，我们需要这么做，因为我们的商业模式都涉及维持长久合作关系。你在MMO游戏中常看到的情况是玩家厌倦于PVP内容，他们想要进行其他操作。但他们依然在游戏中高度投入，你希望他们能够尝试其他的选择。在单人模式的游戏中，若你决定完全放弃某款游戏，工作室丝毫不会在意。他们已将60美元收入囊中，他们只是希望能够向你再次出售自己的下款作品，因为你在首轮体验中确实颇钟情于《Arkham Asylum》。在我们的游戏中，或是在Facebook游戏中，开发者非常希望游戏存在某些玩家关心的元素，这样玩家就会持续回访，这就是这类游戏的架构方式。我们希望你在游戏中保持投入。我们不希望你在某载体中碰壁，然后说：“好吧，我结束了”，所以我们通常植入若干选择路线，各种机械式任务或各种操作，供玩家体验。

但这里还存在宽度和广度的问题。显然，你们并不想将所有元素纳入其中，但你们也不想以类似于突袭游戏的角度切入。

我曾在自己的博客上谈到广度和深度。若就《无尽的任务》&《Ultima Online》来说，《Ultima Online》是款涉猎广泛的游戏。遗憾的是，游戏所具有的广度只是乎系列粗糙的机械式任务，这些机械式任务无法很好地进行互动，而《无尽的任务》则包含一场战斗游戏及其他相对较浅显的游戏内容，但所有游戏都以一定方式支撑战斗内容。虽然这些内容相比战斗游戏略显肤浅，但他们依然比UO中的内容成熟，因为这类内容比较少，能够真正瞄准5-6个事件，而不是像UO那样呈现20个操作内容。所以游戏能够更充分地呈现内容，提供完整的休闲-硬核弧线，和UO不同，游戏能够呈现2-3种层次。另一例子是《自由国度》&《Wizard 101》，《自由国度》和UO教相似（游戏邦注：这非常讽刺，因为《自由国度》是索尼的作品），这款游戏包含20个迷你游戏，专门针对儿童，所以应该非常简单。游戏理念是玩家将体验男性游戏，其会在1.5天内获胜，这之后就再没有任何男性游戏内容。玩家就自己喜欢的内容掏钱，然后最终玩完这些内容，开发者希望玩家转投其他内容，但这显然会得到这样的回应：“不，我喜欢男性游戏”。而《Wizard 101》则更像是张收藏卡，更像是Harry Potter结合《吃豆人》模式的战斗游戏。游戏包含其他机制，但从根本来说游戏内容就是这些。游戏也包含若干机械式任务，但具有若干同时迎合休闲和硬核玩家的内容，游戏有其核心内容，其他内容的运作意义是“当你感到乏味或厌倦游戏时能够体验的内容。你在休息时会进行的内容。”

wizard101 from fileplanet.com

关于存在不同投资上限的玩家，你有什么看法。我知道你试图摆脱此观念——“令我们的商业模式基于此1%的鲸鱼用户”，或者至少在我看来你们希望摆脱这点。但这似乎依然非常重要，因为有些开发者似乎只关注一定投入水平的用户。将他们带入此水平非常困难。其困难之处在于开发者试图基于那些易受投资上限影响的群体设计游戏。

我觉得一个思考方式就是基于我的定义：阶梯有台阶，是吧？在一般情况下，你知道自己作品的台阶在何处。也许有5个，也许有12个。我要举的例子是Facebook游戏：“我玩过这类游戏一次”，“我每天都登陆”，“我投入自己的第一笔资金”，“我每月花费10美元”，“我每月花费1000美元”。你所希望做的事情就是付出时间、精力和努力，提高阶梯中的每个台阶。若你在Facebook有600万用户，那么这些用户不可能每月都投资1000美元。但若你能够让这些用户更上一层台阶，即便你没有最终取得成功，你依然取得很大进步。而我在许多Facebook游戏中最常看到的是，它们的用户大多是单一的休闲玩家，开发者想尽办法让玩家在其中投入资金，但他们无法巧妙地逐步提高投入的资金。

