The Hegemony of Play Janine Fron Tracy Fullerton Jacquelyn Ford Morie Celia Pearce Ludica USC School of Cinematic Arts USC Institute for Creative Georgia Institute of Technology, Interactive Media Program Technologies School of Literature, [email protected] Communication & Culture [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT We have adopted the term “Hegemony of Play” in a non- In this paper, we introduce the concept of a “Hegemony of ironic fashion to refer to the way in which the digital game Play,” to critique the way in which a complex layering of industry has influenced the global culture of play in much technological, commercial and cultural power structures the same way that hegemonic nations, such as the British have dominated the development of the digital game Empire or post-WWII America, have, in their times of industry over the past 35 years, creating an entrenched influence, dominated global culture. Today’s hegemonic status quo which ignores the needs and desires of game industry has infused both individuals’ and societies’ “minority” players such as women and “non-gamers,” Who experiences of games with values and norms that reinforce in fact represent the majority of the population. Drawing that industry’s technological, commercial and cultural from the history of pre-digital games, we demonstrate that investments in a particular definition of games and play, these practices have “narrowed the playing field,” and creating a cyclical system of supply and demand in which contrary to conventional wisdom, have actually hindered, alternate products of play are marginalized and devalued. rather than boosted, its commercial success. We reject the inevitability of these power structures, and urge those in The power elite of the game industry is a predominately game studies to “step up to the plate” and take a more pro- white, and secondarily Asian, male-dominated corporate active stance in questioning and critiquing the status of the and creative elite that represents a select group of large, Hegemony of Play. global publishing companies in conjunction with a handful of massive chain retail distributors. This hegemonic elite Author Keywords determines which technologies will be deployed, and which Games, game industry, gender, game production, game will not; which games will be made, and by which development, media production. designers; which players are important to design for, and which play styles will be supported. The hegemony operates on both monetary and cultural levels. It works in WHAT IS THE HEGEMONY OF PLAY? concert with game developers and self-selected hardcore The term “Hegemony of Play” was coined during an April “gamers,” who have systematically developed a rhetoric of 2005 lecture by play expert Bernie DeKoven at the play that is exclusionary, if not entirely alienating to Interactive Media program in USC’s School of Cinematic “minority” players (who, in numerical terms, actually Arts. During a heated debate following DeKoven’s constitute a majority) such as most women and girls, males presentation, Ludica founders Fullerton and Pearce pointed of many ages, and people of different racial and cultural out the ways in which the exclusionary power structures of backgrounds. It is aided and abetted by a publication and the computer game industry have narrowed the conception advertising infrastructure, characterized by game review of both play and player in the digital sphere. Those who magazines, television programming and advertising that rose to the defense of the industry cited the conventional valorizes certain types of games, while it marginalizes those wisdom that the design of digital games is entirely driven that do not fit the “hardcore gamer” demographic. These by the market for them. As the discussion progressed, it attitudes prevail, in spite of the fact that inclusiveness has became clear that there are at least three levels of produced some of the best-selling games in history, such as unexamined assumptions in this defense of the game Pac-Man, Myst, and The Sims. The Hegemony of Play is industry’s status quo. These assumptions are related to the the proverbial elephant in the living room, of which production process and environment for the creation of everyone is aware, but which no one calls by name. Some digital games; to the evolution of technologies related to have critiqued it [2], [7], [12], but few have called attention play; and to the cultural positioning of games and “gamers.” to or questioned its underlying power structures and raison d’etre [6], [15], [23], [24]. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference © 2007 Authors & Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author. 309 We would like to submit that play, an innate human practice market rationale of the gamer demographic has given the and function, belongs to everyone, and in its digital game industry free reign to exercise a wide variety of incarnations should not be controlled by a hegemonic elite. gender and racially discriminatory practices and We are calling for the game studies community to critique stereotyping, in both the workplace and in the content rather than adopt and perpetuate the rhetoric of the they create, that would be unacceptable in any other field. Hegemony of Play, and to explore new avenues of inclusiveness and diversity. As scholars and educators, it is We are not trying to suggest that game publishers or our prerogative to do this; as designers and artists, our developers are insincere. Rather we are trying to call mandate. We believe that as both researchers and attention to the power structures that surround game independent game designers, it is important to define and technologies, game production and game consumption. better understand this hegemony, because it drives the These power structures perpetuate a particular set of values discourse of game studies, whether players and scholars and norms concerning games and game play, which tend to realize it or not. Particular ways that the hegemony of play subordinate and ghettoize minority players and play styles. has had a role in shaping the trajectory of game studies In fact, this status quo leaves many game developers include: themselves feeling disaffected and disheartened—they see the need for expanded markets, and also crave the • Because we often study games that are created by the opportunity for more creativity and innovation. Many Hegemony of Play, we not only critique and analyze, but designers bemoan the stranglehold that marketing also often embrace, valorize, and fetishize the cultural departments have on the trajectory of game design. production of the Hegemony of Play. Yet we seldom However, being trapped inside the power structures analyze or critique the power structures from which they themselves, they have too much at stake to precipitate a emerge. These power structures shape us and our revolutionary upheaval of the powers of play. discourse, and it behooves us to be more reflexive about the ways in which they do. Our argument here, necessarily brief, will only introduce the basic areas in which these power structures may be • Because of its narrow market definitions, the Hegemony found; more scholarship and critique is called for that is not of Play has driven the critical discourse of what is and is possible in a paper of this length. The areas of crisis we not a game; games researchers have taken this up as a have identified are: 1) the production process and matter of taxonomy, but deeply embedded in these environment for the creation of digital games; 2) the arguments have been inherent values of the video game technologies of play, including the evolution of games from industry that are not necessarily inherent qualities of folk traditions and cultural artifacts to industrial products games. Rigorous scholarship demands that we interrogate and intellectual property, and now to digital products and and critique these values and assumptions rather than virtual societies; and 3) the cultural positioning of games taking them at face value. and “gamers.” • Due to the standard demographic of most video games, Finally we argue through historical precedent and recent the vast majority of player-centered research, whether scientific and marketing research that the alleged cognitive, behavioral, psychological or sociological, relationship between commercial success and these whether quantitative or qualitative, concerns male exclusionary rhetorics of “conventional wisdom” are in fact players; this fact is seldom, if ever, articulated. If the incorrect, and we make a case that had the game industry player gender is called out, it is not considered of not engaged in these practices over the past thirty-five years, consequence and generalizations are often made that its market would be much larger, and its revenues much pertain primarily or exclusively to male players. We greater than they are today. would argue that it is important to articulate who the players are, and make it clear who is being included and THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT excluded, for whatever reason. In 2005, the International Game Developers Association commissioned a report and survey in order to understand • The notion of the “gamer” which has defined the rhetoric the demographic make-up of the game development of game marketing and fandom, has created a sub-culture community. Its results were not surprising 88.5% of all which is exclusionary and alienating to many people who game development workers are male; 83.3% are white; 92% play games, but who do not want to be associated with are heterosexual. While the quantitative data culled in this the characteristics and game play styles commonly study reinforced what most people who have been intimate associated with “hardcore gamers.” This stereotype may with the game industry already knew, even more actually prevent some people from playing games informative was the qualitative data collected in the entirely.