How Google’s game services API will convince devs to make better games

Google Play's game services will help propel Android's identity in mobile gaming.

Read the whole story

 

[earthlingkc]

I just want game saves to the cloud so that a game on phone or tablet can be continued on the other. Glad to see it standardized.

 

[LimpBagel]

earthlingkc[/url]":fznneojk]I just want game saves to the cloud so that a game on phone or tablet can be continued on the other. Glad to see it standardized.

Simpsons: Tapped Out does that and it's pretty awesome. I flip between the Nexus 7 and my phone constantly and don't have to think about it.

 

[CrookedKnight]

Hopefully games with standard and HD/tablet versions will sync saves between the two.

Either way, I'm just glad I won't be starting from scratch in Fruit Ninja when I get a new phone.

 

[johnbuk]

My biggest want would be more standardized support for external game controllers.

 

[OrangeCream]

earthlingkc[/url]":18n6x7vq]I just want game saves to the cloud so that a game on phone or tablet can be continued on the other. Glad to see it standardized.

That's how some games on iOS already work with iCloud synching.

 

[T3hN00bSux0rs]

Google has added some anti-piracy functionality for developers who choose to integrate the Google Play services API. Google’s servers can detect when a player is playing an app that hasn't been downloaded directly from the Google Play store. If the developer wants, he can set up an error message to pop up when that player attempts to launch the game. The developer can then decide what happens next, like whether or not the pirated title will have the same access to the features that paid customers would. Developers can choose to restrict access to the pirated game and prevent it from being able to participate in multiplayer gaming sessions. This functionally would ideally offer an incentive for players to purchase the game in order to experience it in full.

Could this be seen as a shot at Amazon's App Store? How will buying apps from Amazon fair? I guess it all depends on the implementation from both the API and the App developer, but this could also be a sneaky move by Google.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I wonder if the Ouya will be able to take advantage of this.

 

[Biceps]

johnbuk[/url]":1yql8dn9]My biggest want would be more standardized support for external game controllers.

Yes! I find it painfully ironic that the logo for Google Play Games is an image of a game controller, when game controller support is one thing most games don't have. I didn't hear of any commitment on this from Google, but maybe I missed it?

 

[Shudder]

In addition to this they need to have something similar for standard apps. Considering the "support" for most Android devices from the carriers start with wiping out your device, it'd be nice for apps to pull your settings from the cloud. I know people who are scared to get their phone fixed because they don't want to lose (insert game) or (app)'s settings and scores.

But this kind of thing is definitely welcomed as people use the phone on the go and tablets on the couch.

 

[pen_sq]

Apple's weakness with their iCloud/Game Center system was that they didn't have the rock-solid Google Reader sync backend to build upon. Google just has to take that already proven lump of digital infrastructure, do a global search/replace to turn the API from RSS_do_something to GPlay_do_something, and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Eldorito]

Biceps[/url]":24t0rns8]

johnbuk[/url]":24t0rns8]My biggest want would be more standardized support for external game controllers.

Yes! I find it painfully ironic that the logo for Google Play Games is an image of a game controller, when game controller support is one thing most games don't have. I didn't hear of any commitment on this from Google, but maybe I missed it?

This is a problem with developers, not Google. Full controller support has been there since 3.1, but most games are designed to where the users are, touch.

It's not so much a problem of being hard to implement from an API perspective but one from designing a game to work reasonably with a controller or touchscreen controls. That takes a lot more design work to cater to what is still a pitifully small market (although hopefully it'll grow with Ouya and nVidia's thing)

 

[Ars of Ares]

I may just be missing it - is there an easy way to identify games using these APIs? Is there a standalone app that shows our achievements?

 

[Fritzed]

Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

As I have absolutely no desire to engage in social networking, I fear that I will soon be unable to play games on Android. This feels like an abuse of market power to me. Google has gotten a lot of users on the Android platform, now they are effectively giving them a decision of facing reduced functionality or signing up for their social network whether the user wants to or not.

 

[Kasona]

Ars of Ares[/url]":3e1n4w4d]I may just be missing it - is there an easy way to identify games using these APIs? Is there a standalone app that shows our achievements?

sadly, no, not yet

Google Play doesn't yet have a games portal or landing page that users can view to check on their achievements and stats. When we asked Hartell about whether Android users would receive this he replied that Google is, “always taking feedback from our developers and our partners and, of course, the users of the services.” It's possible users could see something of the sort in the future but it will really depend on the demand. For now Google Play game services work mostly in the background.

