By Jim Rossignol on February 24th, 2010 at 4:24 pm.
I seem to be reading a lot about these topics at the moment, so I’ll post this for the RPS community mindmeld. Carnegie Mellon assistant professor of entertainment and technology, Jesse Schell, speaking at DICE 2010, says that game design is all very well, but fantasy and neat game design takes a back seat to “busting through to reality”. The thing that is most valuable to games now, he argues, is where the connect with reality, or what we perceive to be reality. The bottom line is that everything is becoming a game. He takes a while to spool up, but take a look. (If you get a vague feeling of horror and dread towards the end, I think that’s okay.)
24/02/2010 at 16:39 John says:
I’ve watched this once, and i’m not watching it again. Tha last part is truly terrefying. Reducing our societal and humanitarian value to a number? Yikes!
But i suppose it’s no different from our present values. Even so, urgh!
24/02/2010 at 16:48 mrmud says:
Thats sort of the core of Utilitarianism but I suppose in a slightly different context.
24/02/2010 at 16:40 Lemon scented apocalypse says:
As someone who wants to make games, this makes me think $$
As someone who enjoyes playing games, this makes me want to jump of a cliff
24/02/2010 at 16:50 Nick says:
Pretty much.
24/02/2010 at 16:50 roBurky says:
I really don’t like the optimistic tone Schell has when describing that. He’s encouraging game developers to use powerful psychological tricks without asking them to consider the morality of it.
Sirlin and Dan Lawrence describe the ethical side of this kind of game design better than I can:
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2010/2/22/external-rewards-and-jesse-schells-amazing-lecture.html
http://mylarx.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/behaviourist-game-design/#
24/02/2010 at 17:25 Jeremy says:
Yeah, I agree. He seems way too excited about the casual brainwashing of our species for money. This has made me hope that designers will never rule the world or be in a position of power, I felt greasy and soiled just by watching that video.
24/02/2010 at 17:50 Tom OBedlam says:
When his tone suddenly shifted at the end I was expecting him to damn it, I was mortified at the idea that he thinks its a good idea…
24/02/2010 at 19:38 kromagg says:
You’re mistaking excitement for approval. He’s just excited about the possibilities this might open up and leading the audience through a long example. I think he specifically chose this one because he wanted to get to the extreme and show both the positive (i.e. most of these things will be sold as personal improvement, think women’s magazines) and the negative.
Brave New World. :-)
24/02/2010 at 19:46 DJ Phantoon says:
I think the thing is he himself has no concept of the implications, much like certain scientists that work on mass destructive weapons.
He just finds it neat.
24/02/2010 at 16:58 duel says:
good talk, definately got me excited and scared at the same time for the future of games.
He had quite a good lecture style. I wish we could of seen more of his slides though!
24/02/2010 at 17:01 Lemon scented apocalypse says:
Just watched the entire thing. Civilisation is definitely doomed.
And as to his musings right at the end on whetever this will make the world a better place. No. No it wont
24/02/2010 at 17:05 Okami says:
He’s describing an absolute nightmare scenario. If it ever comes to this, I’ll join the nearest terrorist group and start blowing stuff up.
24/02/2010 at 17:11 Heliocentric says:
And you’ll organise your strikes using twitter.
24/02/2010 at 17:15 Okami says:
Funny.
Though I guess making a joke about unlocking achievments and getting terrorist points for setting up combo explosions would have been funnier in this case…
24/02/2010 at 17:18 wiper says:
Well, that was terrifying.
24/02/2010 at 17:21 Alex Bakke says:
I am not going to sleep tonight.
“You went to bed before 11PM, +50 points! *Ba-ding!*”
24/02/2010 at 17:21 Telperion says:
I loved watching, and I didn’t mind that it started out a little slow.
Is it really going to be like that? I certainly don’t know, if then again he made a lot of good points. Why wouldn’t the future be like that is a better question, IMO.
While I was playing through ME 2 for the first time (currently on my second playthrough) I noticed that there were two Achievements that I really wanted: Master of Arms and Paramour. And by golly I got those Achievement by the end of the game, and I felt good about that. Why? For no good logical reason, because the Achievement system doesn’t do anything. It’s just a number attached to my Xbox Live ID, which goes up the more games I play. The more games I purchase, the more I have fun with the Xbox and so on…
Hey, maybe Microsoft could do something more with that?
24/02/2010 at 19:48 DJ Phantoon says:
Achievement points have the exact opposite affect on me. Though if Valve made it so you could gain their achievements more than once I might care since some of them are actually a challenge and not just “HURR YOU PLAY GAME FOR TEN YEAR HERE POINT”
24/02/2010 at 17:25 Cooper says:
Wow.
We’re fucked.
24/02/2010 at 17:26 Jeremy says:
I hate achievements, the thought of my life being devoted to getting points and achievements is depressing.
24/02/2010 at 17:32 Taillefer says:
The thing I hated most about this was the truth.
I was convinced the ending was going to lead into “maybe this wouldn’t be so great…” and it’s horrifying that never came.
24/02/2010 at 19:53 DJ Phantoon says:
He did say he didn’t know.
I watched it again and it really seems more like he views it as an inevitability, which is the real problem. It almost seemed like defeatism to it, and acceptance of it, rather than wholesale buying in to the system.
But only at the end. He seemed pretty excited at the beginning about these psychological tests making money.
24/02/2010 at 17:37 moyogo says:
His argument for these developments being valuable assumes:
1. Everything you do will be recorded and kept in some permanent file
2. Your ancestors will look up from Farmville9000 to see what you did
Maybe we will all just play mindless point stacking games until we can’t make food anymore. :)
24/02/2010 at 17:40 Tom OBedlam says:
Wow that was both fascinating and petrifying. Almost felt like someone describing the mall scene in Minority Report to me.
