Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games

Castronova, E. (2005). Synthetic Worlds, The Business and Culture of Online Games, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

While reading Synthetic Worlds, by Edward Castronova, I was primarily looking for the terminology he was using and how he was defining synthetic worlds, any insights he had into what it takes to get players into a synthetic world, what makes players switch between Earth and synthetic worlds and between different synthetic worlds, and how synthetic worlds create meaning for players, especially in a social context. I wasn't looking for how players experience risk and how that interacts with meaning, but I ended up finding many interesting thoughts on it. I likewise wasn't looking for how to eliminate or replace the treadmill/grind experience at the core of many synthetic worlds, but found useful tips there, too. Partly due to its broad (scattered?) nature, this book provided great ideas on a wider range of topics than I expected.

Terminology

Vlahos refers to the terminus of our migration as the infosphere, but he is talking about networked communication in general. William Gibson coined cyberspace, a term that has become too general, unfortunately. Neal Stephenson used the term metaverse, but that concept does not reflect the rendered, role-playing aesthetic that we now see is an important aspect of synthetic worlds, and by its derivation from universe it overlooks the fact that there are going to be many thousands of synthetic worlds to choose from, not just one. 10

Virtual world, MMORPG, cyberspace, metaverse, proskenion, hyperstage, or synthetic world. 11

I've used the term MMO, which has the disadvantage of being unintelligible to anyone who doesn't know what it means. Contrast that with synthetic world, which carries with it a lot of intuitive meaning. Synthetic world, on the other hand, has the disadvantage of not actually being used by players, as far as I can tell. Doing Google searches for both terms yields 15 million results for MMO and 34,000 results for synthetic world (as of August 26, 2006). MMOG, 6 million. Metaverse, 1 million. Virtual world, 9.5 million. MMORPG has 24 million results, but is restricted in applying to only role-playing games. Is that a problem? Do we want to expand the definition of RPG to include what MMOs are becoming? Cyberspace has 51 million results, but, as Castronova mentioned, is now too general for what we are discussing.

The place that I call "game world" today may develop into much more than a game in the near future. It may become just another place for the mind to be, a new and different Earth. 18

It's true, what we've been calling games has recently been evolving and expanding. It will be interesting to see how far we go to keep calling them games.

High Barrier to Entry

First off, the entry hurdle between Earth and the synthetic world is actually quite high, relative to some other boundaries in cyberspace. You can become a registered online user of the New York Times in less than a minute, and you'll never have to enter your information again. To enter the fantasy realms of cyberspace, however, you'll have to pay fees, load software, adapt to a strange user interface system, and agree to a fairly substantial sacrifice of rights. 44-5

This barrier to entry will become lower overtime. The fees may or may not still exist. The trend I see is toward a micropayments instead of subscriptions, which would occur after the initial entry into the game. That could lower the barrier to entry. Loading software could also become easier. At the moment, players have to make a trip to a retailer or wait for the CD in the mail. Online delivery will speed up the process. Installations are still a bit ornery, though. Installing software will eventually become like visiting a web page: it will just load, quickly, without asking you lots of questions. Or maybe it won't install at all, and will transfer over your fat pipe into memory every time you load the game. The UI system is strange, I'll admit, but for how long will that be true? At some point, most of the people who have any interest in MMOs will have played one and be familiar with the interface already. At that point, it will just become important to stick to conventions people know. As for the "fairly substantial sacrifice of rights," my impression is that this isn't something people give much thought to as they're loading the software. They click through the EULA without reading it, generally.

[In] the study-state synthetic world of the near-term future[,] users have created a significant fraction of everything that is there. The equipment they need to [interact with this world] does not weigh much; it is wireless and may be wearable. Entry portals are ubiquitous; users can access the synthetic world from anywhere. While visiting the synthetic world, they can send and receive email, talk to other people, delve Earth-bound information sources, and browse the descendent of the World Wide Web. 98

A number of emerging technologies will make synthetic worlds almost ubiquitous, and easier to use. Wireless technology makes every conceivable interface device portable and mobile. 86

Exactly! Location is an additional barrier that will be removed. And with mobility will, new freedom of time -- the freedom to play whenever. Also, Castronova gets it right that e-mail and talking to other people will further integrate players online and off-line social networks. This allows players to benefit even more from there in game accomplishments in terms of social recognition, making the incentive to join a synthetic worlds even more compelling.

In all aspects, the synthetic worlds is a genuine place of macroeconomic activity. And that means something significant: a synthetic world can, in principle, affect macroeconomic conditions on Earth. 49

The days of game designers having complete control over the world they create are numbered. When politicians realize the effect that these worlds can have on Earth, they're going to start regulating. I wonder what position game designers will have then. Has anyone seen evidence of this already?

Over 700,000 Chinese gamers playing a game called BNB. It's a game where families play as a team against other families, and it's just the latest example of the immense numbers coming from the Asian gaming market. 55

I love the idea of families playing together. It's the new Scrabble. In my generation, I didn't know very many people who grew up with family dinners. Maybe the new family dinners will be online, gathering buffs before a quest. From a media effects/media literacy standpoint, this positions parents perfectly to understand and influence how their kids interact with media. Parents will be present for many learning moments. I can see parenting books now advising, "Don't forget to play with your kids."