这部分是因为开发者存在这样的心态：玩家非此即彼，他们无需填补二者（游戏邦注：即休闲-硬核）间的缺口。

我很难对此进行评价，因为我没有看到参数，我知道他们收集许多参数。

这些开发者有获得营收，这显然是行得通的。

他们有收获一定营收。若真的进行计算你会发现，他们获得的收益确实比较可观。但我依然更着迷于《魔兽世界》的商业模式。同样，若你服务600万用户，其中有1%用户付费，假设每月投入10美元，那么其实还是《魔兽世界》模式更胜一筹——每月向用户收取10美元。

你唯一可以辩解的是，这依然处在初级阶段。Facebook游戏非常新颖，它们会越变越好。这是Playdom在演讲中表达的看法。

目前有很多事情处在发展变化中。首先就是游戏越来越复杂。我此前曾在某谈话中听到有人不满硬核游戏设计师排斥社交游戏，或Facebook游戏。但我的批评言论被大家忽略，那就是我对于现今的Facebook游戏丝毫不感兴趣。我觉得此领域的很多作品都不尽人意；我不希望此风气影响到整个游戏行业，令所有作品都变成我们不希望体验的内容。我觉得这是退缩和沮丧的诞生地点。现在的问题是，未来是否有人会制作出你我都愿意体验的Facebook游戏。我偏好《星际争霸》、《魔兽世界》以及棋盘游戏，如今类似的Facebook游戏尚不存在。问题是当前经济角度考量超越这些。只要休闲领域存在更有利可图的市场，那么Zynga、EA之类的主流公司就会纷纷朝此靠拢。但我觉得多数玩家都愿意掏现金购买游戏。所以我依然希望有人会在Facebook平台采用《万智牌》商业模式或《战锤》模式，这里的用户更愿意在游戏中投资，因为就和我们愿意花60美元购买掌机游戏一样，他们也非常愿意在高质量的玩法中掏钱。

你觉得这当前是否能够实现？

我不知道，但我觉得这是Facebook和社交游戏存在的退缩问题的来源。我有听说有些工作室试图朝此方向发展。我觉得其中的部分问题在于，从某种程度看，Facebook游戏被现今的市场污名化。

所以吸引硬核玩家很困难？

是的。如今Facebook是妈妈和女友玩游戏的地方。所以基于此平台的游戏就得画面唯美，吸引眼球。话虽如此，我相信自己的设计师同伴，我觉得有人能够做到。有款名为《Warstorm》的游戏（游戏邦注：由Austin工作室完成）就使得我在游戏中掏钱。这是款魔法型游戏，游戏中玩家需要创建小型牌组。玩家在体验中毫无控制权。玩家需要创建自己的军队，这就是系列牌组，玩家能够同离线好友一起体验，所以游戏支持异步体验。游戏规定出牌顺序，玩家需要按规则操作，所以其中涉及某些运气元素，有些玩家会得到适合的牌组，游戏颇具硬核味道，颇有“我的确想要此升压机牌组”的味道。这是非常有趣而巧妙的设计，这就是我所想要看到的情况，因此我觉得市场会朝此方向发展。后来Zynga将游戏收购，暂停其运作，他们觉得作品不符合大众市场需求。所以谁知道未来会是怎样。

