My Little Pony

So...while I let my brain digest the implications of the Supreme Court ruling today I wanted to post on something that happened earlier last week (I'm behind I know...I'm trying to get caught up).

Last week Blizzard, for the first time, sold an in-game mount. By sold, I mean, the kind that costs you your hard earned dollars. Yes, you pay real money for a pixelated digital piece of property. The cost of this mount was $25 bucks. While selling stuff for in-game is not new (Blizzard sells a variety of different in-game passive pets) the fact that they were selling something that was more than just a cosmetic piece of property was. This mount was called [Celestial Steed].

So what was my reaction to this? I ran home after work and signed on to make my pony purchase. I was a bit shocked, to say the least, when I saw that there were 166,445 people in front of me in line and my que'd wait time was 7 hours. Now, if you're not familiar with how Blizzard makes sales, yes, they que you to make sure the system handles everyone in turn. If all 166k people were trying to make the purchase at once, the system would crash and there would be a lot of unhappy people... they do it to prevent the bottle neck affect that can happen. Still, I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that I was digitally trying to purchase a digital good and I had to wait in line 7 hours for it.

Turns out though that Blizzard wasn't too good at estimating the que and within an hour and 45 minutes I made the purchase. My husband was a little none to pleased I spent $25 bucks on something that had no actual tangibility to it. I however, couldn't have been happier with the purchase. Besides, what does tangibility actually mean these days? I can download music via iTunes, pay for it and take enjoyment in it all without actually ever *having* it.

First, I'm a sucker for pets and mounts in WoW. Most of the cooler and more interesting mounts are hard to achieve and I just don't have the play hours to work towards those. When I played my character on the Alliance side I worked extremely hard to earn enough faction to purchase a Ram mount and loved him in all his fluffiness. When I transfered from Alliance to Horde, naturally, I lost my Ram and was given the Wolf mount instead. Don't get me wrong...the wolf is cool and all but he wasn't my Ram. I needed something to fulfill the virtual void created by the loss of my Ram mount.

Second, this mount totally made me nostalgia - back to my youth and horse collecting days. When I was younger, up until high school in fact, I collected Breyer horses and every other piece of horse- like action figure I could get my hands on. I was particularly found of these clear, sparkly horses that were from the She-Ra series (like Crystal Moonbeam or Arrow, the steed of Bow) and the [Celestial Steed] reminds of that childhood memory.

The most interesting aspect of it all was the fact that Blizzard made over $2million in one day from the sale of these digital mounts. That's right...they programmed the horse...once, sold it to thousands of people and made nothing but pure profit.

Beyond that though, was the interesting implication and talks that ensued within the game itself, about what it meant to buy an in-game item for out-game money (Blizzard is not the first game to allow this as Perfect World is a free MMO to play but if you want anything interesting you purchase it; items are what you play for in any Perfect World game, time to play is free). There were cries from those who thought it was pathetic for people to spend real money on a digital item and then there were the rebuttals about how those bitching should leave mom's basement and get a job. It showed and interesting divide between the casuals and hardcore players (those who presumably had full time jobs and played causally vs those who were students or employed and played hard but had no money - that is of course a simplistic assumption that if you work you can't play hardcore). I'm of course simplifying the entire conversation but I think it's enough to get the gist.

What this shows if that there is no longer a strong dichotomy between "online" and "offline", between "in-game" and "out-game". We often think of games, game worlds and the people who inhabit them as two very distinct and different aspects of space that doesn't cross or intersect at any point. The truth however is much messier. I spent $25 of the money I make in the "real" world for an item that can only be used and enjoyed in the "virtual" world (in the most simplistic of terms). But honestly, I don't see it like that - remember, the mount has nostalgia for me and fills a gap left by the loss of my earlier mounts - it fulfills a very real feeling and emotive experience for me.

What we think of work/play, virtual/real is not so clear anymore. We need to redefine notions of what games are and what they mean to us.

