Sunday, September 27, 2009
Amateur Games - Present and Future
As most people in my class would agree by now, starting on a thesis could be ranked as one of the most difficult things (in life) to accomplish.For months now I have been ruminating on my topic, yet the nearer I get, the further I am to it. I suppose that this blog would serve as a platform to solidify my thoughts, to sort of ‘nail it in’.
Central to my thesis is the notion that websites are commodifying the content done by amateur indie game makers. I have attached a screenshot of Kongregate, a popular flash based website for indie developers.
At the first glance, this website does look like any other – and you would be right, it does and perhaps that’s where the problem comes in.
We are used to thinking of ‘amateur’ made content as ‘alternative media’, free from the commercial imperatives, yet the truth of the matter is that such material is still continuously commodified online. There are several levels to this commodification:
- Content is commodified into attractions, luring the eyeballs of audiences. This derives advertising revenue (which Kongregate claims they share 25-50% with the amateurs).
- The eyeballs increase webvalue – Alexia ranks Kongregate in the top 1000 – a good sign for the company. This way of deriving value is the same as youtube and so forth.
- Competitions, tip jars, etc – allowing you to give money to the producers of the game
Now we move to the next issue – is there even an issue with commodification? Surely indie developers should be rewarded for their efforts?
Surely I agree with the above statement. But let me first lay out some of the central areas of discussion surrounding ‘amateur made content’:
- According to Howard (2008), participatory content is located within a hybrid of institutionalized and non-institutionalized discourses. This means that as much as content is made for the ‘self’, the content is also simultaneously aligned against the ‘other’ (an institutional backdrop).
- Mosco (2009) describes commodification as the transformation of use values into market values. This means when a game was once valued for its use, it is now also valued for its commercial imperatives. Also pertinent, is how labor – the creator behind the content – is simultaneously “commodified”, placed under the institutional shadow, so as to speak, when commodification of content happens
- When placing Howard (2008) and Mosco (2009) together, one may observe how commodification gradually shifts power from the individual to the institution. Whether the institution is harsh in exerting power is not the point; the fact that it has the capacity to is it.
I recognize that the picture painted may be very bleak, and some may consider it a over-the-top hypothetical situation. I may need to reign in – Kongregate, to my knowledge, has not altered the amateur game-making scene quite so drastically, in fact it is, hitherto, I think, a positive influence on the community; drawing people to make games. Yet evidences of power can be seen, observe, for instance, the power its created genres have on the produced games. Or how “games” are highlighted over the essentially free labor of creators? Next, how many games are produced in a week, and how often does the front page change to reflect this? The effects are sublime, but it can point towards larger changes in values.
What do you think?