Rich Webb [HREF1], Doctoral Student, School of Education: Instructional Design for Online Learning, Capella University [HREF2].
Rod Sims, Principal Consultant with Knowledgecraft [HREF3] and Adjunct Professor, Capella University [HREF2].
This paper presents ten important reasons why online gameplay and online gameplay communities matter to the future of education and instructional design. The list moves from evidence of impact, through the gathering mix of relevant forces and into the emerging construction of the socio-technological artefacts of this new learning culture. Online digital gameplay is becoming increasingly prevalent. Its participant-players number in the millions and its revenues are measured in the billions of dollars. As they grow in popularity digital games are also growing in complexity, depth and sophistication. Progressively, these varied elements are converging into synthetic artefacts that make the technologies simpler to use, more powerful in application and more widely accessible. Yet even as the technologies are converging their uses are rapidly diverging. They multiply and divide, combine and recombine. They grow in complexity. Their player-participants are spontaneously self-organizing and rapidly growing a wide variety of online communities. These communities “mediate, mash-up or modify” the gameplay experience in pursuit of their own visions. Some even manifest all the characteristics of fully-formed learning communities. Finally, online gameplay and gameplay communities are growing as a subject of educational research. These “games” are increasingly seen as “serious” and effective educational tools. There is an increasing recognition that games, while pushing the creative boundaries of interactive digital media, are suggestive as useful models for the development of next-generation interactive learning environments and learning systems.
Online digital gameplay is becoming increasingly prevalent. Its participant-players number in the millions and its revenues are measured in the billions of dollars. As they grow in popularity digital games are also growing in complexity, depth and sophistication. They display near-video quality graphics, sport powerful processing capabilities and deploy broad array communications capacity. Online gameplay uses some of the most compelling, cutting-edge elements found in the fields of visual arts, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, human-computer interface and telecommunications. Progressively, these varied elements are converging into synthetic artifacts that make the technologies simpler to use, more powerful in application and more widely accessible. Yet even as the technologies are converging their uses are rapidly diverging. They multiply and divide, combine and recombine. They grow in complexity.
At the same time, their player-participants are spontaneously self-organizing and rapidly growing a wide variety of online communities. Some are simple social networks, some massive join ups; others are communities of practice where the virtual skills required by the game are perfected. In the process, the practitioners learn the meta-skills of collaborative intelligence. Others still, develop emergent forms, unexpected by the games designers. These communities “mediate, mash-up or modify” the gameplay experience in pursuit of their own visions. Some even manifest all the characteristics of fully-formed learning communities. Highly motivated and self-directed, the player-participants of these gameplay learning communities actively collaborate in the construction of new—more relevant, more authentic--variations of the game.
Further still, some members of online gameplay communities are reflecting on their place in, and connection to, the wider society. Finally, online gameplay and gameplay communities are growing as a subject of educational research. These “games” are increasingly seen as “serious” and effective educational tools. There is an increasing recognition that games, while pushing the creative boundaries of interactive digital media, are suggestive as useful models for the development of next-generation interactive learning environments and learning systems.
This paper presents ten important reasons why online gameplay and online gameplay communities matter to the future of education and educational design. As with other popular top ten lists, this one will count in descending order from ten to one, from the generally relevant to the definitely significant. The list will move from evidence of impact, through the gathering mix of relevant forces and into the emerging construction of the technological and sociological artifacts of this new learning culture. It seeks to show that online digital gameplay is an important subject for further research and as Sheldon Brown (2005) has said, is increasingly becoming “the medium telling our cultural story.”
Digital gameplay is growing fast. In its annual report detailing sales for 2004 the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) estimated video game software sales in the United States at $7.3 billon. This was a four percent increase from the previous year. Sales since 1996 have more than doubled. In encouraging news for the gameplay industry, the report noted that forty seven percent of Americans said they planned to purchase one or more games in 2005 (ESA, 2005).
In Australia, 70% of households have a computer capable of playing pc games while 35% have a dedicated console gameplay system. Sales of computer and video games topped 10 million units in 2004. Eight hundred thousand console gameplay units were also sold that year. Research suggests that 53% of Australians, 60% of Americans and 40% of Europeans play computer and video games on a regular basis (IEAA, 2005a).
A more recent development inside the digital gameplay arena is the marked migration of games to online play. The ESA estimates that 24% of all US gamers now participate in games online (ESA, 2004). An online game is any digital game played via the internet and may include PCs, consoles or handheld units. They range from multiplayer extensions of stand alone games to Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) joining tens of thousands of players in simultaneous interaction. Online gameplay currently represents only 6.4 % of the market, but it is the fastest growing gameplay genre and is expected to reach a 28% market share as early as 2008 ( OECD/ICCP, 2004). An entertainment form in its earlier development, online play is fast becoming a commercial force. DFC Intelligence, a strategic market research firm focused on the emerging interactive entertainment market, estimates worldwide subscription revenue from online games reached $2 billion in 2005 and should reach $6.8 billion by 2011 (DFC Intelligence, 2006).
