What is Playbour - Essay Example

School: WHAT IS PLAYBOUR Lecturer: Introduction The concepts of play and labour have been with the human society for ages. As noted by Thomas (1997), based on the standard Marxian definition of labour, it is not possible for both play and labour to coexist in an equally beneficial or mutual manner. This is because Marxists believe that labour is a human activity which produces value. However, play, according to Huizinga is a pre-social phenomenon free from the rules, values, and needs of ordinary life even though it comes with its own intrinsic rewards (Rey, 2011). Because of the contrast, it had long been thought that play does not produce any material or immaterial gain or accumulation. Kücklich (2009) however introduced the term ‘playbour’ to dispute the premise given earlier by stressing that there are ways in which play could be used in productive ways for game players. This paper therefore looks at the concept of playbour from the perspective of digital game and game culture by examining how playbour challenges the conceptualisation that digital game players are merely audience. It also analyses how digital game and game culture impact on issues of copyright and intellectual property. The latter will be done by delving into modding as a central practice within the later concept of playbour. Theoretical framework of playbour Several definitions and explanations have been given on what playbour is, and what it represents. In the opinion of Kucklich (2009), playbour is any interaction, stimulatory or networked experience of a person which uses the techniques of play to extract some kind of labour from a user which might contribute to a corporate bottom-line. In essence, playbour is the productive utilisation of play to create value. For most analysts and experts, the real bone of contention on the validity of playbour is the final beneficiary of the value created, whether it is the game player or the game maker (Sotamaa, 2010). Later in the paper, both dimensions of gainers will be assessed, but the main argument of the paper is that the game player benefits tremendously from playbour due to the interactive and participatory nature of digital game and modern game culture. Whilst defining playbour as the productive component of play, there were four major techniques of play that were emphasised by Kücklich (2009). These are absorption, immersion, repetition, and recombination. Also writing on playbour, Postigo (2003) stressed that the term makes game players good citizens as it enables them to use their devices to help process information that clearly creates social and collective use. Even though playbour contradicts the Marxist idea of work and labour, Kücklich (2009) explains that it helps to conceptualise the Taylorisation of leisure. This is because through playbour, leisure is given a profitable value rather than a mere burning away of time. It is for this reason that Kundnani (1999) indicated that playbour constitutes the extraction of value from play. As it is thought by Marxists that play constitutes a waste of time, advocates of playbour believe that playbour requires that time be wasted efficiently (Kline, Dyer-Witheford & de Peuter, 2003). The reason this is said is that waste in the time for playing the game is actually productive when put in the right context. A typical example of digital game that has been said to create value for game players is Farmville. While playing this game, players are helped to adopt a culture of work hard, play hard and so even for people who are less likely to have a binding commitment to work, the habit of exploring hard through this digital avenue actually constitutes value creation for the player. Kücklich (2009) however admits on several instances that the playbour does not necessarily result in a product but it is the process itself that generates value. Playbour as a combined act of play and work Relationship between the dimensions of play and playbour In literature, there is divided opinion as to whether plabour weighs more towards play or towards work. In effect, the question of whether playbour is work or play continues to be asked. To look at the play aspect of playbour, Fulcher (2004) outlined two major dimensions of play that may be experienced with playbour. The first dimension is that play takes reality lightly as it is based on virtual imagination and thoughts. An example of digital game that can be used to explain this situation is World of Warcraft where the art or concept of war is taken lightly with warriors who are constantly killed but are seen reappearing again in subsequent games. Relating this dimension of reality lightness to playbour, Terranova (2000) noted that the real essence of playbour as play as against work is that players of such games of Knights Fable do so as relaxing for a game but end up getting real value because they develop positive work attitude of enduring hardship as characters in the game do. One other dimension of playbour that is used to explain the shift of playbour towards play as against work is the fact that, play is highly voluntary and that it is entered into freely (Thomas, 2002). Adam (2004) used social media network such as Facebook to explain that this is a voluntary game culture but comes with its own social and economic values. How