More importantly though, I seriously need to figure out how to make something that takes minimal effort and time, is endless in supply, is wanted by thousands of people and makes me over $2million dollars in a day.

Bad Monday is Bad

The US Supreme Court (not California as previously mentioned...thanks to Rich for the correction) has decided today that it WILL hear the case for computer and video game regulation.

I read this tidbit of news while at my desk and let out a loud exasperated sigh follow by, "Are you fuckin' kidding me?" (oops for inappropriate workplace language but it bubbled out before I could stop it).

At this point...I'm flabbergasted. Words fail me. If you want to know my better articulated position on the matter, read my earlier post on video games and violence.

In the meantime I'm going to sit, stew and do my best to focus on the workday while this thought runs in my head; /all circuits are busy now, please hang up, and try your call again later/.

Art and Video Games

Last week sometime Ebert posted an article on why video games are not art and will never be art.

"Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

That's a pretty strong statement, one which sent the video community to foam at the mouth and cry foul in the most frenzied way possible. Having written on the subject and debated it myself a few times I felt an initial unpleasant gut reaction as the vile of hate spewed in the back of my throat. I haven't commented until now, enjoying the frenzy of responses and reactions that have ensued since the initial posting. While Ebert's article is at the heart of it and in itself poses many, many problems (which I’ll touch on a few in a minute), of greater interest to me is the reactions from the gaming community to his assertions of games are not art. Regardless of what anyone says, he seems to have touched a very sensitive nerve located in the heart and soul of many gamers.

First, life would be so much simpler if I could read one person’s work, disagree with said work and then write a response based on the single work and be an expert with a definitive opinion. My PhD would have been done years ago. In this case Kellee Santiago is certainly onto something but she’s not THE authority and I’m not sure why we’re treating her as such. This is by no means a slap to her credentials; my point however is that if you’re going to make such a strong statement as the one above maybe you should talk to a few more people and do a little footwork and research yourself. But alas, in the world of internet tongue it’s much easier to refute one person with your own diatribe. Hell, I do this myself, but I also don’t have millions of people reading my blog and looking to me for thought leadership…with great power comes great responsibility or some shit like that and I am in no means a position of great power or leadership…at least not yet (I’ll return to this in a bit…)

The problem is that even Ebert shows we have problems defining art. Art, like so many other aspects of life are culturally constructed and have personal meaning and emphasis for the individual in such a way that what touches one individual will not touch the other. Me and my husband are great examples of this: what he likes as art I do not and what I love he does not. Right now we have barely any art on the wall because we just can’t agree on what to put there…. One day I’ll win but only when I have the money to let my taste do the walking. My husband and I can agree that we don’t get modern art….there’s a really famous painting at our hometown location in the Detroit Institute of Art that we never get. We always go look at, and stare for 5 or so minutes until we’re bored, trying desperately to get the painting. We never do. Yet, it’s art right? I mean…it has to be, it’s hanging on the wall of a bona fide art museum. I personally think it’s crap. I don’t get it…whatever…but it doesn’t make it any less art just because I don’t personally understand it. Art is extremely subjective… and for Ebert to suddenly jump in and decide to define that subjectivity with his own subjective nature about video games (and art) is just the result of an ego gone too big for one person.

The other issue I see if that Ebert takes a lot of time trying to define art and say what it is and isn’t but he doesn’t even scratch the surface on what makes a game what it means to play and what those intersections mean.

The question keeps arising about why we care what Ebert said. We care because like it or not, he is a big somebody with a lot of followers and respected for his opinion. We care because what he says can make an impact. I think, of course, it’s a double edged sword in that if we put him on a pedestal and react like we did as a community we are responsible for creating the monster. I personally don’t give two shits about Ebert…I never read his stuff. I hear about him occasionally but I never have actually gone and read a review of his or any of his work…until now. See the problem yet? Yes, I admit, I’m contributing to the problem by talking about it. I think ignoring him would have more power than any of the millions of millions of words that have already been directed towards him and his ideals. Everyone wants to get their “two cents” in on the matter and I’m no different. I feel passionate about games and as a person I never can bite my tongue for too long… just ask my poor boss at work who has to constantly hear me bitching about the wrongs I perceived committed against me. So sue me…it’s who I am, but at least I admit it.