我们寄予社交游戏市场的唯一希望是，市场会逐渐涌现众多垃圾和克隆作品。最低标准将开始有所提升，因为用户非常习惯于这些游戏，他们开始期待一定程度的复杂性，内容得到更深入的优化。也许这需要花费一定的时间，但若最低标准持续提高，那么最终就有望吸引更多硬核玩家。

marshall frontierville from squidoo.com

我觉得现今Facebook游戏市场的有趣之处在于，它是6年前掌机领域的缩影。掌机玩家当时处于退缩之中。每款游戏几乎都大同小异。各款游戏或属于克隆作品，或属于续集内容。开发成本极速飞涨，因为大家都采用相同设计，唯一的竞争方式就是将作品变得更新颖、更耀眼。若开发者争相制作更吸引眼球的内容，那么就需要聘请更多美工制作游戏。早在Facebook游戏刚诞生时我们就能够发现这点。开发者能够在6礼拜里就制作出《黑手党战争》或《吸血鬼战争》之类的游戏。Raph通过既有技术制作出《My Vineyard》。他决定试着制作Facebook游戏，他称整个过程耗费1周时间，主要都围绕美工工作。我的意思是说，这就是个网站。它从数据库中读出数据，然后表示，“在这里，你顺利下一棵树。”这不是复杂科学。但从那以后标准就得到提高。我的意思是《Frontierville》就是这类游戏的分水岭。这不是我的游戏类型，但它代表庞大用户群，多数内容都有引入故事、高质量的图像及需要掏钱的道具。所以现在《冒险世界》这类的作品都旨在满足此标准，所以如今的投入标准也开始提高。有趣之处在于这几乎体现在所有平台。早期的iPhone游戏价格低、有趣但有些蹩脚，这些作品的标准如今开始提高。然后是DS游戏。我还记我的好友曾都这么做：“被迫制作这些成本数百万美元的掌机游戏。我会继续瞄准DS平台，其项目规模很小，成本低，你能够快速做出反应。”然后此市场逐步变得饱和，开发成本也开始出现明显提高。Facebook是个平台，Facebook和DS一样属于开发平台。无论Facebook是否引入更好的版本，或者出现比Facebook更胜一筹的新生平台，我不知道，未来也许大家会逐步希望体验到比Flash更好的游戏模式。

但Flash如今越来越好。

Flash确实越来越好，但我觉得问题的关键是Facebook游戏大多都是策略性点击游戏。Flash目前尚未引入此类元素。这种类型囊括的内容过多，所以当你拥有完整城市或葡萄园时，游戏就会变得非常拖沓。每次玩这类游戏，我都会想要转投《海岛大亨》或其他3D显卡的策略游戏，因为从中我就不会感受到这样的沮丧感。未来定有人能够解决此问题，我觉得未来这将出现很大变革。

我和若干Adobe成员交流过，他们表示新API能够采用你们的便携GPU，所以相比之前的Flash，它们优于3D图像。

我希望会是这样。这也是为什么我觉得Facebook变革如此乏味的部分原因。相比我玩过的其他游戏，此进程显得格外缓慢。

游戏邦注：原文发布于2011年10月20日，文章叙述以当时为背景。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

GDC Online – A conversation with Damion Schubert

by Jared Lorince

Damion Schubert, Principle Lead Systems Designer of Bioware’s upcoming Star Wars: The Old Republic, gave a great talk Tuesday titled “Double coding: Making Online Games for Both the Casual and the Hardcore”. In it he stressed the importance of moving beyond the simple casual-hardcore dichotomy of gamers, arguing that it’s better for game designers to instead see all players as occupying various points along a single continuum of investment in a game. I had the chance to chat with him after the presentation, and this is what he had to say:

Jared Lorince (MotivatePlay): So could you start by elaborating your take on the casual-hardcore dichotomy among gamers?