24/02/2010 at 17:42 Steve P. says:
Is he a big fan of Mitch Hedberg? He has a very similar delivery style, kind of stilted.
24/02/2010 at 20:05 SteelMilquetoast says:
Yeah, I got the same vibe from him. It was a little weird how he built this whole dystopian scenario while sounding like a famous comedian.
24/02/2010 at 21:39 RedFred says:
Mitch Hedberg is awesome! Must watch when I get home.
25/02/2010 at 02:47 Tom Camfield says:
@ Steve P.
That’s exactly what I thought, Mitch Hedberg, back from the dead, sweet!
24/02/2010 at 17:49 Eric says:
It was hard to say, watching it, whether he was really excited about the possibility for this to happen, or scared of it, or some of both.
If his optimism at the end seems out of place (and I agree that it does), consider: what’s a person to do when they believe a frightening future is certain? I can’t really argue against his position that some of this, if not all of it, is inevitable. He’s just reading the writing on the wall in a way I haven’t heard anybody read it before.
So if you believe that it’s going to happen, you might as well try to find the silver lining of it, I suppose. It freaked me out, but it was probably better than ending with “and that’s why we’re screwed.”
Good talk, glad I watched it. Mr. Schell lives in my hometown, I might have to try to say hello sometime.
24/02/2010 at 17:54 Tom OBedlam says:
Thats a pretty smart point actually. I suppose if thats the vision of the future you’re seeing then you can either try to find a positive or become Phillip K. Dick.
24/02/2010 at 17:59 Zaphid says:
The frightening thing is, that to live this way, you don’t need any sort of knowledge of how the world works. Whatever you do, you get points. It’s the theory of WoW brought to real life. You have no need for schools, books or art.
24/02/2010 at 18:02 Tom OBedlam says:
I’m glad I wasn’t the only person watching thinking “I do NOT want to grind tooth brushing or omelette making.”
The more I think about the more I see that in his future we’re The Sims.
Thats bleak.
24/02/2010 at 18:04 Taillefer says:
I’d pay somebody in China to earn my life points for me.
24/02/2010 at 18:08 moyogo says:
Yes, if it’s inevitable, then you look for a silver lining. Too bad the only thing that’s inevitable is death.
I can’t stand fatalistic pseudo social science, sorry. This may come to pass or it may not and we (big royal we, not just RPSers) have influence over whether it happens or not.
24/02/2010 at 17:50 Rinox says:
Scared shitless here. I already actively avoid Facebook, all the other stuff is just…*shivers*
24/02/2010 at 17:51 terry says:
I was going to watch this because of the aghast responses, but then saw a logo for “Club Penguin” and realized I didn’t really want to know.
24/02/2010 at 17:55 Zaphid says:
The road to hell is paved by good deeds. Or something like that.
Depends and the level of metagaming people can stomach, either they can see the direct link between the action the consequence, or you have to go around with achievements and fluff like that. One part of me wants to see it in effect, if only to witness the triumph of numbers over the words. The other part of me knows that there is no greater evil than the greater good, which has to be kept in check. The thing is, I have never seen a game that couldn’t be “gamed”, the players will always be better than the creators, given enough time. Real life can’t be cheated the same way.
Also I’m surprised nobody mentioned this: The Game. You lost it.
24/02/2010 at 17:59 Joe Martin says:
His future wouldn’t help humanity. We only want to think that it will.
Example:
Wii Fit sold a billion copies because everyone thought it would make them fitter.
How many people do you know that still actively use Wii Fit everyday?
24/02/2010 at 18:36 Labbes says:
It is about selling WiiFit, though, and it sold for the reasons he mentioned. Of course people don’t use WiiFit every day anymore, because people are generally lazy. Still, they will buy more “tools of self-improval” if they see fit (haha).
24/02/2010 at 20:50 Joe says:
Exactly my point. The world he describes is one of commercialisation, not human improvement.
24/02/2010 at 18:01 Mr_Day says:
I apologise wholeheartedly for this. As he was explaining his “day in a game” my only thought was:
Damn. I just lost the game.
And then I wondered how many points I would get for saying it aloud, based on how many people sighed openly and berated me for saying it. Which is pretty much how trolls on internet forums work anyway, they just don’t (yet) keep score.
24/02/2010 at 18:06 Helm says:
He sounds way more positive about this future than I expect anyone not working in advertising to be.
24/02/2010 at 18:07 Rune says:
Before reaching the end of the talk he want on about authenticity being the number one thing we value in these times, which I believe to some degree is true, and a good thing.
I’m not all all sure how he got from there and onto the dystopia in the end filled with fake and superficial values. Surely the very craving for authenticity will ensure that this madness won’t be taken too far? I don’t doubt that society will develop into a state where all those things he describes exist, but I seriously doubt that a majority of people would partake in them to the extent he describes.
24/02/2010 at 18:16 moyogo says:
Yes, the connections are flimsy. He thinks as long as a game gives you something outside the game that will satisfy your need to be in touch with reality.
I wonder if there are RPSers who enjoy some of these gadgets that can relate their experience to us. I can’t even get my foot in the door with this stuff.
24/02/2010 at 18:19 Mr_Day says:
I agree about people not taking it to the extreme he is imagining – indeed, even the examples he uses of realism causing us to change our habits now seemed strange to me. But then, having not been into a McDonalds in a long time, I had no idea they even made an angus burger. I don’t know that many people who pay extra for “real” now, I doubt they would just because they were getting points for it.
I am not even sure why he was so surprised that the list of games he mentioned had micro transactions in them – for the longest time games journalists have been saying that WoW gold sellers will become legitimised when the company making the games themselves become the gold sellers, and that is pretty much what it sounds like all those games have done.
