|
[Writer and researcher Neils Clark has previously covered the state of addiction in games for Gamasutra in a number of key articles, and returns to look at whether design can influence healthy play, and what his MMO analysis has to say on the phenomenon.]
Here we go again -- "the
A-bomb". To just come out and say it, this article didn't go as
planned. Originally, it was going to be a showcase of some different
game developers speaking candidly about addiction -- most especially
the subtleties that get missed by the popular press. Some devs bit,
but not many.
This got the gears turning.
Are we in an environment where anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of public opinion? Games have, after all, weathered
a long history of emotional and anecdotal attacks.
This article looks
at serious questions: where should game makers sit in discussions over
game addictions, can design influence healthy play, and is silence still
golden in 2008?
Word on
the Street
"I'm not a crack dealer
in real life," says Michael Wilson, CEO of There.com.
This is a sentiment that most
game developers start with. It's the most obvious. So much artwork,
sound design, programming and game design goes into the process that
it doesn't add up for most developers when that gets equated to mixing
chemicals in the basement.
It's a sentiment mirrored by Ernest Adams,
who wrote an article for this site way back in 2002 on the topic --
"Stop Calling Games Addictive!" His article is still one of
the most recognizable developer-written soapboxes on what's still being
called addiction. By and large he stands alone as one of the few developers
to offer an opinion, at the very least warning that a word used in the
wrong context helps the industry dig its own hole.
The public opinions among developers
run the gamut. Some talk about unleashed gamers with a tinge of jealousy
in their voice -- "The biggest problem in your life is that you
get to play games all day? Poor you." Others view it with an air
of caution, saying that addiction is, "Bad for business, and the
industry knows it."
Last year's GDC sponsored two
roundtable events to discuss gaming addiction, with results that were
anything but conclusive. Early on, game addiction was compared to excessive
book reading. Some developers raised the time-honored D&D defense;
that attacks against gaming hearken back to the days when Dungeons &
Dragons was pelted with accuasations.
We'll get back to that. The most
interesting voice in the roundtable was a programmer from Blizzard Entertainment,
who discussed some of the company's design discussions prior to the
Burning Crusade expansion for World of Warcraft.
He said that they wanted to
distinguish between gameplay elements that might encourage all players
to go overboard, versus those that caused problems for a select few.
The idea was to keep the pieces that make the game enjoyable for everybody,
but make sure that everyone's enjoyment wasn't punctuated by a design
that required too much maintenance.
They didn't want to go overboard
with changes, for obvious reasons, but the issue was on their radar.
Other developers could do worse than to emulate Blizzard. The roundtable
talk was cut off at the hour-long time limit, which was a shame because
everyone in the room was rapt.
These are the kinds of exchanges
that are seen all too rarely. While some onlookers might characterize
silent developers as callous, too many subtleties get missed by the
popular press and your average non-gamer.
Wilson brought up the TV show
Friends, though any TV, book or radio show would work for this example.
We form relationships with the people in these different reveries; we
get excited for our favorite characters, disgusted when they make nice
with our least favorite characters and shocked when any kind of tragedy
befalls them.
In wholly new ways, games open up the playing field for
these fictitious relationships. Beyond the gameplay, the stunning graphics
or anything else, we're a main character. Sometimes we're even playing
shoulder-to-shoulder with other main characters; social worlds can take
interaction and kick it up a notch.
"The thing about social
worlds, there's nothing to do," says Wilson. "We make
things to do." And developers do. Oh, how boring the either a real
or digital world would be without games.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
In terms of sales, gaming addiction can be bad. If x hours of a player's total game time is spent playing a certain game, that means there is less chance that the player's money will be spent on a new game. If the game has a subscription model, then at least the company that maintains the game makes money, but either way, the rest of the industry misses out on the revenue opportunities and the player's available time. In a way, even the maker of the game can be hurt; if the game is too addictive, the player may not even buy other games from the same company.
On the other hand, game companies are slowly and surreptitiously embracing the idea of using game addiction for profit, even while some deny that game addiction can be harmful. Microtransactions are one example of exploiting addicts, since a game company can continue to make new things for addicts to experience in the environment they have become a captive to. Or, in the case of games that earn advertising revenue, a game company can keep a player's eyeballs in an environment longer, earning more ad revenue per play.
Games with a very short single-player campaign, while primarily cut short due to rising development costs, may also contribute to more frequent game purchases and may be another reason companies might want to foster game addiction. Perhaps it's no coincidence that "attach rate" has become a popular industry buzzword lately, and the systems with high attach rates also seem to have the games with short play-through times, while the systems with low attach rates have many games that last dozens or hundreds of hours?
So, even though it's important to inform the public that "game developers aren't crack dealers", it's also important for game developers to realize that their business practices may be reliant on some of the same principles that crack dealers use.
When a game ceases to be fun, is it really a game? Or something entirely different? Lines are definitely crossed for many people.
Because it's fun and one day I want to make a living at it and it can bring great social rewards and status.
People are addicted to making progress. Gaming simulates progress.
If you make playing games a way to make a living you're not just simulating progress anymore, you are now helping people make progress that is tangible and beneficial.
In society it's ok to allow your son or daughter to obsess about inventing something because it could bring about something of worth. But because gaming has no real tangible value for the players it's just considered a waist of time, a baby sitter, an influencer and now an addiction.
Make it so players make money playing games, all games... Nah that wouldn't work, because then everyone would suffer from workaholism.
There's always sumtin', huh?
From my personal experience, I have found addition in video games both real and unrewarding. Sometimes I find myself playing a video game not because I am having fun with it, but because I have associated games with "Fun" in the past, and as a result when I am not playing games I feel like I am having less fun. Even if it is not true. I will hold back from elaborating until I have thought about it some more.