Damion Schubert: So pretty much the idea is that you think of these blocks of people as too monolithic and that really people are not hardcore about games, they’re hardcore about a genre And they’re not just hardcore about a genre, they actually tend to be more hardcore towards a [particular] game. What I was getting at in the last slide where I had the different layers, the different activities players can do, is that very frequently players are actually hardcore towards some activity in the game. In MMOs players tend to be either hardcore raiders or hardcore pvp (player vs. player)-ers, or hardcore roleplayers. There are people who are hardcore World of Warcraft players, for example, who have never raided a day in their lives. To them, being hardcore is about logging in and actually roleplaying in the world of Azeroth. And that’s fine, that’s cool, and that’s how they’re emotionally invested in the game. And in Facebook games you similarly have people who are hardcore decorators and you have hardcore, as Raph [koster, of Playdom] was describing, pvp-ers, people who actually want to go to war with each other. And both these people invest lots of time and money and effort into actually playing the game their way. Now, understanding that people are hardcore in these these little individual specturms that are defined by individual feature sets or play styles inside your game is fine, but at the end of the day what out business guys care about is some kind of actual investment hierarchy. For Facebook guys it’s how many people are spending money in our game. That’s the actual investment hierarchy that they care about. For MMO players it’s how invested people are in actually maintaing their subscription. It’s a very nuts and bolts, business-oriented way of thinking about it, but ultimately we have to collapse the roleplayers the PVP-ers and the raiders into one category for us to be able to say. “ok it’s working for these people, its not working for these other people. These people are maintaining their investment”. But ultimately it all comes down to the same metric. Does that make sense?

JL: It does but I think the only problem I see with it is that you’re talking, in a way, about games (MMOs) where you essentially have many games within a game. You can do raiding, you can do all these differnet things, and to maintain investment across these different player styles forces you to optimize all of these different game modes. So you’re ending up diffusing your design effort across many games within a game instead of focusing on one.

DS: And to some degree for an MMO we have to do that because our business model is, for better or for worse, about maintaining a long term relationship over time. One of the things you see a lot inside of any MMO is that, hey, people get tired of PPV and they want to do something else. But they’re still heavily invested in the game, and you want them to have another track to jump onto. In other games, like in a single player game, if you decide that you’re done with the game, the studio doesn’t care. They’ve already got your sixty bucks, and they just hope they sell you the next one because you really liked playing Arkham Asylum, for example, the first time around. Inside of our game, and to a lesser extent the Facebook games, they really want you to have something else that you can point to so that you keep coming back, and that’s just the way that our games are actually structured. We want to maintain your investment inside the game. We don’t want you to hit a wall in one of the vectors and decide, “ok i’m done”, and so we actually have multiple paths, multiple treadmills, multiple verbs for people who are inside these games.

JL: But there still is a point – and maybe this is the more interesting question – where you choose between breadth and depth. Obviously you don’t want to have everything, but you also don’t want to focus on it just being a raiding game, say.

DS: I think if you actually look on my blog somewhere I talk about breadth versus depth. If you look at, for example Everquest versus Ultima Online, Ultima Online was a game that had a lot of breadth. And unfortunately the breadth that they had was a lot of really shallow treadmills, and the treadmills didn’t interact with each other very well, whereas if you look at Everquest, they pretty much had a combat game and they had a whole bunch of other games that were not as deep as the combat game, but overall tended to support the combat game in one way or another. And while they were shallower than the combat game, they were still more developed than the UO activities because there were fewer of them and they could actually afford to focus on these five or six things that players were doing instead of UO, which tried to provide twenty of these verbs that players could go do. So they were actually able to develop these a little more fully and provide a…I won’t say a complete casual-hardcore arc, but it was able to go across two or three tiers as opposed to UO. A similar example is, if you look at Free Realms versus Wizard 101, Free realms was very much like UO (which is ironic because Free Realms is a Sony product) where they had like twenty mini-games and it was designed for kids, it should be easy. The idea was you would play the male game and you would win it in like a day and a half, and after that there was no more male game. You got invested in this thing you liked and then you ran out of content, and they expected you to jump to another track, but it’s like “no, I liked the male game”. Whereas if you look at Wizard 101, it is very much a collectible card, Harry-Potter-meets-Pokemon combat game. We have other systems in the game but at the very core of it it’s that. They have some treadmills in there as well, they have some activities that serve both causal and hardcore people along the lines, but the game very strongly has a center and these other activities act as, “You do this when you’re bored, when you’re tired of that game. You do this when you need a break.”