So, it still doesn’t answer the question of why we care if video games are considered art. I don’t have any hard or absolute answers for you. What I do have is a few thoughts. First, I think a lot of what creators of video games are doing IS creating art. So we’ve moved away from the medium of the cave wall and now create art with computers and technology… it’s about a modern fight on what art is. If we buffer the art and the artist with a computer and technology should we no longer call it art? Because it’s pixels instead of brush strokes has it lost authenticity? To me, it goes much deeper than just the video game aspect of it all. Second, I think by pegging something as art you’ve suddenly given it legitimacy. The history of video games is such that I think we’re still fighting for legitimacy and a place in cultural tradition that is more than just “pop culture” or something that we consider ephemeral or not worthy of place and respect. Hell, I can relate. When I first started down the academic path of studying video games people looked at me like I was committing academic suicide. I remember a fellow graduate student, one who studied a “more traditional and therefore respected area in anthropology – Russian economy”, look at me when he found out my academic aspirations and say, “Oh…you’re studying video games…so like… cabbage patch dolls and garbage pail kids? What will you study when they [video games] fall out of flavor?” I guess he could probably eat those words now.

Ultimately we care because if nothing else the video gaming community is passionate about what they do. No…it’s not because we want to legitimize us spending hours and hours playing a game, but rather we want people to understand the beauty, the experiences and culture shaping things we call video games.

Why yes, I DO love killing.

I love violent video games… I admit it. I love them. I giggle with joy when I smash an enemy up against a wall repeatedly until he’s no longer alive and get a rush when I hack someone to pieces and the blood sprays everywhere like a fireworks display. I just… like it… I myself am NOT a violent person. I’ve never beaten someone up (unless you count the 4^th grade incident when I *pushed* a 1^st grader down after he followed me for several blocks calling me fat) and have otherwise never engaged in what we might consider “violent behavior”…virtual worlds not withstanding. My son and daughter have both watched me play violent video games and have taken their own stab at trying some. Now, I’ll admit there are some games I do not let my 7 year old son watch… like Silent Hill. But honestly, it’s not because of the violence, rather I’m worried he’ll have nightmares just over the general content of the game; hell, sometimes even I have nightmares. I’m NOT worried about them turning into violent monsters in the least. As a matter of fact, my son, at Tae Kwon Do class, still cowers when they are faux sparring. Neither he nor my daughter have ever gotten into school fights and they’ve never lashed out physically at us either. I attribute this to two things: first I’m an active parent and engage my children in everything they do. I AM big brother watching and I know what they’re doing and when they’re doing it. IF something seems out of line then we talk about it and I don’t dumb it down for them either. Second, they are well aware of the boundaries between fake and real when it comes to violence and especially video game violence. Yes you can run someone through in a video game with a sword and there’s no negative consequences but if you do it in real life then they are not going to bounce right back up. Why do they know this? Well first off because violence in my house isn’t a mystery. I don’t sugar coat it for them. I don’t shield them. I don’t bulk at it. Video game violence in my house is simply a non-issue.

I bring this up because over the course of the next couple of weeks we’re going to see some history unfold around us concerning violent video games. You can read all the details here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1742_videogameviolence.pdf

If you want a little more background you can also check out Kotaku’s well written article here: http://kotaku.com/5522469/

I know I’ll be watching this with great interest to see what happens. I know there are going to be a lot of people watching. What disturbs me greatly is that we’re still on this kick about how violent video games are harmful to children. The problem with saying this is that there has never been any conclusive evidence that video games have a negative effect on children. Never. Oh…they’ve tried. They’ve spun data. Weaved tales. But in the end, if you really look at what the data is saying, they’ve got absolutely nothing.

