[MUD-Dev] Retention without Addiction?

[brian hook]

Matt Mihaly said:

> That's the problem with allowing people to pass on responsibilty
> for decisions made by them: Everyone you pass that responsibility
> to can simply pass the buck to whatever influenced them.

There's responsibility, and there's ultimate responsibility.
Everyone in society has the ability to influence those around them.
Some have the ability to influence more than others.

Is it a famous sports star's fault that some kid started doing drugs
because his idol was busted for doing drugs?

Of course not.

But it's incredibly naive -- and convenient -- to just lay the blame
at the feet of the weak willed and/or their parents and wash our
hands clean of any contribution we may have had to the problems of
another individual.  That's the easy way out.

There's no arguing that games have an effect on people.  Just like
media, art, sports, role models, friends, family, etc.  It's just
one drop in the bucket, but it's a drop nonetheless.

So if we can get past the "Do we affect the lives of players" and
just ADMIT that we do, we can move to the next step of "Is that our
problem?"

This is common sense.  If someone is addicted to Everquest, is it
Everquest's fault?  I would argue no.  But is Everquest a
contributing factor?  Well, duh.  It's like asking if the car you're
driving contributed to getting that speeding ticket.

> toothpaste. If a person playing my game kills himself, why should
> I feel any more responsible than the company that manufactured the
> toothpaste he brushed his teeth with that morning?

If the kid killed himself and wrote a long note about how miserable
he was because of a game, and how horrible his life had become
because he failed at the game or because his in-game friends
abandoned him, etc. then, come on, maybe the game had a bit more of
an effect than the toothpaste?

If, instead, there were suicide notes strewn about arguing the
relative merits of gel vs. paste and whether there was too much
fluoride in our water supply -- well hell, then let's look at the
toothpaste.

But once again, I think it's REAL important to differentiate between
"is this a contributing factor" and "is this our fault".  Two
separate things.  The problem is that in our currently litigious
society, being a contributing factor often leads directly to being
considered at fault.  So no one ever wants to really think about the
fact they were a contributing factor, because they're always worried
that's the slippery slope to step #2 -- getting sued out of
existence.

I write puzzle games for a living.  If someone sends me e-mail and
says, "I got fired because all day I played Candy Cruncher and never
got work done", is it my fault?  Hell no, they're a slack loser and
should have gotten their job done.

Was Candy Cruncher less to blame than their toothpaste?  Okay, let's
not use the loaded word "blame" -- was Candy Cruncher more or less
of a factor than their toothpaste?  If you answer "the same", then
I'll bow out of this thread right now.

I am willing to admit and accept that by providing entertainment to
thousands of people, I have an effect.  I consider that effect
benign, but at the same time, I refuse to hold myself culpable if
someone is irresponsible about their game playing.  But I won't deny
the fact that my games can have an effect on others.

I've read lots of books that have had a profound effect on me.  Same
with movies, music, and even sports stars.  Famous programmers in
their interviews have had an effect on me, both good and bad.
EVERYTHING IN LIFE has an effect on me, some more than others.

But in the end, it's up to me to do the right thing, whatever that
is.  But I hate it when game developers just try to duck the whole
issue by saying "Yeah, we make a kick ass game that has all these
wonderful things, but we refuse to admit it gets any reaction from
you at all, unless it's positive".

> Possibly. Hasn't happened with gambling though, which has only
> grown recently, and which contributes to ruining a lot more lives
> than games ever will. Also note that regardless of the tobacco
> lawsuits, big tobacco is going strong, to say nothing of the
> alcohol industry (and good for them too. Those lawsuits are
> ridiculous.)

The political reality is that games do not have a strong lobby or
union protecting them.  Every other major form of entertainment has
something like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. protecting its interests.
Gambling is far more popular than our games, and it's enjoyed by a
far more politically active crowd.  Same with tobacco, same with
alcohol.

Game companies are too busy competing with each other to take
outside threats seriously, which means that they are the easiest
possible target.

When the music industry is threatened, it pulls together under the
aegis of RIAA and dozens of household names get together and bitch
and moan about the government.  Who is the spokesperson for the game
industry that EVERYONE in America knows about?  Right.  What game
industry association has the political clout of the RIAA or MPAA?
Exactly.

That's the difference.  The game industry is huge and, at the same
time, far weaker than its counterparts.

-Hook



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev