[...] last time I talked about this, it was May 2006. Since then, the industry has “boomed,” but in [...]

[...] to it.  She gives presentations and workshops around the world, she’s cited by Raph Koster (http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/05/15/exceptionalism/ and others), her research is well supported, interesting, and [...]

[...] And if all the work is about breaking the technology, then maybe it’s more convenient to develop yourself that technology so that you can make what you really want. Makes sense? [...]

[...] Exceptionalism [...]

[...] Before I explain what Ben proposed, I’ll give a bit of background on what I view to be the importance of shared experience in virtual worlds for offline life.I gave a talk last week about one of the reasons I think virtual trade exists: trust. Researchers argue that the existence of established (and utilised) economic systems in online games demonstrates the trust that users/players have in one another: to deliver, to be honest and to reciprocate (if necessary). But it also has repercussions beyond economic motivations. The design of goal-oriented game virtual worlds, from EverQuest to Star Wars Galaxies to World of Warcraft, explicitly ensures that people socially interact. It encourages repeated interaction and ultimately the formation of close groups of often very tight friendships. In some cases, the friendships that emerge are reportedly more significant than offline relationships (see, for example, the work of Ba, Ducheneaut, Moore & Nickell, Yee; and for a great typographical distinction between game worlds and social virtual worlds, see Raph Koster’s recent post here).I propose that one of the reasons for this is shared experience. The goals of online games are tied in with drama and tension. People are jointly active in the defeat of enemies; they work together towards success and they share their spoils – sometimes even in joint stores. When they’re done with a successful raid, members of the party might ask people when others around to do it again. And if they turn up and everyone works for the common goal (whether you win or not), it’s more likely to happen again. And so on. And thus, a bond based upon shared experience is born – which can extend to different spheres, from playing together in different worlds or to networking in the real one. There’s a reason the digital elite call World of Warcraft “the new golf”. It’s because you’ve chosen to spend your free time with a group of people in a way which demonstrates your commitment to that person or to the team. You get to know them in a deep kind of way.I’d argue that this is a different kind of bond than one based upon chatting in a chat room. It’s task-oriented. It’s based upon doing. It’s not, “So, what bands did you see lately?”; it’s, “Hey, do you remember that time when we did…”. The former can lead to shared experience (and sometimes retrospectively offer examples of it). Another important layer in group formation for the WoW set is that the group is united against an enemy. There are clear distinctions between “us” and “them”. A final reason which I believe contributes to the strength of bonds developed in online worlds is that the interaction takes place on the internet. According to quite a lot of internet research, which is perhaps far too much to explain here, the anonymity of internet interaction has implications for the openness and honesty with which people talk about themselves with other people (see for examples the work of McKenna, Bargh & Green – oh and so many others…). The quick bonds which are formulated between people because of the shared successes are enhanced by the unhindered ways which they talk about themselves, and believe others are too.OK, now that I’ve covered the reasons hanging out with people in WoW may be more significant than hanging out in person, I’ll get to my point.What happens when parents get divorced? Say Parent A is given custody of Child and Parent B has visiting rights at weekends or holidays. Parent A doesn’t play Online Game X but Parent B does, and plays for a couple of hours every night with Child. Does that undermine the judge’s custody decision? Child isn’t spending time with Parent A when s/he is hanging in Norrath with Parent B, so if Parent A losing out on important time with Child while Parent B and Child are experiencing enhanced shared experience, what implications does this have for future custody rulings?Taking a more clear-cut (and probably less-emotional) example, what about virtual stalking? Or virtual restraining orders? As identities in cyberspace are mutable, real selves can be hidden by virtual selves. It is not the role of commercial companies to ensure that Account A is allowed to speak with/be within 10 miles of Account B, surely Account A playing with Account B under different cover is in breach of the court’s judgement? When will we see restraining orders including time spent in a virtual world?I don’t have the answers. I’m just posing the questions. If anyone can help, please do let us know. [...]

[...] The beginning of Raph’s essay on exceptionalism goes straight over my head, but this paragraph spoke directly to what I’m working on right now: The thing we must not lose sight of here is that content creation is a skill just as much as being a badass game player is, and it’s therefore subject to the same power law sorts of success rates. [...]

[...] Raph’s Website » Exceptionalism ould you be willing to give up on online game exceptionalism? (tags: secondlife games social socialgaming metaverse) [...]

I think I would have used “genre” for “fantasy”, “setting” for “medieval”, and “theme” for “swords-and-sorcery”.

I personally think a lot of Everquest’s early market share is from their wisely puting a girl on the box

You perplex me. People log into a world based on its setting? That doesn’t seem right.

I bought WoW because I’d played the WC RTS games and liked those. I haven’t played ATITD because an egyptian setting (or theme or what have you) doesnt interest me. Is that not a valid reason to choose to (or not to) play a game?