JL: Another thing that I wanted to ask about the idea of looking at different players who have something like an investment ceiling. I know you’re trying to get away from this idea of “lets make our business model very dependent on this one percent that are whales“, or at least i got the impression you want to get away from that. But it still seems relevant because there’s a point where there will be players that are only interested in a certain level of investment. It’s going to be difficult to get them in there. Maybe it’s a question of hard you bother trying to design for that subset of players that are going to be more susceptible to an investment ceiling.

DS: I think one of the ways to think about is how i defined in there [the talk]: You have rungs in the ladder, right? And as a general rule you know for your game where the rungs of that ladder are. There might be 5, there might be 12. The example i gave was, for Facebook games: “I tried this once”, “I log in every day”, “I spent my first dollar”, “I spend ten bucks a month”, “I spend 1,000 dollars a month.” And what you want to do is devote time, energy, and effort to trying to increase each of those rungs of that ladder. Because if you have six million people playing your Facebook game, there is no chance at all that you’re going to get six million people paying $1,000 dollars a month. But if you can get a substantial portion of them to move up one rung, and a substantial portion of those people to move up one rung, and even if thats as far as you succeed, you’ve still made a marked improvement in your life. Instead, what I’ve seen in most of the Facebook games is that they have a monolithic block of people for the casual [market], and then they have put some thought into getting them to spend that first dollar, but they don’t do a very good job of ratcheting the price up very intelligently from there.

JL: And you’d say that’s partially because they have this mindset that people are one or the other, that they aren’t worried about bridging the [hardcore-casual] gap?

DS: It’s hard for me to be entirely critical of them because I can’t see the metrics, and I know they have a ridiculous number of metrics.

JL: And they are making money. Obviously it’s working.

DS: Well, they are making some amount of money. If you actually do the math of what they’re talking about, they’re making respectable money. But I’m still more impressed with the World of Warcraft business model than I am with these. Again, if you’re servicing six million people and one percent of them are giving any amount money, and it’s usually around ten bucks a month, it’s a lot better to be the World of Warcraft game that’s getting ten bucks a month from every single one of your customers. Unless you have a lot of lawyers.

JL: The only thing you could say in defense, I guess, is that it’s still a pretty nascent industry. Facebook games are new, and they’re getting better. That was the sense i got from the Playdom talk today, at least.

DS: Well, there are a couple things going on. The first is that the games are getting more sophisticated. I actually went to a talk today where a guy tried to pick apart why core (which I guess I’m a part of) game designers don’t like the social games, the Facebook games. My primary critique was missing, though, which is that there still isn’t a Facebook game that I’ve ever seen that I’ve actually wanted to play. I think a lot of what happens out there is actually a sadness; we really don’t want the water to run downhill to a place where the entire games industry is making games that they effectively don’t want to play. I think that’s where some of the funk and some of the depression comes in. Now, the question is whether or not somebody will come along and make Facebook games that people like me would want to play and possibly like you would want to play. I’m the kind of guy that likes to play Starcraft and WoW and really “crunchy” board games, and right now that Facebook game doesn’t exist. The issue is that right now economics fight that. As long as there’s a more lucrative market in the casual space – lets not call it the casual space – in the mass market, then the big fish, the Zyngas, the EAs are going to gravitate towards that. But i think that for the most part gamers like you and me are probably more willing to pay cash for games. So i keep waiting for somebody to come along with the Magic the Gathering business model, or the Warhammer figurines model, in Facebook games where people are a little more willing to invest in the game because it’s a good game, and they’re willing to pay for good quality gameplay the way that we’re willing to pay sixty bucks for a console game right now.

JL: Do you see it going that way right now?

DS: I don’t know, but i think that’s where a lot of the angst around Facebook and social comes from right now. I think I’ve already heard some mumbling that some studios want to try to move in that direction. I think part of the problem is that to some degree Facebook games are stigmatized by that market right now.

JL: So its going to be hard to attract [hardcore players]?