 

[Hast]

robrob[/url]":134q3006]

Biceps[/url]":134q3006]
Yes! I find it painfully ironic that the logo for Google Play Games is an image of a game controller, when game controller support is one thing most games don't have. I didn't hear of any commitment on this from Google, but maybe I missed it?

This is a problem with developers, not Google. Full controller support has been there since 3.1, but most games are designed to where the users are, touch.

Exactly. If you have a PS3 or 360 you can use those controllers on an Android device. (If you have a USB OTG cable.) And the 360 Wireless adapter for PC works as well, so you can use wireless 360 controllers. (The DualShock3 controllers you have to hook up with a USB cable unless you root your device and do some Bluetooth specific stuff.)

 

[Hast]

Fritzed[/url]":1crk6yrg]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

 

[Fritzed]

Hast[/url]":2nrssrxq]

Fritzed[/url]":2nrssrxq]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This isn't a reasonable option. Google+ is set up with your real name, which means people can find your Google+ profile. Signing up for a social networking service implicitly tells people that you are using it. So the option you are providing is to sign up and then constantly ignore friend requests from everyone I know that uses the service and constantly monitor for when Google in the future may arbitrarily change their privacy settings as Facebook does every month or so.

Additionally, you are constantly presented with "google+" options on any google owned property. Every time you go to youtube, every time you go to google news, every time you do a freaking web search, you'll have to be careful to avoid all of the little +1 icons.

I had google+ for about 2 weeks and tried to ignore it. Inevitably, after 2 weeks of not submitting absolutely nothing to my account, I accidentally tapped one of those "+1" icons and realized 2 days later that I had broadcast to the world my interest in some random news article about celebrity dieting that I hadn't even read.

This is non-trivial. You can't just sign up for a service that requires your real identity and then ignore it completely. You also have to be completely naive if it is seen as anything other than a benefit to google to have another user signed up. Don't you think that every game you play tied to Google+ will make you an "active google+ user"?

 

[lugaidster]

T3hN00bSux0rs[/url]":y5llrkhk]

Google has added some anti-piracy functionality for developers who choose to integrate the Google Play services API. Google’s servers can detect when a player is playing an app that hasn't been downloaded directly from the Google Play store. If the developer wants, he can set up an error message to pop up when that player attempts to launch the game. The developer can then decide what happens next, like whether or not the pirated title will have the same access to the features that paid customers would. Developers can choose to restrict access to the pirated game and prevent it from being able to participate in multiplayer gaming sessions. This functionally would ideally offer an incentive for players to purchase the game in order to experience it in full.

Could this be seen as a shot at Amazon's App Store? How will buying apps from Amazon fair? I guess it all depends on the implementation from both the API and the App developer, but this could also be a sneaky move by Google.

I'm actually wondering how this will work for humble bundles. The ones I bought in the past actually provided me with an APK to install rather than something to activate inside the store. If it's still like that, I wonder if HB games would be recognized as pirated games...

 

[lugaidster]

Fritzed[/url]":38wr4kpa]

Hast[/url]":38wr4kpa]

Fritzed[/url]":38wr4kpa]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This isn't a reasonable option. Google+ is set up with your real name, which means people can find your Google+ profile. Signing up for a social networking service implicitly tells people that you are using it. So the option you are providing is to sign up and then constantly ignore friend requests from everyone I know that uses the service and constantly monitor for when Google in the future may arbitrarily change their privacy settings as Facebook does every month or so.

Additionally, you are constantly presented with "google+" options on any google owned property. Every time you go to youtube, every time you go to google news, every time you do a freaking web search, you'll have to be careful to avoid all of the little +1 icons.

I had google+ for about 2 weeks and tried to ignore it. Inevitably, after 2 weeks of not submitting absolutely nothing to my account, I accidentally tapped one of those "+1" icons and realized 2 days later that I had broadcast to the world my interest in some random news article about celebrity dieting that I hadn't even read.

This is non-trivial. You can't just sign up for a service that requires your real identity and then ignore it completely. You also have to be completely naive if it is seen as anything other than a benefit to google to have another user signed up. Don't you think that every game you play tied to Google+ will make you an "active google+ user"?

Can't you just create a fake G+ account for gaming and be done with it?

