Co-Creative Game Design As Participatory Alternative Media
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala Studies in Media and Communication 11 Co-creative Game Design as Participatory Alternative Media Patrick Prax Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in HS 2, Ekonomikum, Kyrkogårdsgatan 10, Uppsala, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 13:00 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Research Fellow Esther MacCallum-Stewart (Digital Cultures Ressearch Centre, University of West Enland). Abstract Prax, P. 2016. Co-creative Game Design as Participatory Alternative Media. Uppsala Studies in Media and Communication 11. 95 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-554-9599-2. The possibility of co-creation exists for all media, but game design has developed a culture that is unusually open to co-creation. This dissertation investigates significant cases of co-creation in mainstream games in order to explore how games can be co-created as alternative or critical media by their players. The core argument in the dissertation is that players co-create the design of a game only if certain conditions are met, namely: (1) player creation of a text or communication infrastructure that modifies the properties of the game and from which play emerges; (2) that this is done for a considerable group of players who share a particular practice of play; (3) that this is done not only by playing the game but by changing how others play it in a distinct creative activity, and (4), with the potential to subvert or contest the original design of the game. This situation where player creators have influence over the design of the game (but little power to enforce their interests) is problematic from the perspective of alternative or critical media, as alternative, local, production is seen as one reason for why a medium can have an alternative message. The industrial production of games as cultural commodities does limit the potential of co- creative game design for subversion because it reduces the level of participation in the creation process, thus keeping player creators relatively disempowered. Player creators do have influence on the design of the game, while at the same time having very little power to enforce their interests and design visions. The influence of player creators comes from the consumer power of millions of players who use co-created assets and who want to them to continue exiting, and this creates a mutually dependent relationship (and even partnership), between co-creators and commercial owners. The dissertation concludes that co-creative game design, despite limitations related to the industrial production of games as cultural commodities, is already happening, and shows a potential for turning games into alternative media. Keywords: Co-creation, co-creative game design, game design, participation, alterna-tive media, critical media, open innovation, modding, add-ons, MMOs, MMORPG, World of Warcraft, Diablo 3, interface Patrick Prax, Department of Informatics and Media, Media and Communication Studies, Kyrkogårdsg. 10, Uppsala University, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden. © Patrick Prax 2016 ISSN 1651-4777 ISBN 978-91-554-9599-2 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-287659 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-287659) To Ida, Felix, Justus, Dante, and the one yet to be born. You are the light of my life. List of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I Prax, P. (2012) Co-creative interface development in MMORPGs – the case of World of Warcraft add-ons. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 4(1) 3-24. DOI: 10.1386/jgvw.4.1.3_1 II Christensen, C. and Prax, P. (2012) Assemblage, Adaptation & Apps: Smartphones and Mobile Gaming. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 26(5), 731-739. DOI:10.1080/10304312.2012.706461. III Prax, P. (2014) Co-Creativity in Online Games as Alternative Media, Questions de communication – forthcoming. IV Prax, P. (2013) Game Design and Business Model: An Analysis of Diablo 3. Proceedings of DiGRA 2013, Atlanta: USA. V Prax, P. and Laaksoharju, M. (2012) Democracy has arrived! A Model for Ethical Decision Making of Players in MMOs. Pro- ceedings of Meaningful Play, East Lansing: USA. VI Prax, P. (2015) Co-Creative Game Design in MMORPGs, Pro- ceedings of DiGRA 2015, Lüneburg: Germany. Reprints were made with permission from the respective publishers. Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 15 Research Questions .................................................................................. 17 Contribution of the Thesis ........................................................................ 18 Delimitations ............................................................................................ 19 2. Literature & Theoretical Focus ................................................................. 21 Player-Created Content ............................................................................ 21 Co-Creation ......................................................................................... 21 Open Innovation .................................................................................. 25 Co-Creation and Revenue Models ....................................................... 26 Games as Persuasive Media ..................................................................... 27 Procedural Rhetoric and Persuasive Games ........................................ 27 Critical Play, Games and Design ......................................................... 28 Media Studies Theory .............................................................................. 30 Alternative Media and Critical Media ................................................. 30 Participation ......................................................................................... 31 History of the Participatory Creation of MMOs....................................... 35 Summary .................................................................................................. 36 3. Methodology ............................................................................................. 37 Triangulation ............................................................................................ 37 The Researcher as Player: Participant Observation in Games ................. 38 Game Content Analysis and Game Design Analysis ............................... 40 The Qualitative Interview ......................................................................... 43 Generalizability ........................................................................................ 44 Internal Generalization ........................................................................ 44 Analytical Generalizability .................................................................. 45 4. Summary of Studies .................................................................................. 47 Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................. 47 Publication Venues ................................................................................... 49 Study I .................................................................................................. 49 Study II ................................................................................................ 50 Study III ............................................................................................... 51 Study IV ............................................................................................... 52 Study V ................................................................................................ 54 Study VI ............................................................................................... 55 5. Co-Creation and Industrial Production ..................................................... 56 Co-Creation as a Collective Effort to Create Something Shared – Gaming as “dugnad” ................................................................................ 56 Co-Creation as Open Innovation .............................................................. 57 Awareness and Exploitation ................................................................ 58 Enjoyment of Free Labour ................................................................... 59 Producer Effort .................................................................................... 59 Treatment of Player Co-Creators ......................................................... 59 Limits of a Political Economy Perspective .......................................... 60 Participation in Co-Creation ..................................................................... 60 Levels of Participation ......................................................................... 60 Conflicts and Cooperation ................................................................... 61 Power and Control ............................................................................... 63 Co-Creation, Exploitation, and Playbour ............................................. 66 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 67 6. Co-Creating Games as Alternative Media ................................................ 69 Critical Game Design as Critical and Alternative Media ......................... 69 The Opportunities Presented by Co-Creative Game