24/02/2010 at 18:08 Asadfqwrmcvbf says:
HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL IT>>>>>> KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
Seriously, who’da thought that mario would be the Harbringer of this distopian future…
24/02/2010 at 18:13 Jad says:
For those of us who can’t watch videos at work, is it possible to summarize what he says (at least the scary part), or should I just wait until I get home?
24/02/2010 at 19:27 Clovis says:
No, we can’t summarize. RPS doesn’t currently give points for answering questions. Try Yahoo! Answers.
24/02/2010 at 18:18 Chiablo says:
Isn’t this already in place? It’s called a credit score. A single number that helps determine your future based on your past accomplishments and mistakes. This isn’t scary to me, but then again, I don’t have bad credit.
24/02/2010 at 18:21 Ninjas says:
I had commented on this elsewhere, so I will repost that here:
man, I have not even touched a single thing this guy has mentioned because they had “dog crap” written all over them.
Maybe old people and little kids find earning points for no reason compelling, but the reality is that games have been moving away from meaningless point/stat/loot grinding for ages– anyone with any taste in games at all hates that stuff unless they are totally OCD.
The people who are playing these games aren’t gamers. They are so fickle, you can bet your bottom dollar that in a year Farmville and anything like it will be as played out as Beanie Babies.
24/02/2010 at 18:29 Labbes says:
There will be a next farmville, though. In twenty years, nobody will remember the One Hit Wonder of today, because there will be lots of One Hit Wonders until then. Who’s saying that the same can’t be happening to games? As he put it, “disposable technology” is the key here.
Also, I think he’s too optimistic. I know that I find a day controlled by points and achievements terrifying, I even think it could work. I just hate achievements and the fact that it can be quite easy to mess with someone’s head (and I’m not saying it wouldn’t work on me as well).
24/02/2010 at 19:32 Clovis says:
What? Gamers love achievements and points. This was slowly phased out but is definitely back in. So, if you played New Super Mario Bros, and saw a bunch of coins would you try to get them? Of course, any gamer would. Why? I don’t know, they hardly make any difference at all. I do nonsensical things all the time in games just because I get a few more XP or money that I don’t need.
24/02/2010 at 20:22 SteelMilquetoast says:
I agree with you completely. He declares this whole process “inevitable” and most commenters here seem taken in by his conclusion, when in fact it is utter bull. Now, I’m not saying the system he forecasts is impossible. It certainly could happen. What is utterly ridiculous is to say that this society would be mandatory. You see coins in Mario, as someone above me has mentioned. Some try to collect all the coins. Others simply ignore them. Mario is a great example to use here, because you don’t need to do everything. The enemies don’t need to be killed and the goodies don’t need to be collected. If you do these things, it is because you relish the challenge or enjoy collecting, not because you are unstoppably compelled to do so. Suppose there were three coins in front of you. Would you collect these? Most probably, because it is simple and coins are good. Suppose there were 100 coins in a difficult location. Would you collect these? It is hard to say, as coins are good but you may not wish to complicate your experience with this difficulty. Suppose there were three coins in a difficult location. Would you collect these? Only if your object in the game were to collect even the most useless of objects, which I believe is quite an uncommon goal in any game. If someone told me that every time I high-fived, I would get $5, I would be fine with that because I high-five anyway and am a fan of money. If someone told me that every 500 times I high-fived, I would get $5, I wouldn’t care because the benefit would be so small compared to the work. Does anyone remember, from back in elementary school, the “jinx” game? If you said the same thing as someone else, they could say jinx, at which point you could not talk until someone said your name. There was no benefit to this game except the feeling of victory in jinxing someone else. Some chose to play this game, others refrained. No one was the better or worse for it as a result. If a man and his co-worker choose to earn points by shouting something when their tattoos match up, no one is better or worse for it. It is simply a whim they have chosen to indulge. The indulgence of whims simply do not control peoples’ lives. It does not work that way. The system he proposes suggest that people will do work for benefit that exists only in their minds, which I think is ludicrous. Sure, people go for achievement points, but people do not go for ALL achievement points. Most people do not let achievement points control the game, much as they would not let achievement points control their lives. There is far, far bigger scope to how people think about life than this man entertains, and he minimizes the importance people attach to meaningful experiences to such an extent that it has forced him into believing whole-heartedly in what is only a mere shadow of a possible future.
24/02/2010 at 20:40 Clovis says:
@milque: No, I think you are proving his point. If there are a bunch of easy to reach coins in Mario, you pick them up almost every time, even though the reward is minimal\useless (100 coins = an extra life and you already have 100 extra lives). Yes, only a select few will try to find those super hard to find coins, but the average person will pick up points whenever it seems convenient and easy. Soon they are making *minor* changes to their lives for just a few points. All those minor changes can end up having a huge impact.
I never worry much about achievements, but if I realize I can get one with little effort then I am pretty much compelled to do so. I think this is a very, very common reaction in humans. Games have always preyed on this and are getting better and better at it. Facebook games are nothing more than a bright button you push to get food like a lab rat. People LOVE pressing that button.
I don’t completely agree with his dystopian future, but I can see elements of it happening.
24/02/2010 at 22:40 SteelMilquetoast says:
It is not so much disproving his point as disproving his dystopian future that I am concerned with. His point is valid; his future is not. I agree the example I presented could be interpreted in support of human ability to justify minor inconveniences with a larger, far-off, abstract reward, but the example was more to point out that the degree of inconvenience matters a great deal. Sure, all the actions he presented in the video to gain points were minor, but added up, they are all a great deal. People get bored and disinterested. They don’t want to go through hell for small change. His future is severely improbable, is all I’m saying (well, maybe I said a little more than that, but at the most basic level that’s what I’m trying to say).
