After reading Uricchio’s analysis of the maturation of the film industry and the debates across national and cultural boundaries to situate it, I was reminded about the rise of video games and its own cultural debates and shifts. What triggered this example was the military’s use of video games as a recruitment tool with American Army, a multiplayer networked game under the first player shooting game genre. While it is no longer in active development because of budget cuts, the game has been well-received, consistently ranking among the top 20 games since it was released in 2002. The game has also spread to other platforms beyond PC including other game consoles and mobile devices. A survey in 2005 of army recruits found that 40 percent had played the game before enlisting.
I had found the government’s use of video games as a communication medium interesting considering violent video games, while popular, continues to raise concerns among parents, educators, and policy makers (“cultural authorities”) about its potential negative influence on youth behavior. In California, there was even an attempt to penalize the sale of violent video games to minors. The law was recently struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of first amendment rights.
Thinking about video games as I read Chakravartty’s account of the unequal and conflicting encounters of cultures through globalization reminded me of issues around goldfarming in MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft. Groups of players, particularly in East Asia, are mindlessly collect game money, which distributors then sell to players in Western countries, exchanging virtual money for real life money. Players who buy the virtual money then use it to progress through the game. Through goldfarming, real markets and economies are emerging from the virtual economy of the game. Many even claim that across MMORPGs, goldfarming is becoming a multibillion dollar business. While this behavior goes against the terms of use of games like WOW, companies behind the games have little power to react against goldframers and their distributors as the deviant markets cross international boundaries.
Goldfarming and MMORPGs are interesting cases of labor and exploitation on the Internet to think about with our other set of readings around free cultural debates. While there is some payment to the goldfarmers, the pay is low and working conditions poor. Some groups, such as prisoners in China, are being forced without pay to collect virtual money. Beyond goldfarming, however, the time and effort that players put into the games infuse the virtual worlds with life and dynamism and gain numerous benefits from building deep social relationships to gaining experience in skills such as collaboration and leadership. The issues and benefits within these virtual worlds highlights the questions that Hesmondhalgh raises at the end of his analysis:
How might positive and emancipatory aspects of labor — including creative labor in the cultural industries — might be made more prevalent, and how negative aspects of work might be contained, controlled or even eliminated? Which political projects may best enhance well-being and social justice with regard to work?