DS: Yeah. Right now Facebook is where your mom and your girlfriend play games. So actually trying to make a game for that space is actually going to involve making something that’s pretty darn nifty and impressive. That being said, I have faith in my fellow game designers and i think that somebody will probably do something. There’s actually a game called Warstorm, which was put together by a studio here in town [Austin, TX], which is actually the only Facebook game that ever compelled me to spend money. It was basically a Magic-ish game where you would build a small deck. There was no control in playing. you would basically build an army which was a deck of cards, and you would play your friends, who could be offline, so it was asynchronous. It just had a draw order that it did all the rules by, and so there was some luck involved, and there was some having the right cards involved, and it was just hardcore enough that it was like, “damnit I do want that booster pack”. It was just a really cool, nifty design, and I was excited to see that because I thought the market might go that way. And then Zynga bought them and stopped supporting the game because it wasn’t mass market. So, who knows.

JL: The only hope I have for the social games market is that it’s starting to get a little more saturated with garbage and clones. The lowest common denominator is going up, because people have gotten so used to these games that they’re expecting a little higher level of complexity, a little higher level of polish. And maybe it will take some time, but if that lowest common denominator keeps inching up that might eventually let – and this is speculation on my part – but it might let the more hardcore gamers break in.

DS: I think the interesting thing about the game market today, or the Facebook game market today, is that it pretty much mirrors where console games were maybe six years ago. Console gamers were in a total funk. Every game was completely and totally derivative of another game. Every game was either a clone or a sequel. And development costs were going through the roof because everybody was making the same game design, and the only way you could compete was by doing it newer and shinier. If you’re competing on shiny you basically rely on hiring an army of artists to make your games. And you know you actually saw this when Facebook games first started. You’d make a game like Mafia Wars or Vampire Wars, or any of those “war” games in like 6 weeks. Raph [Koster] made My Vineyard with tech he already had. He decided to try making a Facebook game, and he describes the whole process taking a week, most of it getting art. I mean, it’s a website. It reads some numbers from a database and says, “here, you successfully planted a tree.” It’s not rocket science. But since then the bar has been raised. I mean Frontierville is a watershed mark for that kind of game. It’s not my kind of game, but it has mean huge, huge numbers and most of it was introducing story and introducing high quality art and introducing, well, all these things that cost money. So now all these games like Adventure World world have been released to match that bar, so this bar of investment is going up. And the funny thing is that you see this on almost every platform. Early iPhone games used to be really cheap and fun and crappy, and the bar for those has been going up. And then DS games. I remember when all my friends were like, “Screw making these multi-million dollar budget games for the console, I’m going to go work on the DS, which is small and cheap and you can be agile and whatnot.” And then that market got saturated and the development costs for that for those went way up. Facebook is a platform. Facebook is a platform just like the DS is a platform, just like the iPhone is a platform. People are competing on that platform, and it’s not going to be the last platform. Whether or not Facebook introduces the new better version of itself or some other fad comes along thats better than Facebook, I don’t know…at some point I imagine that people are going to realize that they want something better than Flash to play these games on.

JL: Flash is getting better, though.

DS: Flash is getting better, but a main part of the issue that Facebook games have right now – and this is just my opinion – is that most of them are overhead strategy, click-on games. Flash does not deal with drawing that kind of scene right now. It’s just too much stuff, so when you have a full city or vineyard or whatever you have, it just gets incredibly laggy and slow and whatnot. Every time I play one of those games it makes we want to start playing Tropico or some other strategy game running on the 3D card, because then I won’t get that level of frustration. Somebody’s going to solve that problem and i think that’s going to be fairly revolutionary at some point.

JL: Well I was talking to some of the Adobe guys here and they were saying the new APIs can actually use your onboard GPU, so they can do vastly superior 3D graphics compared to what you could see with Flash before.

DS: I hope so. That’s part of what makes the Facebook revolution so tedious for me. It’s like, this feels so slow compared to every other game that I play.

JL: Well, awesome, thank you so much for your time.

DS: No problem.（Source：motivateplay）