25/02/2010 at 09:35 DJ Phantoon says:
No actually Clovis, if you get the bonus coins in each level you can unlock the star worlds. I have absolutely no clue what reason you’d get all the star world star coins for, but honestly the game is fine right out of the box.
Especially coin battle. That is terrific and nuts.
Anyone that gets every normal coin has OCD though, that only gets you closer to another extra life, and at that point, you’re no longer having fun.
24/02/2010 at 18:21 the wiseass says:
I think that guy is a little bit sick in his head. Also this reminded me about heavy rain, where you have to go through several quick time events in order to take a shower, dry your hair, put on clothes etc… I found it hilarious that you could fail putting your trousers on. I really don’t know WHY anybody would want to play this.
24/02/2010 at 18:29 Uhm says:
That was like watching “Requiem for a Dream”, the crescendo of the music culminating at the closing points.
24/02/2010 at 18:38 Sam A. says:
If anyone is interested in this guy’s history or if they have a passing interest in game design, his book The Art of Game Design is pretty amazing.
24/02/2010 at 18:40 K. says:
I wanted to call that system “orwellian”… but it actually scares me more than a fascist watcher-state. Because, and that’s where you have to remember the psychology lessons from the first part of the talk, it does not fight and suppress human nature but fully embraces it. And therefore: It will actually work.
Even if it sounds like total hyperbole right now and every part in your body cries “NO! NEVER!”
It will get all of you, little steps at a time.
…Now, how to make a game out of breaking these games…
24/02/2010 at 20:25 SteelMilquetoast says:
“Psychology” is not an irresistible, immutable force. Simply because it plays into human nature does not mean it cannot be denied. To think so would be to greatly oversimplify this issue, which I believe most people here (the speaker included) are doing.
25/02/2010 at 00:28 K. says:
You are right.
- It is an oversimplification.
- It can and will be denied.
But human behaviour embraces simplicity, can often be reduced to a set of basic needs and fears.
That is, as long as higher rational thought does not factor into the equation too much.
In other words: I believe in individual resistance but don’t think that this system will be stopped by it.
Hell, I’d even calculate with a reasonably large counter-culture and incorporate it into the plan.
Maybe selling premium stone-washed anti-capitalism badges to activists.
24/02/2010 at 18:43 Cinnamon says:
We already have this point system in the real world. It is called “money” and I believe that it also exists in scary internet technocrat land.
24/02/2010 at 18:49 Tei says:
humm.., in the internet technocrat-land we have somethine different than money: merits. What you have done, how much you know.
But I suppose is not a feasible metrics for these that can’t and don’t know.
24/02/2010 at 18:57 Uhm says:
Not quite the same, but similar principle. The potential control and manipulation goes even deeper. Although, taken to its extreme, the points could replace currency. We’d have to call them credits, natch.
24/02/2010 at 18:58 Cinnamon says:
Well, if those millionaires in Silicon Valley are using these “merits” instead of money then they could send their money to me since they are not using it.
24/02/2010 at 19:14 Simon says:
And money is a virtual good, a make-believe, not actually real.
So it’s finally making the link that there’s no diffirence between the ‘real’ economy and any of the many virtual ones (be they eve online or achievement points.
24/02/2010 at 19:42 Cinnamon says:
The value of fiat money isn’t strictly real. Even things like gold and silver are mainly only valuable in a sort of “virtual” sense rather than a real practical sense. If people are craving for authenticity that does not imply that they they will want coca-cola achievement points as much as precious metals.
Of course it makes sense to think of XBox achievements and XP in online RPGs as sorts of currencies but they are less real and useful than dollars except in very specific circumstances. What is being proposed is a modern version of the “money changers” at the Jewish temples in the bible who made Jesus angry. Game developers, don’t make Jesus angry.
24/02/2010 at 19:44 Tei says:
Cinnamon:
Citing the wikipedia:
“Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position.
Inherent in the hacker ethic is a meritocratic system where superficiality is disregarded in esteem of skill. Levy articulates that criteria such as age, sex, race, position, and qualification are deemed irrelevant within the hacker community.[10] Hacker skill is the ultimate determinant of acceptance. Such a code within the hacker community fosters the advance of hacking and software development.
Testament to the hacker ethic of equal opportunity,[11] L. Peter Deutsch, a twelve-year-old hacker, was accepted in the TX-0 community, though was not recognised by non-hacker graduate students.”
24/02/2010 at 18:44 mcwizardry says:
He forgot to mention what the incentive is for earning life points. What are you going to do with 500 trillion points racked up at the end of your life?
24/02/2010 at 18:49 Mr_Day says:
Oh, he mentioned at least one – government giving out tax breaks for using public transport.
Which actually evoked a “HA!” from me, but I am a colossal dick.
24/02/2010 at 18:52 Cinnamon says:
Hopefully you can use them to get a better experience at the suicide booth when you can no longer earn more points. Like, if you did something horrible in your life like drinking tap water instead of coca cola company products you would get the electric chair but if you bought all the EA sports games every year you get a trumpet fanfare and quality drugs.
24/02/2010 at 18:59 Uhm says:
Gamers know as well as anyone that we like to watch numbers go up.
24/02/2010 at 19:10 mcwizardry says:
I guess you’re right, just measuring your success in life with a number seems to be enough.
24/02/2010 at 18:50 Dan Lawrence says:
What is the incentive for earning gamer score?
Also, he did mention tax deductions if you listen carefully.
24/02/2010 at 19:36 Clovis says:
Well, thanks to augmented reality contacts/glasses, your (gamer) life score will float right above your head, or maybe just a level. Who wants to be a low level loser?? It is like walking around in an MMO with common gear on. You are a terrible person and everyone knows it now. So get with it and start earning some points!