In addition:

"The State fails to explain how to determine what constitutes prohibited violence against an "image of a human being," or why minors should be shielded from depictions of violence against an image of a human being rather than depictions of violence against a zombie, god, robot, or any other fantastical creature. The State's proposal to treat depictions of simulated violence as obscenity has no stopping point.”

I’m not surprised. Violence is culturally constructed and even then our own individual experiences play into that construct making the matter even more complicated. They can’t even agree on what constitutes “violence” in the fantasy context. Is it really violent to beat the living snot out of a twisted undead nurse who vaguely resembles a human because she’s about to beat the snot out of you? I actually know the answer to this because I did research on this very thing several years ago.

I think that we are making a mistake to make violence black and white. There is absolutely no black or white in violence and our comprehension of it; especially when it comes to violence in a virtual setting There are only shades of muted hues of gray.

I love how we’re singling out video games and not putting a lock down on violent movies, or music with violent lyrics or hell…let’s go ahead and start putting a lock down on books that are violent! We single out video games because they’re immersive? Because they’re realistic (I know when I played Darksiders I totally knew that one day I’ll be my chance to beat off angels and demonic underlyings because I most certainly will become one of the four horsemen…one day)? Because kids would rather play them than watch TV or movies now? Or is it because we as a society need the next great scapegoat to blame our shortcomings on? I don’t think it takes a genius to answer that question…

Note: While this is personal opinion taken to its strongest as I feel deeply passionate about it, if you want to see the data to back it up and more objective academic writing, feel free to shoot me and email as I can provide you with the actual research.

A PhD is a motherf*cking Time Vampire!

You know you've neglected your blog far to long when you can't remember your own login information... that and you see it's been over 2 months since your last post!

Working on your PhD, working a full time job (that turns into more hours than full time but I suppose 40 for a full time job was just arbitrary anyways) and raising 3 kids while keeping the family together is quite a lot to have on one's plate and something, it seems,will always slip...For me, it's the blog and my poor poor house. I'm going to have to start charging the dust bunnies rent!

Fear not though! I'm going to try my best to jump back into it and hopefully keep up the pace a bit more than my sorry self has been able to. Here's an interesting article for you to read in the meantime...maybe it'll shed some light onto the plight of the PhD candidate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18phd-t.html?scp=1&sq=education%20life%20phd&st=cse

For me this article hit home. The road to getting a PhD is extremely long and arduous ... and to what end? I keep grousing to my husband (who I'm surprised just doesn't autotune me out by now) about how my CV is in rough shape and I need to become more of a "force" in the academic world. I see people cited and quoted and used as an "expert" in their field and that's the position I want to be sitting in.

I keep having dreams lately that someone else publishes on my dissertation topic and I have to start over... I wake up in a cold sweat; sometime I wake up crying. Such are the real fears of walking down that PhD road. I've been researching video games for over 10 years, and written on a large variety of topics. It KILLS me to see that things I've written about years ago are now being published. I read it and say, "Jesus...I wrote on this...I was trying to explain this well before it was published...why didn't I publish this?!" Part of the problem was believing in myself and the merit of the work that I was doing. Let's say researching video games before they became such a buzz, not only in general culture but in the academic world as well was not an easy feat. The other part...well, it's all my own in being a tad to complacent and lazy... But no more! I just need to have my priorities in order and I think some housekeeping has come due.

The path of a PhD candidate is not an easy one. I think that you can really only truly understand that road if you've gone down it. There are so many hoops to jump through, some academic and many more that are bureaucratic in nature. I'd love to teach, as the article discusses the PhD's ultimate end; working academia. However, as the article also points out, those jobs are few and far in between. So what's a PhD candidate to do? At least if nothing else I KNOW at the end of all of this I'll have two things; a very large student loan debt and the authority to say, "No, it's not Mrs., you can call me Dr.".

Call for papers MPCA!

The deadline is fast approaching!!

http://www.wiredanthropology.com/uploads/Video_Games_Call_for_Papers_MPCA.pdf

Paper proposals or panel submissions are due April 30th!