« Who owns e-sports? | Main | 10 years! »

Sep 03, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c022953ef019aff2a438b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Politics and Economics of Closure:

Comments

1.

I think the last few years have put the lie to the old chestnut about MMOs never really dying. We've seen plenty of games that have went away, and for the most part the universe hasn't fallen apart.

The important thing for the players is the community more than the game. (For future developers, it'd be nice to have access to the game to understand it in its historical context, of course.) But, the community can move to another form, such as a forum.

I think one thing that makes virtual worlds so interesting is having a bold idea and direction. I'm pretty sure Jesse Schell has enough stuff to keep him busy that he doesn't need to go salvage an old game from the scrap heap. Without his (or some other central developer vision), would the game be the same? I don't think so.

This might seem strange or even sacrilegious coming from me, but perhaps the best thing for the community is to let the game go gracefully into oblivion rather than having the corpse forcefully reanimated by committee.

2.

Even failed states have relics of times when they weren't failed states. What sort of relics do failed MMOs give their citizens?

Game closure puts to the test a lot of the assumptions we had about this genre in the early 2000s. Are these worlds institutions that can be compared with their analogous counterparts in reality? Or are they just powerful illusions--like casinos without the promise of a payout--that bear only a surface resemblance to their real world counterparts?

I'm reminded here of Hannah Arendt's table in "The Human Condition." A table relates a bunch of people who would have no relation to one another, if the table wasn't there. But when you remove the table, the people present around it have no structure that holds them together.

This is even worse when we see the game as the "table" holding MMO communities together. In MMOS, Bill and Mary aren't the beings that matter. Gruunak the Ork (played by Bill) and Ezelda the Elf (played by Mary) are the beings that matter, and the game gives the relationship form and context. When it goes, the relationship the two players goes as well, unless buttressed by a real relationship, external to the game, that can function independently.

But I'm skeptical that these games promote such connections regularly. Putting aside the occasional feel-good story about players marrying outside the game, I'm more inclined to believe that the communities that are built there share more in common with the communities of regulars at the casino or the crack house. It's all well and good when it's there, but when it gets taken away, people go through a reality check about the nature of the thing that they wasted their time playing, and now no longer have.

Because that's when it all becomes a waste, doesn't it? Becoming a hardcore raider only makes sense if there's a long and bright future made easier by the effort made today. But if there is no bright future, if the game has no future because of a shutdown, all that time given over to productive activities becomes wasted time.

3.

omg I just saw this. All I can say is Noooooooooooooooooo!

The comments to this entry are closed.