This was a great article, and it reminded me of a blog I did after uncontrollably waking up at 3AM to listen to one specific song. I've been studying game addiction for the past 3 years, and Margaret is right on target. We need way more sophistication in these debates on "addiction," and "violence." It's silly to see that games like Quake are censored from CBS' coverage of the World Series of Video Games, meanwhile on TV, 24 lets Jack Bauer mow down Chinese, Russian and Unspecified Middle Easterners.
When you think about it, willy nilly comparing games to different stereotypes shows a clear disregard to the health of people who play games. Take obesity - when researchers simply ask whether games make people obese, they're not trying to help gamers. They're trying to confirm societal fears, especially among parents who'd rather not blame themselves for feeding little Billy hot pockets for the past 8 years. They're also, dangerously imho, overlooking the fact that some gamers go with far too little food - they get so wrapped up in raiding to raid the fridge. Unfourtunately, a lot of the "obesity and games," "addiction and games," research is very cheap to do, and we definitely haven't seen the last of it.
I apologize for the title, I had intended it to be phrased as
A venerable WoW making irresponsible moves?
a question.
I'm more interested in feedback than to place blame on any one game maker.
Thanks, and again my apologies.
The primary motivator for sticking with a game is social bonding.
Coming soon, WoW, now over 2 years old, is going to have serious competition with this Christmas' new MMO releases, and they know that losing too many key players would mean a rank 8 hemorrhage on their player base.
So they're giving us a lot to do.
It's the model that we've had all along. It focuses on grinds, and sometimes it can really seem like this style of MMO misses the mark for content which people can enjoy. At least, enjoy with an amount of time which is socially acceptable. I mean, how sustainable is the gamer lifestyle, really? Apart from what we call "game addiction," looking at things like diet, nutrition and exercise with heavy gamers makes me think that we need to demand something which won't kill us, because I swear to god, a plate DPS class? GTFO, I can't resist that.
But back to how players move, look for an article "All or Nothing Game" sometime in the next week or two on gamasutra.com - on what makes people quit a game, keep playing, or switch games altogether. In the article I talked with 5 of the worlds top games academics, among them Ed Castronova and Henry Jenkins - and they had a lot to say.
If you're interested in this stuff, or a non-hysterical view on game addiction, then check out my blog. I'd love to hear more on how you think players move to, from, and between games as well, since I may plan future research on the topic.
So, like, yeah. I've studied this "Game Addiction" thing for a couple of years, and spent the last 8 months writing a book on it with a popular 'games therapist.' I think that publicizing these criteria is dangerous to the person with the problem, and also to society in general.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all got opinions on this, but part of it *does* have to do with addiction. Some people might be suffering from elements of chemical, behavioral, or other addiction. School thyself:
But there are things which might look like addiction, until you look closer. Games are complicated, and so are people and our reasons for playing. Raids, purpols, fat men pretending to be hot 19 year old NE womenz. But there's more to it than just why we play. It's how we play. These games present us with experiences which are approaching the texture of real life. Interaction sets games apart from things like books, radio, even TV, meaning that what's happeing is like nothing we've seen before. Games can keep regular people playing in ways that look like addiction, yet aren't.
I was at the GDC's Addiction Roundtable this year, where a Blizzard employee actually had a few comments on game addiction. When creating the Burning Crusade expansion, Blizzard paid attention to mechanics that may have been forcing players to spend too much time at WoW, and the following quote was taken from that GDC roundtable:
"What we wanted to address was that if there were players [with problems] that was less of a concern [than] a direct result of a gameplay mechanic that required them to [play for long periods of time]."
What we call "addiction" is absolutely more complicated than most researchers are making it out to be, which sucks for the people who really do have problems. What developers do now will have important consequences for future games, for better or for worse. Knowing Turbine's considerations in lieu of addiction is a highly valid question - for developers, players, everybody.