theories on labour explains playbour There are theorists of labour who have explained that for playbour to be thought of as a productive way of wasting time, then playbour is more shifted as a form of work rather than play (Arvidsson & Sandvik, 2007). The basis of this argument is in the theory of labour that posits that productivity cannot be attained in a value-free and unrestricted environment (Banks & Humphreys, 2008). Meanwhile, play as defined from the perspective of Huizinga is said to be separate from the rules, values, and needs of ordinary life (Skirrow, 1985). There are a number of examples that can be given to support the shift of playbour as being work as opposed to being play. For example Coleman and Dyer-Witheford (2007) explained that when playing the digital game of World of Warcraft, game players are made to go through a reasoning of guild loyalty, commitment to skill acquisition and thirst for success, all of which are characteristics real world labour or work instead of play. There is another aspect of playbour as labour related when explained with digital culture such as social media network. This is because when engaged in such digital cultural experience, there is an indirect labour being performed for the owners of the social media networks who use the participation of players as a means of expanding advertisement opportunities (van Dijck, 2009). How playbour challenges conceptualisation of digital game players as audience There is a conceptualisation that classifies digital game players as audience rather than participant (Grimes, 2014). There are however different avenues by which playbour challenges this conceptualisation. For example even though audience may interact with the gaming process by admiring and expressing emotions towards what they see on screen, playbour actually sees digital games and culture as highly interactive and participatory, requiring more than merely interacting to games emotionally (Banks & Potts, 2010). It is for this reason that Humphreys (2005) explained that online computer games form or mould productive players who are not merely audience. In the three subsections below, three main possible outcomes of digital games and digital culture which make gamers productive players rather than conceptualised audiences are explained. Game players as productive gainers In the estimation of Kücklich (2009), one of the major merits of playbour that makes game players productive gainers and thus not mere audiences is the fact that playbour has the power of suffusing the ideology of play, which helps in masking labour as play and disguising the process of self-expropriation and self-expression. By extension, when engaged in digital games or culture, the player is offered a useful opportunity not to emphasise on the intensity of labour around him or her and thus feel exploited. Rather, through the motivation of wanting to win and yearn for more in discovering tricks and hard knots with games, a personal attitude of enduring for success is attained. To a large extent therefore, the player is never made a passive audience but an active participant whose participation is rewarded. These points notwithstanding, Kücklich (2009) also posits that the type of productivity from playbour is immaterial and that players cannot be said to have full control over the means of production. Rather, the providers of the games have the control of the means of production, making game players have limited autonomy in determining what the outcome of their participation in the game would be. In effect, game players are not audience but active player but their participation is predetermined and regulated (Consalvo, 2013). Players as labours for gaming companies From another context, the activeness of digital game players instead of seeing them as audience can be exemplified in the productive gains the game players offer to gaming companies through playbour. Using Farmville as an example, Rey (2011) explained that digital game players are not mere audiences but major economic contributors. This is because even though most game players are unaware of it, they are creating value because they are exposed to advertising and also lure others to these advertisements. The digital culture of social media such as Twitter or Facebook can be used as another example. This is because by a player’s interaction on Facebook through chat and games, his or her database is enriched to make sentiment analysis possible to serve advertisers of the social medial provider (The Play Ethic Network, 2010). Based on this point, it can be understood that the game player is indeed more empowered to create value not just for him or herself but even for the platform owner of the game or digital culture. In fact one may argue with a traditional game such as football or cinema show and say that audience still make organisers rich and so digital game players could be audience and still create value for gaming companies. The difference however is that in digital games or game culture, the player’s value creation is actually through the actual act of partaking in the game and not just observing as a person watching a football match or a movie would do. Playbour as creating a new play ethics The Play Ethic Network (2010) referenced a report by the New Economic Foundation on the 21 Hour Week where