24/02/2010 at 22:47 SteelMilquetoast says:
Social pressures could provide for some individuals joining in on this bizarre points frenzy, but I don’t think it would create something at the level he suggests. Even at the simple achievement points level, there are many people who really don’t care about them, despite the social totem pole that some would derive from it. Also, some people wear loser status as a badge of distinction, like punks and other “rebellious” subcultures.
24/02/2010 at 18:52 Dan Lawrence says:
I imagine though it will work like credit card reward points or Tesco clubcard points. Tiny insignificant monetary value per point but hugely powerful in shaping behaviour.
24/02/2010 at 18:54 Bennie says:
This is a capitalist wet dream. Soviet russia sounds 20x more appealing. Lets just hope that the oil runs out sooner rather than later and all the power needed to run these little sensors that are in everything is unavailable.
24/02/2010 at 19:13 Uhm says:
Everything wouldn’t even need those sensors, we’d just need something to recognise different objects, which we can sort of do at the moment. I think it’s more likely we’d use some middleware to recognise objects and grant points, such as holding up our iphones to the Pepsi can, Pepsi reward us 10 points. It’s augmented reality with reward points.
You know, if it ever happens.
24/02/2010 at 19:03 Jim Reaper says:
@Telperion
Funny, I played through Mass Effect 2 and have absolutely no bloody idea or interest in what achievements I earned.
Don’t worry, Schell’s vision of the future won’t come to pass. People instantly dislike being puppets when they can see the strings.
24/02/2010 at 20:28 jarvoll says:
I’m finding ME2 such an unmotivating grind (enjoyable enough, but with NO pull of its own) that the achievements are almost all of my motivation to continue. It seems there are several attached to the final mission, guessing from their names, and I fully expect that wanting to complete those will be my only reason for getting that far. I guess this makes me partly one of these awful, complicit people who could exist in such a future, but I have a feeling my repulsion for advertising would mostly prevent my participation, thank God.
24/02/2010 at 19:08 saturday says:
I found that intriging and somewhat worrying . It certainly highlights the good and bad possibiltes of where things can go. The Wii thing im not suprised about thats mainly about getting a new market to open up , my nan uses Wii fit after all but doesnt know one end of a mouse from another. Getting folk to do your research to for you by spotting balloons etc isnt anything new. What also isnt new is that there will always be resistance or people who are not affected or wont play ball. Most of my friends and me do not use facebook etc and wonder what the fuss is about achievements but groups like ours are in the minority.
I do dislike the fact that much of these things will be aim at kids and using peer and pester power to make people part with their cash. Its a easy kill as kids been kids are more suspectible to these sorts of things , adults are to a degree you just have top be more sneaky and spend more money to get your buck.
But in the end this could just be the way of the world. To badly quote a fav band of mine ‘ we dont mind pop music as it means our label has money to let us do our thing’ (Gomez)
24/02/2010 at 19:31 Tom OBedlam says:
Sweden (I think, might be Norway) has an impressive law that prohibits advertising aimed at children.
24/02/2010 at 19:11 Casimir's Blake says:
“This Hunger For Reality”
… undermines and ousts the distinct abstract nature that games used to have, and nowadays drastically lack. But then I would not expect the average Halo or Sims fan to appreciate or enjoy something like I Have No Mouth And Must Scream, Herzog Zwei, or Ico. Just to pick out some random examples.
24/02/2010 at 19:16 the wiseass says:
Harlan Ellison is a great man. This and “Repent, Harlequin!” Said the Ticktockman are two of my favourite short stories ever.
24/02/2010 at 22:07 moyogo says:
IHNMAIMS is so brilliant. I’ll have to get that out again.
24/02/2010 at 19:14 Octacon100 says:
Hmmm, I don’t like it.
One Question – do we lose points if we fart?
24/02/2010 at 19:25 Jeremy says:
Only if a pretty girl smells it.
24/02/2010 at 19:36 l1ddl3monkey says:
I think it’s missing one big chunk of context which is that, historically, when the world goes through a rough time people turn more and more to escapism.
All these things have kicked in almost in lockstep with the economic downturn, the imaginary threat of global terrorism, seemingly endless wars etc etc
24/02/2010 at 19:47 Carra says:
Interesting clip.
I’m not sure where I read a similar trick before. “If you want to make sure that players keep playing your game give them an achievement at the end of the demo. Then take it back.”. Giving out tons of points in that kid game but only allowing them to spend it when they pay is very similar. And since you spend more and more time in the game your investment goes up and you’re more likely to buy in.
His ideas of the future make a lot of sense too though of course exaggerated. But one thing hits. Imagine if the insurance companies could see how much you move and sport. They have an investment in making sure you eat healthy and do sports. They can give you a discount if you sport three hours a week. Just mask it in a game system…
24/02/2010 at 19:50 SteelMilquetoast says:
I can’t say I find flaw in the man’s logic, but I do question the extremity to which he takes his vision. Not everyone who has an Xbox is an achievement whore. Not everyone with a Facebook plays Farmville or Mafia Wars. Though these things may certainly be popular, the simple fact of the matter is that it is personal choice to play these thoroughly meaningless games. Merely being conscious of the effect they have grants one the ability to resist them easily. For my part, I choose to avoid them, though I try not to let that choice force my decisions. If I decide that the achievement would be worth the minor sense of accomplishment, I’ll go for it, the same way I would go for any random side quest. If I decide it is a frustrating or boring affair, it will remain unachieved. It is my conscious desire to not waste my precious recreation time by tedious laboring for a higher number that ultimately means nothing, which allows me to be free of the ensnaring tendrils of this system.
Basically, so long as you question why you’re doing something, you’ll be alright.
24/02/2010 at 20:12 wee says:
Man that guy was a terrible speaker :/
24/02/2010 at 20:24 WilPal says:
I just finished reading this guy’s book “The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses”.
It was brilliant.
