This distinction may be mostly 'meta' - useful to those who live, work, and report on gamer culture and community. Or maybe not. I don't have a good sense of how much Barbara Gamer worries these points. What is interesting, though, is that I heard once that this distinction might be more meaningful to those who only "casually play" than the other way around: John Average doesn't want to be associated with what his son does... This is an attitude (deeper than that, it's a disposition) which I'd suggest is rooted in developer practice generally, and computer games developer practice specifically.

The left-wing point of view seems to suggest that anyone who buys or sells their character has lost any claim that they own it (because they can’t sell their identity or social capital). In other words, if you buy a character it’s no longer yours! It also raises some interesting non-design problems. It looks to me as if it would discourage RMT, for example, because investments won't necessarily be seen as sufficiently long-term. The truth is World of Warcraft Gold doesn’t HAVE to take a long time to get, especially in the higher levels. Buy WOW Gold here, and then enjoy your excited WoW life!

The less ethical might look here. I hope that readers here will take the results in context. This is one game and other titles may differ. It's also not a test of young children, but is rather a typical MMOG sample with a broader age range. And (he hints), other research coming out of this same study shows that the game has other effects that are both good and bad. I'll save that for another post. It also raises some interesting non-design problems. It looks to me as if it would discourage RMT, for example, because investments won't necessarily be seen as sufficiently long-term. The truth is World of Warcraft Gold doesn’t HAVE to take a long time to get, especially in the higher levels.

Games and aggression have been a hotbutton item for years, and the controversy isn't going away any time soon. Some of it is fueled by conservative paranoia and some by justifiable parental angst. Nevertheless, as Richard pointed out recently, it doesn't mean that the questions are automatically without merit. So I give you this to chew on--a study of gaming and violence that specifically tested an MMOG, did it out of a lab and used a control group: It also raises some interesting non-design problems. It looks to me as if it would discourage RMT, for example, because investments won't necessarily be seen as sufficiently long-term.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.

I'm actually suggesting that they are (largely) incapable of thinking outside the box (to use a well-overworn phrase). This should not be seen, however, as some devastating slam on them -- all people, in all places (though I would suggest particularly those enculturated into heavily technical professions) have trouble looking at things from another point of view, and this group is really not so different. But it was still a bit surprising, especially given, in Eric's and Raph's cases, their stated interest in academic research.