it was found that most game players actually desire for more play-times in their lives. The reason was very simple and that was because gaming helps them to develop a new play ethics which is directly rooted in social adjustability. The implication here is that the active processes game players go through, such as lifestyle experimentation, self-determination, and processes of conviviality and creativity do not only come with economic considerations but also with a lot of social perfection on how game players should live as people (Play Ethic Network, 2010). Meanwhile, it can be appreciated that to think of any of the processes that were mentioned as being something that a mere audience gets to do is out of reason. This is because digital game players must indulge and immense themselves fully in the games and its culture in order to gain the new play ethics that is being referred to. Kline et al (2003) even reasoned that through playbour, a new form of social ethics that makes people prefer semiotic flexibility of digital games to acts that are unsustainable to the environment can be guaranteed to be enhanced. How digital game and digital game culture impacts on copyright and intellectual property To have a better understanding of how digital game and digital game culture impacts on copyright and intellectual property, the issue of modding is thoroughly discussed as it deals with the act of modifying games whiles taking part in the act of playing these games (Harvey & Fisher, 2013). History of modding Kucklich (2005) traced modding to the 1980s when a modification of the classic Castle Wolfenstein was made as Castle Smurfenstein in 1983. The real popularity with modding was however in the 1990s when id Software published the Doom source code, which included a level editor called WorldCraft, which made it possible for players to modify games themselves. Since this time, modding has become a major issue in the digital game industry. This is because players of games have refused to be mere audience but applied their personal and professional knowhow in contributing to how the games they play should be. Modding however raises a lot of issues of copyright, intellectual property, and end user agreements. This is because even though players may have the right to modify games, they often have to agree to very restrictive end user licence agreements (EULAs) which bars them from claiming intellectual property rights of all mods even before installation of the original games can be possible (Kucklich, 2005). Economy of modding There are several economic implications of modding that can better be used to understand the real impact of digital games on copyright and intellectual property issues. In the first place, Postigo (2007) notes a unique practice where game developers restrict the possibility of creating mods to the ownership or usage of software development kit (SDK). Meanwhile, the EULA for the SDKs comes with restrictions on players in acting as owners of the mods. A typical example of this is the EULA for the Half-Life SDK which states that: Valve hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, terminable, worldwide, non-transferable license to: (a) use, reproduce and modify the SDK in source code form, solely to develop a Mod; and (b) reproduce, distribute and license the Mod in object code form, solely to licensed end users of Half-Life, without charge (Kucklich, 2005). Based on the quotation given by the company, it would be appreciated that modding has indeed created an economic dimension where game players or modders can have the right to modify the games but cannot sell their works for any monetary gains since they do not warn the actual rights. By extension, not even modding has come to make game developers threatened with losing the forms of royalties and benefits that is due them (Grimes, 2006). Another economic dimension of modding that is highlighted by Kucklich (2005) is the fact that mods have helped in expanding the shelf-life of most original games. An example is given with the release of Half-Life: Generation which came to revive the Quake mod of Half Life: Team Fortress, which was actually losing its market relevance. This means that through mods, game developers gain additional benefit from game users and players when the former is offered the opportunities of extending the usefulness and commercial value of their games. The real problem that remains unresolved among many analysts however has to do with the ethical appropriateness of the fact that through the active participation and innovation of a player, a game developer will get certain benefits but the latter alone becomes the sole commercial beneficiary of the outcome. It is for this reason that Consalvo (2013) argued that there are serious issues with end user agreements which require game developers to consider ways of giving out royalties to players whose contributions to digital games or even social media network can be proven as a means economic value creation for the companies. Newman (2012) would however disagree on this, stating that the mere opportunity of modding should serve as an incentive for the player to be loyal to a game brand as such player is made a useful part of the brand. Conclusion The paper has clearly outlined the strong interactivity that exits digital games and