 

[phoenix_rizzen]

Shudder[/url]"187c3iu]In addition to this they need to have something similar for standard apps. Considering the "support" for most Android devices from the carriers start with wiping out your device, it'd be nice for apps to pull your settings from the cloud. I know people who are scared to get their phone fixed because they don't want to lose (insert game) or (app)'s settings and scores.

But this kind of thing is definitely welcomed as people use the phone on the go and tablets on the couch.

That's been a standard feature of Android for years now. Just check the box to "backup to your Gmail account" and the box for "automatically restore settings when installing apps" under Backup & Restore in Settings.

When you add your Gmail account to a wiped phone, the first question is asks is "do you want to restore from your google account", which will automatically download all your previously installed apps and their settings.

Edit: Hrm, although I haven't tested with games, to see if it carries over saved games and similar (app settings are carried over correctly) if the /sdcard (user data) is wiped. But, that's what Titanium Backup (running automatically on a schedule) and <insert cloud storage sync app of choice> syncing TB's data directory to the cloud is for.
You don't even have to think about it, and just accept all the defaults.

 

[Fritzed]

lugaidster[/url]":11sjxf34]

Fritzed[/url]":11sjxf34]

Hast[/url]":11sjxf34]

Fritzed[/url]":11sjxf34]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This isn't a reasonable option. Google+ is set up with your real name, which means people can find your Google+ profile. Signing up for a social networking service implicitly tells people that you are using it. So the option you are providing is to sign up and then constantly ignore friend requests from everyone I know that uses the service and constantly monitor for when Google in the future may arbitrarily change their privacy settings as Facebook does every month or so.

Additionally, you are constantly presented with "google+" options on any google owned property. Every time you go to youtube, every time you go to google news, every time you do a freaking web search, you'll have to be careful to avoid all of the little +1 icons.

I had google+ for about 2 weeks and tried to ignore it. Inevitably, after 2 weeks of not submitting absolutely nothing to my account, I accidentally tapped one of those "+1" icons and realized 2 days later that I had broadcast to the world my interest in some random news article about celebrity dieting that I hadn't even read.

This is non-trivial. You can't just sign up for a service that requires your real identity and then ignore it completely. You also have to be completely naive if it is seen as anything other than a benefit to google to have another user signed up. Don't you think that every game you play tied to Google+ will make you an "active google+ user"?

Can't you just create a fake G+ account for gaming and be done with it?

Probably not.

1. You would risk Google arbitrarily shutting you down at some point. They have made it clear that their policy is that Google+ accounts have real information, so you would be violating their terms.

2. Presumably your login to these games will be using the "Accounts' built into your phone. In order to use a "fake" Google+ account, you would presumably need to use the same "fake" account for Google Play, Contacts Sync, etc.

 

[daneren2005]

Developers can choose to restrict access to the pirated game and prevent it from being able to participate in multiplayer gaming sessions. This functionally would ideally offer an incentive for players to purchase the game in order to experience it in full.

Once they decided to make it switchable in code, they might as well have just not bothered implementing it in the first place. Whenever Google introduces another one of these, just add this switch in your app to prevent privacy!, it usually only takes a few days for a automated tool to pop up that can set the conditional statement to permanently true. Now if they make it so that you can set whether or not a "pirate" is allowed with the dev console it might actually be worth something, because then fiddling with the user's code would only change whether or not they got the correct error message.

 

[iG-Wiz]

johnbuk[/url]":ldj2b42z]My biggest want would be more standardized support for external game controllers.

Yeah, the better way to go would be an Android "gamepad" API. Not sure many people play "cross-platform" as Google suggested.

 

[atbigelow]

As far as I know, android already has a standardized gamepad API. It is just rarely a priority for developers to implement.

 

[SCdF]

OK, I read the article twice. I must be tired. I did *just* wake up.

Where does this article codify the central statement? E.g., how does this service convince devs to make better games?

As I understand it from this article it's essentially a library/framework that does a few things for you, such as leaderboards and cloud saves.

What does that have to do with making good games?

Gaming on Android is not a sodden nappy of disappointment because of a lack of high quality leaderboards, but because it's full of slimey products that are full of social spam, cryptic webs of self-promotion, and games that intentionally remove core game functionality until the game is just un-enjoyable enough that they can convince you to pay them money to put it back,

 

[famousringo]

And we'd only just managed to kill off OpenFeint, too.

Well, as long as it doesn't get all up in my face like all that obnoxious Facebook integration, I guess it's no skin off my nose. Google doesn't get annoyingly aggressive with Google+ like Facebook does, right?