24/02/2010 at 20:36 Sagan says:
It’s not going to be like that. How many people do you know that refuse to use the points cards of super markets and stuff? I know more people who refuse to use those systems than I know who use them.
25/02/2010 at 00:10 K. says:
…according to Schell, that is largely because those systems were not developed by professional game designers. Also, those require some effort from the consumers (take cards with you, remember to use, fuss around with points while people are waiting behind you in the queue).
My point: It is only barely comparable to contemporary bonus systems.
25/02/2010 at 11:14 Sagan says:
No the people I know who refuse to use such systems refuse to use them because they don’t want the company to know everything they bought.
24/02/2010 at 21:18 A says:
I’ll tell you this much: My employer has implemented achievements, Xbox style, based on our internal database.
I was in at 5:45 AM, mostly because I couldn’t sleep… but I’d be lying if I didn’t say the chance to snag the Early Bird achievement wasn’t part of my consideration.
24/02/2010 at 21:29 always_black says:
People ‘play’ because the results /don’t/ matter, that’s why it’s ‘playing’ instead of, you know, doing stuff. When the play becomes doing stuff then it isn’t play anymore and it’s like someone said up thread, just earning a different kind of money.
I think it’s unlikely the world will end this way. There is a strong repulsion among a significant proportion of gameplayers to the letting of the borders between play and srs bsns get too vague. Reality is multiplayer and the day someone gets the bus for the golden stars is the day he gets duckrolled for the lulz.
24/02/2010 at 21:34 corbie says:
The whole premise is flawed as far as I can see. Two reasons.
1)The products he listed for examples at the start do have something in common. It wasn’t the reality angle though. They provide reward within a social context to the user. For example Guitar hero is primarily a social game. The controller is quite emphatically NOT even close to a real guitar, if it reached that degree of complexity then it would have been a flop. It DOES allow people to live out an interactive fantasy with a prop that makes the fantasy feel a bit more authentic. Mostly with friends. It isn’t real in any sense of the word. That is Guitar Hero’s hook.
Another example was the Wii. Well the Wii isn’t all it cracked up to be. Recent figures are showing a rather sharp drop off, not because of natal, not because of market saturation but because it seems to have been a rather long lived novelty fad rather than an all conquering platform. A bit like Facebook has been for a lot of us. It is telling that a quick look at the largest selling games for the Wii are ones that have come packed with the consoles or “must have” peripherals. It never fully realised the platform, it just caught the attention of the most lucrative audience – causal gamers.
I’m not convinced that Natal is going to be as great as they might hope either. We dont actually want to *be* ninjas, we want to be made to feel we are. That isn’t reality at all. I think a long hard look at the Wii shows that.
Also Xbox achievements were the only “hardcore” gaming function in there, a totally different demographic and one I’d argue that was more about bragging rights that a connection outside the game. I’d say he missed the point there too- they extend the life of the game and feed peoples natural competitiveness but I don’t think the “out of the game” thing is somehow a new thing, it just formalises something that already existed.
2) The last bit is utter rubbish, up there with all those quacks that think that “evolution” will cause us to have massive Mekon braincases, no toes or fingernails and no hair in half a million years. Utter shite. Why? The very human nature he claims will bring us to this digital nirvana. Humans take the path of least resistance whenever they can. Like all other creatures on the planet we don’t compete unless we think we have a good chance of winning. We fill our lives with so many tiny lies to compensate for the gap between who we are and who we think we should be. We aren’t going to willingly buy into a system that invades our privacy so much that we feel obligated to live our lives to someone else’s agenda.
What do you think makes gold selling work? I notice he didn’t mention that (successful as it still is for some people).
Ooo crap sorry I lost my temper a bit and rantled. Sorry.
/Corb
“your finger, you fool.”
24/02/2010 at 21:45 Demon Beaver says:
When I first watched this, my first reflex was wanting to delete my Facebook account.
Then I linked to it on my Facebook… \:
24/02/2010 at 22:04 Phydaux says:
There are a few comments mentioning that not everyone likes achievements, and that people will completely ignore this, but none of that matters. The implementers of these real-life achievement systems, don’t care about getting everyone hooked. Just enough people to make money. And it will get very hard not to get hooked, or at least involved, if (for example) every toothbrush you can buy has these features built-in and you rack up points without evening wanting to you may just think, 30 more seconds and I’ll get another 10 points…
I don’t know if things will ever get this bad, but it’s not going to be a massive switch for how we live now to this points based life, it’s going to be a very gradual change that you may not even notice is happening.
24/02/2010 at 23:36 Taillefer says:
I have horrible visions of thirteen year olds brushing their gums away because they’re addicted to point-gaining habits and don’t want to feel left out by their inadequate toothbrush score that gets uploaded to facebook. Peer pressure is a large part of the reason why Facebook games are successful.
Imagine the toothbrush elitism and bullying that could occur.
24/02/2010 at 22:10 David says:
The breach of integrity that he proposes is offensive. Being tracked at all times? Yeah, gaming will probably not be the top priority when that’s possible.
24/02/2010 at 22:26 MarkN says:
Watched half of it before I had to stop. Will try to watch the rest tomorrow just to know my enemy better. In the meantime I’m off to play some Space Giraffe. Reality isn’t getting a look-in.
24/02/2010 at 22:35 jabu says:
Just this morning I was reading an eerily similarly titled article
Coincidence? (I think NOT!)
Anyway, it’s a short opinion piece (guardian.co.uk blog post) on a book (“Reality Hunger”) whose main thesis, in a brief simplistic nutshell, is how it’s hard to sincerely and non-ironically tell a modern story, and hence how instead it’s best to stick to gritty postmodern non-fiction. The post rejects the manifesto’s thesis, which is without question is highly provoking(and intentionally so), though with little analysis (again: it is a blog post).