With few exceptions, worlds do not close once they are opened. 56

We also know that people tend not to get involved with more than one world at a time, because they are so engrossing and demanding (does anyone have a quote for this?). Unless we expand the market, our pool of potential customers for the new worlds we are designing will diminish with each title. I think we won't have too much trouble expanding market.

Migration

Whether the synthetic world grows does depend on the nature of the experience within it, but, critically, it also depends on the nature of experience here on Earth. People will go where things are best for them. It is an issue of migration. 71

[The survey responses] show that a significant number of people think of Norrath as their main place of residence; large numbers would spend all of their time there if they could. Roughly speaking, we can characterize about one-fifth of Norrath's users as more or less fully immersed; they treat the game world as their life world. Moreover, a clear majority wishes to spend more time in Norrath than is now possible. These attitudes mesh well with my personal impression when visiting the place: most people wish they could spend more time there, and a smaller but still significant number devotes all thought to the world. 59

Like most game players, the synthetic world visitors spend quite a lot of time playing, and they do so with family and friends. But unlike regular gamers, those in the synthetic world seem to maintain a great deal of their social connections exclusively online, which accounts for the large number of hours spent there (as well as some of the more medieval-like social structures that emerge; see Jakobsson and Taylor 2003). And yet the motive for pursuing their sociality in cyberspace rather than the real world remains obscure. 63

People get stuck in identity ruts, where the people they know see them in a certain way and that reinforces how they see themselves. There's a lot of appeal in starting fresh with a new identity and new people who don't know you in the old way. Online makes that easy. An analogy would be any trepidation people feel when going back for a high school reunion. The trepidation likely comes because they've changed and yet are about to encounter many people who've remember them as they used to be (which is probably a less flattering identity). It can be uncomfortable to slip back into that old skin.

Growth will depend on whether avatar-mediated communication is better than it's competitors at facilitating the interaction that humans want to have. 68

I agree with this, though better doesn't necessarily mean more efficient. It might mean better at making all involved communicators feel better about themselves by communicating through avatars that represent accomplishments.

Those who have good reputations can make use of them in many places. Those who do not can still start over. 92

The most sophisticated policy, and the one that seems to make everyone happiest and richest in the long run, allows people and goods to move freely across political boundaries. The historical tendency has generally been in this direction, and it seems likely that cross-world transitions in cyberspace will become increasingly liberal in the future. 92

This would fundamentally alter inter-game migration, diminishing the attachment players feel to a particular avatar and game world. If they get bored of a game, they can leave and liquidate their assets and join a new game with a purchased avatar with similar prestige and power.

There was a time when I doubted that those who said that modernity imposes a suffocating level of isolation (e.g., in Putnam 1995), but again, seeing that people are willing to pay money to be forced to do teamwork with others is cause to reconsider. 274

People yearn for more socialization. Synthetic worlds can give them that. Mobile can give them that everywhere, anytime.

Creating Meaning

Media researchers have argued that their studies show how quickly and easily people can "become" the objects they manipulate on computers (Reeves and Nass 1996). 32

This is at the core of why people play MMOs. Its taking our virtual reputations and accomplishments and attaching them to ourselves, making them real. They want to become something else in their minds. That pleasurable experience of play that affects how we see ourselves is part of engagement.

Patterns of behavior are emergent. The rules of the game today evolved from some prior set of rules, which dictated not only play but meta-play, the play of the game that's intended to change what the rules are. 101

If implemented correctly, meta-play could give players more ownership over the world they inhabit and make them feel more accomplished for any positive changes they effect.

Catastrophic economic conditions do not explain high suicide rates as well as catastrophic collapses in economic ideology: a loss of the meaning of work. 273

When we say "synthetic worlds create meaning," we mean that almost everybody who goes there will get the feeling of being a little bit of a hero after all. 276

People need meaning in their lives. Is constructing meaning in the context of a game actually making their lives more meaningful? In some cases probably yes and in some cases probably no. I think I would want to avoid tricking players into thinking their lives were more meaningful; I'll call that the Matrix effect. I want to actually make their lives more meaningful by increasing their social networks, etc.

Social Significance

The failure of user communication to conform to the world's atmosphere is not much of a problem when it is confined to a small chat box. With a voice system, however, everyone will hear the modern day babbling of others all the time, with a much more powerfully negative effect on the atmosphere. Forcing voice into role-play mode is hard. 89

It's possible that voice communication will be, by choice, limited to within a circle of friends as opposed to amongst strangers. Anecdotally, I've certainly experienced the benefits of voice communication when using Skype to communicate with teammates in World of Warcraft. It's easier than typing, encouraging us to chat about the game and unrelated topics from life outside the game because our communication bandwidth was higher than typing. It's worth noting that we weren't trying to role-play.

MMORPG advancement systems are especially suited to restoring meaning to our activities, because they place our struggles in the context marked by the presence of other people. All players in a synthetic world will generally share some notions of what is important there, and will therefore deeply validate the emotions that result from the actions one takes. 112

As a result, players achieve a sense of recognition and accomplishment that would be less meaningful in single player environments and which they would perhaps struggle more to achieve in off-line aspect of their lives.