 

[msft0682]

Depending on how Google sets this up, this could be a huge boon to alternate phone operating systems (Windows Phone, BlackBerry, Firefox OS, etc.) Currently, choosing one of these OSs alienates you from playing games with most of your friends (who are more likely to have Android or iOS). Google's game services may provide an easier way for developers to create games for the alternate OSs that are able to interface completely with their counterparts on the major platforms. It all depends whether or not games on the alternate platforms will be able to tap into the service.

 

[Sephoroth]

Fritzed[/url]":1pu719r9]

lugaidster[/url]":1pu719r9]

Fritzed[/url]":1pu719r9]

Hast[/url]":1pu719r9]

Fritzed[/url]":1pu719r9]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This isn't a reasonable option. Google+ is set up with your real name, which means people can find your Google+ profile. Signing up for a social networking service implicitly tells people that you are using it. So the option you are providing is to sign up and then constantly ignore friend requests from everyone I know that uses the service and constantly monitor for when Google in the future may arbitrarily change their privacy settings as Facebook does every month or so.

Additionally, you are constantly presented with "google+" options on any google owned property. Every time you go to youtube, every time you go to google news, every time you do a freaking web search, you'll have to be careful to avoid all of the little +1 icons.

I had google+ for about 2 weeks and tried to ignore it. Inevitably, after 2 weeks of not submitting absolutely nothing to my account, I accidentally tapped one of those "+1" icons and realized 2 days later that I had broadcast to the world my interest in some random news article about celebrity dieting that I hadn't even read.

This is non-trivial. You can't just sign up for a service that requires your real identity and then ignore it completely. You also have to be completely naive if it is seen as anything other than a benefit to google to have another user signed up. Don't you think that every game you play tied to Google+ will make you an "active google+ user"?

Can't you just create a fake G+ account for gaming and be done with it?

Probably not.

1. You would risk Google arbitrarily shutting you down at some point. They have made it clear that their policy is that Google+ accounts have real information, so you would be violating their terms.

2. Presumably your login to these games will be using the "Accounts' built into your phone. In order to use a "fake" Google+ account, you would presumably need to use the same "fake" account for Google Play, Contacts Sync, etc.

You can always choose which account synchronizes what data. E.g. one's account for Google Play doesn't have to be synced with their contact list or vice-versa.

 

[shebanator]

It is true that Google+ requires a real name, but you do not have to worry about friend requests because they don't exist. In G+, circles are asymmetric, so when people add you to circles it doesn't impose any obligation on you. You can be notified that someone has added you to one of their circles, but the emails associated with these things can be turned off very easily (and turning off virtually all email notifications in G+ is one of the first things I did when I signed up).

Fritzed[/url]":3vzjspwa]

Hast[/url]":3vzjspwa]

Fritzed[/url]":3vzjspwa]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This isn't a reasonable option. Google+ is set up with your real name, which means people can find your Google+ profile. Signing up for a social networking service implicitly tells people that you are using it. So the option you are providing is to sign up and then constantly ignore friend requests from everyone I know that uses the service and constantly monitor for when Google in the future may arbitrarily change their privacy settings as Facebook does every month or so.

Additionally, you are constantly presented with "google+" options on any google owned property. Every time you go to youtube, every time you go to google news, every time you do a freaking web search, you'll have to be careful to avoid all of the little +1 icons.

I had google+ for about 2 weeks and tried to ignore it. Inevitably, after 2 weeks of not submitting absolutely nothing to my account, I accidentally tapped one of those "+1" icons and realized 2 days later that I had broadcast to the world my interest in some random news article about celebrity dieting that I hadn't even read.

This is non-trivial. You can't just sign up for a service that requires your real identity and then ignore it completely. You also have to be completely naive if it is seen as anything other than a benefit to google to have another user signed up. Don't you think that every game you play tied to Google+ will make you an "active google+ user"?

 

[paul5ra]

I concur with the concerns of others on being forced to give Google yet more data. Google fanboys keep talking about how "open" Android is, but aspects a like this are not "open" at all. Developers would be better adopting a system which allows the user to use any cloud service of THEIR OWN CHOICE for storing synchronisation and backup data.

 

[obzilla]

paul5ra[/url]":2yynxpo1]I concur with the concerns of others on being forced to give Google yet more data. Google fanboys keep talking about how "open" Android is, but aspects a like this are not "open" at all. Developers would be better adopting a system which allows the user to use any cloud service of THEIR OWN CHOICE for storing synchronisation and backup data.

nobody is forcing you to do anything.