game players. Meanwhile, digital game has been noted to form a central part of playbour as people seek to use play in productive ways. Because of the interactivity and participation involved in playbour, it has been deduced that conceptualisation of digital game players as audience become largely challenged. This is because game players actually engage in several pragmatic and realistic activities that induce their personal benefits and the benefits of gaming companies. Even more, these involvements and participations guarantee a new play and social ethics which is achieved out of active play rather than a passive one. Based on this premise, the reasoning that the digital player is an audience cannot be accepted. The last aspect of the paper also clearly indicated the impact of playbour on copyright and intellectual property. Through modding, it can be said that game players have been made useful and relevant participants because they are able to contribute directly to the process of modifying games. This use however is highly limited as it fails to guarantee players sole ownership of mods. It can therefore be concluded that playbour guarantees several forms of productive outcomes but in most cases, it is the makers of the games rather than the player that benefits. References Adam, T. (2004). The Dynamics of Games, 4th edition, London: Informa Media. Arvidsson, A. & Sandvik, K. (2007). ‘Gameplay as Design: Uses of Computer Players Immaterial Labour’ Northern Lights Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 89-104. Banks, J. & Humphreys, S. (2008). ‘The Labor of User Co-Creators: Emergent Social Network Markets?; Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 401-418. Banks, J. & Potts, J. (2010). ‘Co-creating Games: A Co-evolutionary Analysis’, New Media & Society Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 253-270. Coleman, S. & Dyer-Witheford, N. (2007.) ‘Playing on the Digital Commons: Collectivities, Capital and Contestation in Videogame Culture’, Media, Culture & Society Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 934-953. Consalvo, M. (2013). Unintended Travel: ROM Hackers and Fan Translations of Japanese Video Games. New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fulcher, J. (2004). Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grimes, S.M. (2006). ‘Online Multiplayer Games: A Virtual Space for Intellectual Property Debates?’ New Media & Society Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 969-990. Grimes, S.M. (2014). ‘Little Big Scene: Making and Playing culture in Media Molecules LittleBigPlanet’, Cultural Studies, Online First. 10, 37-94 Harvey, A. & Fisher, S. (2013). ‘Making a Name in Games: Immaterial Labour, Indie Game Design, and Gendered Social Network Markets’ Information, Communication, and Society Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 362-380. Kline, S. et al (2003). Workers and Warez: Labour and Piracy in the Global Game Market, in Digital Play: the Interaction of technology, Culture and marketing. New York: McGill-Queens. Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N. & de Peuter, G. (2003). Digital Play: The Interaction of Technology, Culture, and Marketing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Kücklich (2005). Precarious Playbour: Modders and the Digital Games Industry. [Online] Available at http://five.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-025-precarious-playbour-modders-and-the-digital-games-industry/ [April, 29 2015] Kundnani, A. (1999). ‘Where Do You Want to Go Today? The Rise of Information Capital’, Race and Class Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 49-71. Newman, J. (2012). ‘Ports and patches: Digital games as unstable objects. Convergence’, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 135-142. Postigo, H. (2003). ‘From Pong to Planet Quake: Post Industrial Transitions from Leisure to Work’, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 593-607. Postigo, H. (2007.) Of Mods and Modders: Chasing Down the Value of Fan-Based Digital Game Modifications. Games and Culture 2(4), pp. 300-313. Rey (2011). Playbor vs. Weisure. [Online] Available at http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/03/23/playbor-vs-weisure/#more-1741 [April, 30 2015] Skirrow, G. (1985). Hellivision. Gender and Fantasy in Video Games. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sotamaa, O. (2010). ‘When the Game Is Not Enough: Motivations and Practices Among Computer Game Modding Culture’ Games and Culture Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 239-255. Terranova, T. (2000). ‘Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy’, Social Text, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 33-57. The Play Ethic Network (2010). Playbour - exploitation or civic possibility? Questions from The Future Laboratory. [Online] Available at http://www.theplayethic.com/2010/03/possibilitiesofplaybour.html [April, 29 2015] Thomas, D. (2002). Innovation, Piracy and the Ethos of New Media. London: BFI. Thomas, R. (1997). What Machines Can’t Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise. Berkeley: University of California Press. van Dijck, J. (2009). ‘Users like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture & Society Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 41-58 Read More