Gamasutra - Gaming Addiction: Clearing The Air, Moving Forward

[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

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.

Comments

Carl Chavez

3 Apr 2008 at 10:58 am PST

From a business perspective, gaming addiction is both bad and good.

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.

Monte' Jones

3 Apr 2008 at 9:55 pm PST

Final Four!!! March Madness just a couple of buzz words used to let Fans know that college basketball is on and with so many people flocking to bars and friends homes to watch games for hours on end. Where are those same people who call video games addictive when a person will take off of work spend bill money just to get tickets to a game. I dont have a issue with basket ball or any sport for that matter but I use that as an example because it is something that most people are passionate about. The issue here is not with games but with people who lack the self control to know when to stop playing and take a break from it. The purpose of games all games are entertainment. So how do you entertain? You do this by giving people an escape from everyday life to whatever reality they choose. Some do this through drawing others through books and then you have video games. I enjoy the idea of being able to live a different life through the story of a game character and shaping that story how I see fit there is no other venue like that. you can go to the movies and watch a hero on screen but in video games you get to be the hero. I have been know to play a game from start to finish in a weekend fri-sun non stop but I can also go for weeks without picking up a controller. I am addicted to video games it is a natural high but you know what as much as I love them I also know how to find something else to do. I believe that you should remember that games are nothing more than books and movies meshed together to give you the best of both of both worlds. Now as for all those other people who have never put a hand on a controller or heard of Pac-Man or Pong I thank god for nintendo and the Wii because it is thanks to them that now more of the lines of who would be interested and able to play games are being broken and crossed. It warms my heart when I talk to someone 60 and up and they tell me they cant wait to get their own system because they saw one over someones house played a game on it. The only way I see for video games as a whole to be able to and forgive the pun get to the next level is to continue to reach out to all age groups so that the world can see what an art form video game design is. As a industry we have to take the charge where others are not willing to we have to challange these groups and politians on there own ground to prove that this is not an addiction but a new part of our culture as a whole and if it is embraced properly then we can cross lines not just in our country but world wide. You wrote that we as a country fear and shy away from that which is new well for as far back as you could research games, sports, arts, have been around since the dawn of man the only difference is that they have evolved with technology. The last thought I will leave you with is this if people can be encouraged to be actors, athlete's, doctor's and so on why cant they be encourage to use their passion for gaming to be tester's, designers, coder's and so on. Feel free to send me an email montejns@aol.com

Neil Sorens

3 Apr 2008 at 10:11 pm PST

What rankles me is when game creators design for addiction instead of genuine enjoyment, either inadvertently or intentionally. Their litmus test of whether a game experience is suitable is: "does it make the player want to play the game longer?" rather than "will this experience be enjoyable for the player?" Those who say there is no difference probably never saw people sit in the same spot in a dungeon in Everquest for as long as 24 hours waiting for a certain piece of loot to be generated. Did the player enjoy that experience? Hardly--in fact, the player probably was not even paying attention to the game for a large portion of that time.

Shavaun Scott

5 Apr 2008 at 2:45 pm PST

Agree muchly with Neil Sorens

When a game ceases to be fun, is it really a game? Or something entirely different? Lines are definitely crossed for many people.

John Petersen

8 Apr 2008 at 7:55 am PST

I'm addicted to gaming. Do you know why?

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?

Gary Swift

21 Apr 2008 at 7:17 am PST

I've seen many people who think it's a good thing when gaming expands and non-gamers are drawn to games by something like the Wi. I don't think it's going to be a good thing if someone like my father or John McCain become hooked on games. The real hope for a shift in how society views games lies not in older generations coming to understand gameplay, but in younger generations who already understand games growing older. Just as with other technologies, the older generations are more likely to remain alienated and even grow more detached and alienated as the technology grows and developes faster than they can learn and keep up with changes. How many people who don't understand how to program their own VCR (quite an old technology) do you expect to ever embrace more recent technologies like mobile text messaging or video gaming. Do you really think that someone like my father, whos only exposure to online gaming is what he sees on TV news will ever subscribe to an MMO? While my father may have no problem watching 6 hours of TV a night and even more on weekends, he'll always feel that an equal amount of game play time is an evil. He will c ontinue to turn on the TV the minute he walks in the front door after work and even have a TV in every room of the house (living room, bedroom, kitchen), but will tell me I have a problem when I log in to my MMO right after work to read in-game mail from my online friends. I say the gaming industry should continue to grow and expand its core audience until the numbers of young adults who play and understand gaming overwhelms the aging baby boomer population who will never be a part of or even want to be a part of that generation. If you think that "generating a meaningfull context" or "having frank and open discussions with compelling research statistics" is ever going to make the average baby boomer change his mind then you are dreaming and wasting your time. It's like thinking that you can write a great book about why pop music is just as good as classic rock and roll and expect a 65 year old Elvis fan from Arkansas to run out and buy the latest Leona Lewis single and like it. Good heavens, there are still people who are afraid that microwave ovens may cause health risks.

Jesse Crafts-Finch

22 Apr 2008 at 2:33 pm PST

I believe the author makes a good point in that by ignoring the personal experiences of people who cry out against video games, we are in some respects acting just as misinformed as them.

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.