Way different medium (way more esteemed), but this is an interesting and clear analogy between the two “art” forms.
24/02/2010 at 22:39 jabu says:
(Please excuse/ignore techmological non-savviness)
24/02/2010 at 23:25 espy says:
What a clever man. The last couple of minutes are oddly amazing, especially his hopeful turnaround at the very end.
Very worth watching.
25/02/2010 at 00:04 tapanister says:
Is your definition of a “hopeful turnaround” a world where videogames and constant supervision and scorekeeping are forcing yuo to be a better person, or am I just missing the irony? Hopefully the latter.
01/03/2010 at 11:32 Josh says:
So that’s what the panopticon singularity looks like from the user perspective!
The main alternative to this convergence between nudge psychology, governments who want to engineer virtue (like the possible conservative government), achievements that link up across platforms, and closed platforms would probably be this:
For those who make web apps, things like rockband and indie games to make an alternative advancement systems that are based on skill increases rather than conformity, and have their own form of realism; a professional gaming culture that leads all the way to actual qualifications and making products of your own; designing your own games and making your own music, even up to building your own electronics.
This way you get realism based on empowering people, on learning how to work together and learning skills from people rather than sitting in your own advancement track/cubicle and advertising it to your friends because you just want to be a part of the pyramid scheme.
Basically it’s a full alliance between games based around choice, those based around skill, the hacker ethos, “maker faire” stuff and serious democracy.
Now it’s probably not going to link up that hardcore on either side because in the middle you’ll have techo-luddite right wing survivalist guys (some of whom will be in competing businesses) who will hate it all and probably start trying to fight both sides via “it’s invading my privacy, and juvenile-ising the population” and “it’s training terrorists/intellectual property destroyers”. And plus, people pushing their own stuff never look up enough to keep track of what other people are doing.
08/02/2013 at 12:40 Josh W says:
After Jesse Schell spent some time comparing his old talk about achievements to reality, I thought I’d come back here and check what I said.
Haha! Jesse has almost exactly flipped his perspective, rather than focusing on metrics, observation and social proof style feedbacks, he hopped into championing “good problems”.
It’s still substantially different from my attitude, because he’s basically advocating the return of games based around box prices and curiosity primarily:
Get superficial interaction with nice welcoming interface.
See promise of utopian stuff
Get implied plan to get to it
Hit paywall, buy proper game.
Within game, become a better person, even if promise of utopia doesn’t live up to expectation.
Find a new way to interact with your settled community.
Which is fundamentally not about reality at all, it’s actually some kind of journey into a fantastic world. In fact I’m sure someone could map the structure of fairy tales onto it. (or that blasted heroes journey, but I’m not going there!)
But anyway, the core simple idea, that games are about personal transformation, and the questing exploring, learning impulse, and about making a better way to live, is exactly what I was trying to get at. If you have social networks and tracks of skills that move through from games to the real world, then you have a serious expansion of peoples’ personal agency, and bring some of that utopianism into normal life. Exploration and stuff is fun too, I’d never knock that, and there should always be games that really aren’t about reality, but if you do want to interface games with reality, it is in their interactive quality that they have most to say, most to tie into things.
Here’s how I think we need to extend it; at the moment we have a few skateparks here and there; they started as a way of transforming efficiency into play, turning bog standard functional landscapes into something cool and skillful, and then people reacted at how those forms of behaviour were interfering with normal life, causing problems for people trapped in efficiency mode and generally confusing things, so they started creating public spaces to contain that.
Perhaps instead of waiting for reality games, larps etc to find a way to hitch into the urban fabric, start causing problems, and then be contained, perhaps people could make public spaces so that they are already game-able.
If you really want to make games still about layering game worlds on top of reality, and tying into people’s real lives, but you also want to create freedom, then you need to create these spaces to play, not exactly adult playgrounds, because they’d probably be more abstract and less purely about physical activity, but they would also be full of spatial detail and possibilities for interesting game geometry, as well as various QR codes and things for people to orient their games to each other.
You can make the same point about time too, that allowing people to fit play into their working time, blur that utopian problem solving into people’s normal life activities, but that’s harder.
25/02/2010 at 00:02 Web Cole says:
Tis a very engaging talk.
25/02/2010 at 03:48 Tom Camfield says:
Amazing, really highlights some of societies underlying trends and how they interact with games, and as a teacher, I’m sending a mail to Lee Sheldon to get his game.
Really though, Jesse Sheldon (while I thought it was a very convincing and great speech to watch) says a lot of disparate and unconnected things.
He’s doing what all futurists do well, looked at what’s already happening and drawn a line to the future. (Anyone read Armageddon: The Musical? Robert Rankin had a future where people earned money when they watched TV and this guy gets rich having learned to sleep with his eyes open. That’s coming up to 20 years old, 1984′s even older.)
We already have cash, so the points system is there and installed already, and we have tons of “miles” or “points” programmes with supermarkets or credit cards (and people who actively hate them and rebel against them). We already have gas points, you gain them for filling up your car and air miles, and there are loads of fizzy drink promotions were you buy three cans and get one free, or more specifically the Starbucks cards where you get a free Starbucks after ten purchases or something. It’s not a stretch to draw that out into the future, but it has little baring on Farmville or whatever. As someone else mentioned, that’s about playing with and against friends; it’s social gaming. Combining the two however… well, that’s something he hasn’t really touched upon; it’s not just reading 500 novels, it’s reading more novels than your neighbours, or reading the right novels. When companies start facilitating that, then it’ll be huge.
Anyway, one thing he definitely gets wrong: there’ll be far more competition between providers than he outlines; you’ll earn points for drinking Dr Pepper while simultaneously losing insurance points; you’ll have gas points vs enviromental points, and that unless the money backing environmental companies increase a whole lot, it’ll be the gas companies with the better games.
