There is a way, however, to make both Dropbox and UDK happy by using a symbolic link between two folders in Windows. Follow this great write up and tutorial by Alex Castle to learn more about how these work. The short version is that a simple command line utility will let you create a brand new folder within the UDK Maps folder which is bound to one of your local Dropbox folders. Here’s the command to run from your command prompt…

mklink /J "C:\UDK\UDK-2011-09\UDKGame\Content\Maps\MyTeamFolder\" "C:\Users\MyUsersFolder\Dropbox\MyTeamShareFolder"

The breakdown: mlink.exe is the utility which creates the link, /J says make a hard link between the two folders, the first path is where you would like a new folder to be created (it should be inside your UDK maps directory) and the second path is the path for your already existing Dropbox folder for sharing.

Despite my experience, to hear Will Wright talk about his creation is quite an eye opener. Having grown up in a Montessori school, Will expresses a game development philosophy based loosely on the Montessori method. This approach unlocks the potential of the audience by providing them with ‘high-leverage tools’ to allow the player to be ‘building this world in their imagination and extract it from them with the least amount of pain’. He is presenting the game as a toy which the player can play with, and be empowered by.

Hearing his justification, I feel like I’m a little more connected to the game and I can experience it the way it was intended. He created a game that does not drive the player, but let’s the player drive themselves through curiosity. Moreover his use of the term ‘high-leverage’ tools is something I appreciate and agree with. The interface should be intuitive and empowering.

Still, I felt after a few days of playing that I was not engaged. Inversely to Spore’s ideal, other games may introduce a protagonist, or some relatable character that the player can empathize with. This is something the game lacks. Spore creates investment by allowing the player to personalize many, many details of the organisms they represent. But there’s always a level of separation provided by the ‘God’ complex granted by the game. Without a compelling goal paired with a sense of mortal investment, you’re left with the very feeling Mr. Wright was pursuing… the feeling of playing with a toy.

I can’t whole-heartedly condemn his philosophy, especially since I have an invigorated desire to play with Will Wright’s bright and well-intentioned toy once again. On the other hand, as a consumer I often seek an empathy and connectedness. To me, it is very important to give a game the staying power to live on in my memory, and I think this is the sort of thing that comes to mind for many gamers.

In June of 1972, Nolan Bushnell founded the company which would come to be a household name, Atari. By September, he would begin marketing the game Pong. After a shockingly positive test run of the game in a local bar named Andy Capps’s Tavern, Nolan was ready to take the country by storm and begin mass producing the game. But being a free spirit, he ignored some of the finer points of securing his intellectual property… namely all of them.

The first speed-bump came immediately, when Atari was taken to court by Magnavox. Magnavox had created a gaming system for the home named Odyssey, which played a game extremely similar to Pong. The matter was settled out of court, and involved Atari paying a hefty license sum to keep Pong on it’s path to greatness. Part of this interaction could just be chalked up to an industry leader kicking a small start-up, but the facts came down to Magnavox’s attention to the ownership and patents surrounding their product. Bushnell, a driven and talented creator/entrepreneur, was focused more on the creating. In the time following the launch of the game, he overlook filing patents for Pong. By the time the patents were validated, over two-thirds of the market was saturated with Pong imitators.

Was Nolan well off? Yes. Was Atari a successful company despite the missteps? Absolutely. But Nolan was in a lucky position, the market was non-existent. While competitors could pirate his innovations, Atari’s ideas were a step ahead of the curve. They would have the next big idea in the works by the time the market was oversaturated with the last. This approach was effective for the time, and you could even say that the knockoffs were good to the industry, as it increased the visibility. Also, arcade machines were sold in an era of more personal communication, will sales representatives approaching reputable brick-and-mortar locations to sell their machines with a handshake.

In this time, of an established games industry however, it’s not advisable to go in so haphazardly. As you put effort into divining inspiration and honing your skills, you should research what you can do to protect your work. In the digital age where ‘page views’ and total downloads are valued, it’s easy to watch your bottom line disappear. A consumer can just as easily get your product from a competitor that is only a click away. Marketing your work to become the most prevalent and connected, and challenging imitators will keep your inspired creations attached to you and allow your passion and creativity to continue unhindered.