Hackers and Gamers

a new model of consumption. Norton, along with Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist and professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, has coined the term “conceptual consumption” to describe our willingness to spend real money on abstract goods. Among other things, they argue, it helps explain the sort of long-term payoff we get from a memorable dinner with a loved one. It’s a testament to the power of such conceptual goods, they argue, that in certain settings we privilege the concept over actual physical consumption - such as when we decide not to go back to the restaurant where we had the special dinner because we’re afraid it would dilute the memory. The more we learn about consumer behavior, Ariely and Norton argue, the more we will realize that nearly every decision we make as consumers is primarily conceptual.

Good games are a social experience, and therefore a useful way to spend your money. Now if there was a game that contributed to charity, you'd nail all three pillars of happiness!

What is it like to live in poverty, struggling every day to stay healthy, keep out of debt, and get educated?

Find out now in this challenging role playing game created by the High School students in Global Kids with the game developers at Gamelab, in which you take responsibility for a family of five in rural Haiti.

(mentioned in the previous article http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/11/23/migs-chris-hecker.html)

On the question of "which will become the preeminent medium in the 21st century," Hecker says that "it's ours to lose." It can be games, it should be games. He might have even implied that it will probably be games, but I'm not sure if he went that far. He emphasized that despite the thinking of many in our industry, it is not guaranteed--it's not fait accompli.

There have been a lot of people harshly criticizing the idea of virtual goods inside social games, as though players are buying nothing. Let’s take a step back. There has been a confusion between the marginal cost of production, $0, and the perceived value. Think about what you buy when you buy a movie ticket – you buy the right to experience some emotions. What do you “have” afterward? Even when you buy a physical flower, you don’t have anything very long afterward, but rather you are buying the emotion it creates in the receiver. That is how that good is priced. When you buy a birthday cake, you’re not paying for the cake, but the emotion the receiver gets.

It’s the same with virtual goods. It’s a value that’s very, very tangible. It’s maximized around social emotions and social expression, and often time sensitive like birthdays. Think about the fashion industry – your fashion is a statement about what kind of person you are to your social group. When users decorate their virtual home in games like Pet Society, which sold 8 million pumpkins for Halloween, our users tell us the reason they buy those things is they want their friends to check out their Halloween decorations. But how many friends can go to your real house vs. check out how you’ve expressed yourself in a game on Facebook or MySpace? So the value of a virtual good can be in some cases higher than that of phyiscal goods.

This is a great point. So much of the value in modern society comes from stronger minds and stronger relationships, neither of which are tangible in the sense that manufactured goods are. Virtual goods are a way of providing more profitable, more tailored, and less environmentally wasteful ways of strengthening minds and relationships.

gaming should be an experience, and these companies that are whose “games” are really just simulations or dominoes are leaving something on the table and are vulnerable to up and coming companies that offer social features and quality games.

There have been a lot of people harshly criticizing the idea of virtual goods inside social games, as though players are buying nothing. Let’s take a step back. There has been a confusion between the marginal cost of production, $0, and the perceived value. Think about what you buy when you buy a movie ticket – you buy the right to experience some emotions. What do you “have” afterward? Even when you buy a physical flower, you don’t have anything very long afterward, but rather you are buying the emotion it creates in the receiver. That is how that good is priced. When you buy a birthday cake, you’re not paying for the cake, but the emotion the receiver gets.

It’s the same with virtual goods. It’s a value that’s very, very tangible. It’s maximized around social emotions and social expression, and often time sensitive like birthdays. Think about the fashion industry – your fashion is a statement about what kind of person you are to your social group. When users decorate their virtual home in games like Pet Society, which sold 8 million pumpkins for Halloween, our users tell us the reason they buy those things is they want their friends to check out their Halloween decorations. But how many friends can go to your real house vs. check out how you’ve expressed yourself in a game on Facebook or MySpace? So the value of a virtual good can be in some cases higher than that of phyiscal goods.

'Nuf said.

"Lately I've been digging into research on testosterone. Over the past decade, scientists have been placing players in competitive situations and then measuring how their testosterone fluctuations predict future behavior. What you find from looking at the studies is that both winners and losers will leave your game if they are placed in a set of predictable situations involving dominance, luck, and friendship.

There are four points that have experimental support:

1. How playing with friends affects the testosterone in winning and losing players
2. How playing with strangers affects the testosterone in winning in losing players
3. How perception of the role of luck or skill in the outcome affects the testosterone of players.
4. How players differ by pro-social or pro-dominance inclination.

1. How playing with strangers affects the testosterone in winners and losers
When strangers play a competitive game based off skill, the results fit the common sense understanding of winning and losing.

* Winner testosterone increases. Dominance and/or aggressive behavior increases. Dominance is defined as behaviors that are intended to "gain or maintain high status" (ref) Physical energy increases (and in some cases men become aroused.) Winning is exciting.
* Loser testosterone decreases. The losing player attempts to avoid fighting the same opponent, even in situations challenges unrelated.

This is the classic description of winners and losers in a competitive game. The winners get a huge rush from beating the strangers and the losers are sent home with their tail between their legs, humiliated and subdued..."