The authenticity side of his argument is obviously flawed. Angus Beef is guaranteed to be of a certain quality. Organic food is also, supposedly, and from experience tends to be, of a certain quality, and more expensive. Really, in the end, it’s not authenticity these people crave, but expensive things and/or higher quality things than what they have, or their neighbour has. At some points, when the world seems most inauthentic, the fashion will be for authenticity, but that’s just fashion, the underlying thing is quality and cost, the former for those who want a better life, the latter for those who want to appear to have a better life. (I’m using broad strokes here, please be generous.)
This is where we tie back to the right novels, or more novels than your neighbours. I know I’m not driven to be better than my neighbours, but I am driven by self-improvement, I want to eat the right foods and read the “right” books. There’s no quest for authenticity there (although for a lot of environmentalist there is, but it’s a fashion for many others). Tapping into the fashion trends is cool, but it’s really about tapping into the deeper desire of self-improvement (see WiiFit) and competition; that’s what sells.
More interestingly, the co-operative game he touched upon, with advertising and high fives. There’s a lot of people who are motivated more by the idea of community and being part of something, and it’s when games foster this sense of community, not necessarily a competitive one, that you see people joining in droves; MMOs and Facebook games, and it’s still worth holding on to that thread and recognising it’s a major factor in a lot of these successes.
25/02/2010 at 04:15 Tom Camfield says:
D’oh, my huge response was marked as spam.
Briefly then; he says a lot we already know about, and his authenticity argument is hugely flawed (authenticity is the latest fashion, Angus Beef and Organic are both marks of quality and expense, like Ralph Lauren used to be, and there’s nothing revelatory about people wanting quality, or wanting to appear like they can afford quality compared to their neighbours).
That said, bringing games into the state sector is an incredible idea, especially in health and education, where we do lack a proper reward structure. (Although again, none of this is revelatory since we’re told to make education “fun”, Jesse just shows us that we can still have “boring” classes, we just need a reward system that makes kids want to participate, ditto health.)
Also, the idea that the points structure is new and fearful is silly, since we already have cash, miles, points, the whole lot, everywhere. Jesse should have pointed out that a lot of these systems will compete.
Great explanation of divergence, but the iPad is a portable devise, and it’s the portable part that encourages convergence.
Anyway, I thought it was an excellent diversion +50 points.
25/02/2010 at 06:42 Bob Haville says:
LOL! Excellent comment. And you know what? As I was laughing, my first reflex was to look for the “thumb-up” or “+1″ button so I could give you kudos for it.
And then I realized how true this whole talk is. We already live in a world where we can get points for every little thing!
25/02/2010 at 07:42 DMcCool says:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That aside this guy is disarmingly good at rhetoric. His coperate 1984 is a bit far fetched, but theres no questioning something resembling that is coming. What I don’t understand is why anyone would be less than mortifed about this.
Guys, here is the important bit: the real world is not quantifiable. You can’t attach numbers to mental states, to actual human interactions. Something is lost -almost everything is lost. What is left if meaningless – hey it might functionally make some people money but its as human beings we are being totally, utterly forgotten. Pyschology discovered this about 60 years ago, and yet here we are.
Even Orwell couldn’t stomach what this man is proposing. This is something akin to the end of civilisation.
27/02/2010 at 01:23 Hmm-Hmm. says:
The thing is though, regardless how distopian it may seem, that some folk are likely to try and do their best to get us their (if only on their turf).
I mean.. McDonalds exists.
25/02/2010 at 10:38 Mistmanov says:
The core of the problem illustrated in the video is that companies will get even more control over our thoughts, in order to make us buy their crap. Creating fake desires or misusing our instincts for collecting, belonging to the group etc. They’re already doing it, and it will only get worse as technology allows the companies to intrude more and more.
The way to fight that doomsday scenario?
Stop buying crap you don’t need
Sure, the majority of people will happily buy whatever “NEW1!!!1!!” product is advertised on TV, and will also go along with whatever fancy points/discounts/etc system is introduced (my mom: “I saved $10 by collecting 500 points after spending $1000 at the horrendously overpriced grocery store!” No, you didn’t), but you yourself can escape that future by only buying things that you actually need.
25/02/2010 at 15:39 bill says:
That was rather awesome. Reminded me of Jennifer Government in some ways. Loyalty card scheme wars here we come!
It’s always nice to see someone who gives great presentations – wish i could do that.
I’ve thought for years that schools should do a RPG based system for schools. Wow and Brain Training have both cracked motivating people to do repetitive tasks… I always thought they could put the same system to work in schools, with level ups, achievements, etc..
Never really considered it flowing out into everything else though…
25/02/2010 at 16:09 Urthman says:
This dude really needs to read the Joel on Software blog. There’s a lot of research demonstrating that, in the long run, extrinsic rewards don’t work for motivating people.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/09.html
Also, trying to evaluate people’s behavior with some objective “scoring” metric always ends up having people find ways to game the system, optimize for maximizing the score rather than for doing the behavior well:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/how-hard-could-it-be-sins-of-commissions.html
26/02/2010 at 10:35 Cinnamon says:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
“One of the most robust findings in social science and also one of the most ignored.”
26/02/2010 at 09:49 Hmm-Hmm. says:
I’m shelving this for a later time, when I actually have time to really take my time for it.
26/02/2010 at 15:08 corbie says:
For those at work (like me) a trascript of the above can be found here
/Corb
“your finger, you fool.”
04/03/2010 at 05:35 Ralph Midnight says:
Although the points will be ‘technically’ awarded for brushing – people will actually be thinking of ways to ‘trick’ the system and creat devices that rack up points but generating the ‘brushing code’ on your toothbrush. Code hacks will be huge. Point theft will be popular.