 

[vani77a]

Fritzed[/url]":3tadk26u]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

As I have absolutely no desire to engage in social networking, I fear that I will soon be unable to play games on Android. This feels like an abuse of market power to me. Google has gotten a lot of users on the Android platform, now they are effectively giving them a decision of facing reduced functionality or signing up for their social network whether the user wants to or not.

well at least I don't need to sign up for another online service for this gaming service. Just ignore it if you don't want to use it.

 

[lucian1900]

OrangeCream[/url]":md4pmkqo]

earthlingkc[/url]":md4pmkqo]I just want game saves to the cloud so that a game on phone or tablet can be continued on the other. Glad to see it standardized.

That's how some games on iOS already work with iCloud synching.

Sort of. Few games use it and it can't possibly work with any non-Apple devices.

 

[ardent]

Fritzed[/url]":33o6wvrn]

Hast[/url]":33o6wvrn]

Fritzed[/url]":33o6wvrn]Why does this require Google+ other than to force adoption? It seems like there is no functionality improvement over just tying it more generally to your Google Account.

Doesn't it use you G+ circles to find your friends for Leaderboards and Invites?

It kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If you don't like G+ just activate it and let it sit idle. That way you can "get back" at Google by making it look like their network has no active users.

This is non-trivial.

This is closer to the definition of trivial.

Set up a fake account. If it gets shut down, it gets shut down. You're being anti-social with the fake account anyway, so what do you care if you have to start over? If you do care about your Play features, then you'll tie it to your real G+ account and the randos on the internets who circled you can find out you play a lot of Fruit Ninja. Really not a big deal.

It's tied to G+ because G+ is now the chat platform of default for Google, and it uses your circles for core functionality in the multiplayer and leaderboard functions, as was mentioned.

iG-Wiz[/url]":33o6wvrn]

johnbuk[/url]":33o6wvrn]My biggest want would be more standardized support for external game controllers.

Yeah, the better way to go would be an Android "gamepad" API. Not sure many people play "cross-platform" as Google suggested.

That API has existed since 3.1. It is utilized by a bare handful of games/Android gamers right now. When Ouya hits the street you may see a significant uptick in the former commensurate with the demand created by the latter.

 

[ClownRazer]

Funny that they're using a "Trophy" icon for "Achievements" -- This is probably brain breaking for many Xbox and PS fanboys.

 

[DZ-Jay]

It's interesting how some Ars writers bend over backwards to avoid any indication of the inferiority of Google services or products when compared against Apple's counterparts. This story is full of innuendos and contrived platitudes to avoid stating what is rather obvious, that for all the cries of "Android is winning," Google has realized that their services are not as successful in practice when you consider that the entire point of them is to make money.

That's fine, and they are trying to rectify it. Let's acknowledge and discuss it in that context: there was a gaming API already, and apparently it has not panned out, enough for Google to try a completely different approach. Isn't this important as well?

iOS seems to have become the mobile gaming platform of choice. Why not acknowledge that openly (it's OK to say it, we already know), and actually compare Google's new offerings directly with it?

At first glance, Google’s Play game services appear to be a response to Apple’s Game Center functionality.

And then proceed to describe essentially the same services offered by Game Center. Why the oblique mention?

It really isn’t a discussion of whether Google will trump Apple’s Game Center but if it wants to be successful,

Why not? If it is intended to compete with Apple's Game Center in an attempt to try to retain some relevance in the mobile gaming space, can we at least discuss how they stack up against each other?

and Google can at least learn from Apple’s follies in mobile gaming—maybe even create a landing page or standalone application.

It's strange how you lump those last two features--which were included in Game Center from day one--right after mentioning "Apple's follies in mobile gaming." What follies are those? Is Google Play better or different, or does it avoid them at all?

This feels very much like grading on a curve: Apple releases Game Center and if it has any feature missing at all, it is bad, and therefore the service failed. However, Google releases a new service, and it is judged on its potential to become good in some undetermined future scenario.

Let's stop pretending that this service came in from the cold, or that it is some nebulous concept--it is an actual product or service offering that is a direct response to another product or service that already exists. Spare me the "kumbaya" playful scenarios of all the wonderful things Google Play can be--tell me instead how it is now, and how does it compare to existing services and frameworks?

dZ.

Edit: typos