Professional Gaming: hard living, hard money

One of Friday’s discussions was about the question whether professional gaming was considered a real job. One of the arguments against professional gaming being a real job is the nearly objective statement that games are fun. But this is actually an argument in favor of professional gaming being a though job, not an easy one. Since a game is fun, a lot of people are intrinsically motivated and willing to spend time playing a specific game. This way the average skill level increases significantly. Imagine everyone putting the same motivation and enthusiastic hours into the practice of a mailman: succeeding through the application at the post office would be a lot harder. 

Silver (2012) showed the same example for poker players after the increased popularity of the game. As can be seen in the figure, the so-called water level determines the room for a professional player’s profit. Because gaming is fun, the average skill level (the water level) will is likely to be relatively high since there will be a lot of people practicing the game. In order to make money, gamers have to be way better than that high average. As the popularity and inside game knowledge on average make the water level of professional gamers rise and rise, marginal improvements in the game become especially important. That’s why other factors like physical and mental well-being come into play, or even mathematics to reason for logic of specific tactics. Just practicing a lot is insufficient since it is being done by many others already.

Similar to professional athletes, the range of age for a professional gamer is rather small (Wingfield, 2014). Especially in combination with the stress which is generated by the highly competitive environment, this creates an uncertainty for the player’s future. This is an insecure prospective in comparison with a traditional job, which mainly offers more financial security for a longer period of time. Besides, the income of professional gamers is highly correlated with their performance. Moreover, they also have to sacrifice other aspects of their life to spend time to gaming in order to stay at the highest level of play (Wingfield, 2014).

So the idea of professional gaming being easy money is a big pitfall for light-minded outsiders. If it was easy, millions of people were rich now. But the paradox here is clear; not everyone can be better than the (highly skilled) average!

Figure 1 Source: Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail-but some don't. Penguin, p. 257.

Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail-but some don't. Penguin Wingfield, N. (2014). In e-Sports, video gamers draw real crowds and big money. Retrieved September, 23, 2015.

Hybrid Game Value: the power of physical games to the power of digital potential

Iets voor Ine en Djoons om uit te proberen, bijvoorbeeld het spel Alchemists?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking away the most computational or setting up parts of a game may be good to improve the smoothness of the game (for example, the shuffling of a deck in a card game that makes many rounds like heads-up poker). However, as was found by Xu et al. (2011), it should actually be the case that some of the trivial tasks like chores remain present in a gaming event since it facilitates the needed breaks for social values of interaction and emotion.

One may think digitalization has a negative effect on social interactions, but it appeared that digitalization actually offers many opportunities and incentives for social interaction, both in the home (Heljakka, 2016) and the public setting (Tieben et al., 2014). Of course it is important to distinct between complete digitalization and the inclusion of specific digital aspects; hence the term hybridity. Like in the first example, game chores could better not be digitally replaced. On the other hand, digitalization can offer rich tools that empower the player to express personal preferences (autonomy) like the 3D-printing technology of game characters (Heljakka, 2016).

Moreover, hybridity can also stimulate physical activity. An easy one here is to think of Pokémon Go or the Wii and its successors. But by augmented reality, it will also be possible to act through natural interfaces instead of using a controller while sitting. For example, if one wants to play a wizard, this is way more physically active (and realistic) by using an Oculus rift, Wii mote and Cyberith virtualizer than by playing on a traditional gaming console.

As mentioned before, Heljakka (2016) stresses the positive influence of the combination of technology and toys for family bonding by quoting the Toy Industry Association: “According to TIA’s trend analysts in their annual Key trends report, they are “seeing a growing number of toys that incorporate technology while also promoting socialization, face-to-face interaction, and family bonding for all” (TIA Newsletter 22 February 2016: Key trends 2016: Family matters).” I especially like this family bonding part since technology itself was first found to have a negative effect on social interactions in households due to individual seperation (Kraut et al., 1998). By playing games in a contemporary way, technology can restore or even improve the former family relationships. This shows perfectly how novel technology in itself is neither good nor bad, but the designing implications and thinking through determines whether technology positively influences our overall well-being.

Heljakka, K. (2016). Strategies of Social Screen Play (ers) across the Ecosystem of Play: Toys, games and hybrid social play in technologically mediated playscapes. Wider Screen, 1-2.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American psychologist, 53(9), 1017.

Tieben, R., Sturm, J., Bekker, T., & Schouten, B. (2014). Playful persuasion: Designing for ambient playful interactions in public spaces. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(4), 341-357.

Xu, Y., Barba, E., Radu, I., Gandy, M., & MacIntyre, B. (2011). Chores are fun: Understanding social play in board games for digital tabletop game design. In Think design play: The fifth international conference of the digital research association (DIGRA) (Vol. 16).