And props to whoever came up with "hobbit forming." I'm totally stealing that.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a great article, and it reminded me of a blog I did after uncontrollably waking up at 3AM to listen to one specific song. I've been studying game addiction for the past 3 years, and Margaret is right on target. We need way more sophistication in these debates on "addiction," and "violence." It's silly to see that games like Quake are censored from CBS' coverage of the World Series of Video Games, meanwhile on TV, 24 lets Jack Bauer mow down Chinese, Russian and Unspecified Middle Easterners.
When you think about it, willy nilly comparing games to different stereotypes shows a clear disregard to the health of people who play games. Take obesity - when researchers simply ask whether games make people obese, they're not trying to help gamers. They're trying to confirm societal fears, especially among parents who'd rather not blame themselves for feeding little Billy hot pockets for the past 8 years. They're also, dangerously imho, overlooking the fact that some gamers go with far too little food - they get so wrapped up in raiding to raid the fridge. Unfourtunately, a lot of the "obesity and games," "addiction and games," research is very cheap to do, and we definitely haven't seen the last of it.
lol
I apologize for the title, I had intended it to be phrased as A venerable WoW making irresponsible moves? a question. I'm more interested in feedback than to place blame on any one game maker. Thanks, and again my apologies.
The primary motivator for sticking with a game is social bonding.
Coming soon, WoW, now over 2 years old, is going to have serious competition with this Christmas' new MMO releases, and they know that losing too many key players would mean a rank 8 hemorrhage on their player base.
So they're giving us a lot to do.
It's the model that we've had all along. It focuses on grinds, and sometimes it can really seem like this style of MMO misses the mark for content which people can enjoy. At least, enjoy with an amount of time which is socially acceptable. I mean, how sustainable is the gamer lifestyle, really? Apart from what we call "game addiction," looking at things like diet, nutrition and exercise with heavy gamers makes me think that we need to demand something which won't kill us, because I swear to god, a plate DPS class? GTFO, I can't resist that.
But back to how players move, look for an article "All or Nothing Game" sometime in the next week or two on gamasutra.com - on what makes people quit a game, keep playing, or switch games altogether. In the article I talked with 5 of the worlds top games academics, among them Ed Castronova and Henry Jenkins - and they had a lot to say.
If you're interested in this stuff, or a non-hysterical view on game addiction, then check out my blog. I'd love to hear more on how you think players move to, from, and between games as well, since I may plan future research on the topic.
Shrinks who practice online can be jailed in the state of California.
So, like, yeah. I've studied this "Game Addiction" thing for a couple of years, and spent the last 8 months writing a book on it with a popular 'games therapist.' I think that publicizing these criteria is dangerous to the person with the problem, and also to society in general.
0 1.shtml
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all got opinions on this, but part of it *does* have to do with addiction. Some people might be suffering from elements of chemical, behavioral, or other addiction. School thyself:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060228/clark_
But there are things which might look like addiction, until you look closer. Games are complicated, and so are people and our reasons for playing. Raids, purpols, fat men pretending to be hot 19 year old NE womenz. But there's more to it than just why we play. It's how we play. These games present us with experiences which are approaching the texture of real life. Interaction sets games apart from things like books, radio, even TV, meaning that what's happeing is like nothing we've seen before. Games can keep regular people playing in ways that look like addiction, yet aren't.
Lest I TLDR, I'm just going to link my reply.
http://neilsclark.com/archives/131
I was at the GDC's Addiction Roundtable this year, where a Blizzard employee actually had a few comments on game addiction. When creating the Burning Crusade expansion, Blizzard paid attention to mechanics that may have been forcing players to spend too much time at WoW, and the following quote was taken from that GDC roundtable:
"What we wanted to address was that if there were players [with problems] that was less of a concern [than] a direct result of a gameplay mechanic that required them to [play for long periods of time]."
What we call "addiction" is absolutely more complicated than most researchers are making it out to be, which sucks for the people who really do have problems. What developers do now will have important consequences for future games, for better or for worse. Knowing Turbine's considerations in lieu of addiction is a highly valid question - for developers, players, everybody.
And props to whoever came up with "hobbit forming." I'm totally stealing that.
Neils
http://neilsclark.com/