If (and only if) everyone starts with the same opportunities, the same amount of money (usually none), the same ability to choose roles and character types, then the resulting inequality is not taken to be unfair. Rather, status inequality happens because of the choices people make, and so long as everyone starts out with the same opportunities, the inequalities that choices create acquire the character of a fun game rather than a crushing of the spirit. 114

Again, if everyone starts with the same conditions, everyone understands the constraints that everyone else is operating under and can relate to their accomplishments. Also, the feeling of inequality can lead to animosity and frequently does in the real world. The perceived meritocracy of the social systems in synthetic worlds as meaning to the accomplishments within that context.

Better AI, more than anything else, can help overcome the paradox of a world where everyone wants to be a hero at the same time. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a foil, a person who always cooks up new schemes against us, only to be defeated again and again? AI could provide each player with such a personalized enemy. 120

No accomplishment will be as significant as if it's against another human player.

A fun economy should have property, theft, and jail too. 179

Theft sounds fun, but what would jail mean? It can't just be sitting around -- that's boring. How would players protect against theft? How would they track down thieves to bring them to justice? A court system could be fun, especially if it's player-run.

We want to feel like something terrible is happening in the economy. It gives us all a sense of history, of the world is changing and we are witnesses to momentous event. 180

This would definitely make the game more exciting for me. It also helps constructs narrative in a social context that's relevant; for example, "Had you started playing yet when that disease went around and we all lost our mounts and people were flooding the auction house with high-level gear so they could get enough money to buy back their mounts?"

Imagine a world that has fairly clear and easily defended territorial boundaries, in which players have the ability to form governments with real power. By design, different governments rule the difference territories. 217

Giving players power to control governmental functions and the ability to choose who leads would probably increase personal investments in the game. On the flipside, players who strongly disagree with those in power may leave. There would probably need to be the possibility of governmental change frequently enough that those who disagreed with the ruling class would have hope of ousting them.

Risk

Risk strengthens the formation of other institutions within the synthetic world, making status and advancement and rules much more emotionally compelling. 115

This has been true in my own experience, both online and off. The higher the perceived risk, the harder I work to mitigate it (for instance by strengthening an avatar). If there were no danger to ward off, the value of strengthening my avatar would fall. Quests in World of Warcraft are too predictable. Increase both risk and reward of questing and add more competition. On average, players can earn rewards at the same pace as before, but the process will be more exciting.

The risk system should reward rational oddsmaking and betting; it should be the case that a smart player will gradually learn when to take chances and when to walk away. Risk, especially downside risk, also raises the level of emotional investment people seem to have. 179

Anecdotally, I have observed many times in myself that I react much more strongly to downside risk than upside. I wonder why.

The economy consists of thousands of one-person firms, each with its own stock of capital and one laborer. It doesn't have to be this way -- one could very easily have explicit firms where one person or a group of shareholders hires groups of avatars to do work for them. But it seems that one of the attractions of the synthetic economy is that it can be designed so that everyone can be independent, can be their own boss. There is most likely a strong latent desire to do this. Certainly, Earth's economy is not a very strong on that point; there are too many risks to being an entrepreneur, and so most people work for others. 186-7

If the synthetic world is the only place a player can be his own boss, then that's where he'll go. That part is an issue of migration. The other interesting part is that while players may enjoy a risk in the context of the game, too much risk, especially real risk, is a deterrent. Designers must find the balance.

Creating a Sense of Accomplishment without the Treadmill/Grind

In the forests of Norrath, then, you can tell whether a player or a mob is nearby by listening to the speed of the footfalls: if fast, player; if slow, mob. In a situation where players are hunting one another rather than the petty mobs in the area, it makes sense to act like a mob. I found myself walking instead of running, to emulate the sound of local orcs and therefore be ignored by the players. 97

This kind of gameplay would seem to make players feel smarter/stealthier. It's the power to trick and other human player. It gives a sense of accomplishment without the prerequisite treadmill/grind.

It is also fun simply to go around and collect information about qualities and prices, and then make a choice about which thing to buy. Making a choice under scarcity is enjoyable. 177

The risk here is that a player will make the wrong decision and waste precious resources (money). Again, the risk makes the challenge more interesting. This is an opportunity to use readily available information, as opposed to hard-earned character advancements, to affect the outcome of an in-game action, in this case a purchase. It's an opportunity for any player to feel smart and to feel accomplished, without investing in the treadmill of earning experience points.

Maybe the desirability of items in World of Warcraft is too obvious, removing the joy of research.

The fact that the archery skill is an observable rating makes it a more fun skill to raise -- how do I know that I personally am a better archer, after all? 178

I wonder how a game could help players see that their own skill is increasing, too, and not just the skill of their avatars.

Make one mistake in your economic design, and users will "macro" it: write programs and set up server farms to mine it. 181

Castranova cites this as a bad thing, and it certainly can be, but I think a game based around discovering the weaknesses of the system and macroing them could be a lot of fun. Maybe a Serious Game, for teaching programming and hacking.