The facts of growth, however, are tempered by the volatility of the market and the near random quality of successful titles. As the DFC Intelligence report notes, “most companies that have invested with a conscious goal of growing their online business have not been successful.” But since there are major successes, the key question must be “what are the operant factors of that success.”
The stereotypical view of the video gamer is an adolescent male. Gameplay statistics no longer support such a characterization. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, 2005), female players over the age of 18 now represent a greater portion of the game-playing population (28%) than do males from ages 6 to 17 (21%). Teens under 18, of both genders, do make up 35% of the gameplay population but a significant 19% of players are over 50. In the U.S., the average game player age is 30. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 37. On the other hand, the average Australian digital game player is 24 years of age. Sixty-two percent of Australian players are male and 38% are female. The breakdown of Australian game players, by age, works out to thirty-four percent under the age of 18, twenty-six percent between 18 and 35 and a full forty percent over the age 36 (IEAA, 2005b).
Another stereotype is that of the anti-social, potentially violent, gaming loner. Again, the facts do not support the case. In the United States, 32 % of parents play games with their children on at least a weekly basis. ESA’s (2005) data indicates that only 16% of games sold in 2004 were rated Mature, as compared to the 83% of games sold rated for Teen or Everyone. IEAA (2005b) data shows forty-one percent of Australians play games with friends or family. Using data gathered by LAMP (2005) an interesting portrait of the “gamer parent” develops. They are 37 years old, equally likely to be male or female and spend an average of 19 hours a month playing video games. Two-thirds of these gamer parents say playing video games brings their families closer together.
As noted above, the ESA estimates that 24% of US gamers participate in games online. Of those who play games online, 56% are male and 44% female—a more balanced division than among digital players generally. Krotoski (2004) notes in her exploration of gameplay and women, that among a number of MMORPGs , like EverQuest, and in socializing games like SIMS, female players represent majorities of up to 60%, with most of those player being over the age of thirty.
Gender issues in online play, as with education and community, remain nonetheless. A report by the American Association of University Women’s (AAUW) Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education made the following recommendation: In order to make online play more attractive to females, “digital play spaces have to become more sophisticated. They have to permit flexible decision-making, multiple stories and perspectives, qualities that are not 'girl-specific' so much as they are user-friendly, customizable, personalizable, and inviting to a range of players” (AAUW, 2000). This could well be the description of many, if not most, successful online games.
In the sales figures referenced earlier, PC and console software sales are listed separately. They are currently seen as different gameplay platforms. But this is changing; and it’s changing fast. A few years ago consoles supported only games. Today they also play CDs, DVDs and offer internet connection. This multiplicity of uses is expressive of the concept of “ convergence”. It is the synergistic combination of technological features into a single format. Voice and related telephony features are able to be combined with data and related productivity applications, which can be combined with video and its related visual affordances to create improved efficiencies. Mobile phones are a particularly good example of such convergence. Beginning as phones, they now serve as voice recorders, mp3 players, cameras and camcorders. They are also merging with personal digital assistants (PDAs) to become single, multi-use devices with high levels of interactivity.
Late in 2005, Applied Nanotech developed a prototype of a 25-inch flat screen made of carbon nanotubes. The resulting picture is significantly sharper and much brighter than current models and adds a real sense of depth to 3D content (Kanellos, 2005). At the same time UT Southwestern Medical Center, produced the first true, three-dimensional, holographic movies (UT Southwestern, 2005). These technologies, in turn, can be converged into 3D gameplay formats thus raising the level of visual acuity experienced by the gamer. Interestingly, the impetus for producing the holographic movies was for improved medical visualization. This new technology, as a report for the Digital Convergence Initiative (DCI) points out, can be used for either “better diagnosis” or for “better displays of coordinating information in combat.” The practice of such medicine or engagement in such combat now straddles the real hospital AND the virtual combat game. The technological convergence affords the virtual. DCI believes this technological convergence of devices now requires more sophisticated content. They believe that a “digital convergence super cluster” would consist of cutting edge developments in electronics, telecommunications, software, eLearning and digital games all energized by creative content (DCI, 2005).
While there is significant evidence to support movement in the direction of convergence a significant factor slowing the transition is the question of investment; at least in terms of online gameplay. According to DFC Intelligence, (2006) future developments of games and gameplay technologies “will require companies to take some significant risky investments.” And as noted earlier, many of the companies in this arena who have made conscious efforts at growing online gameplay have failed. The safer investment may well be for companies to go ‘out of the box’ digital. The real risk takers could end up being self-generative, online gameplay communities making concerted, but voluntary, investments of time and personal resources.
To a degree unmatched in any other media, online game players command a considerable level of access to the design and development of their medium. Many professional designers actively participate in online player discussions. They often incorporate player suggestions into new and existing games. And they openly provide players with the tools to facilitate the modification and production of player content. In those instances where such access is not forthcoming the players seize opportunities themselves. They circumvent security measures with relative ease; altering game graphics, code and parameters. They are quick to share their machinations with a widespread community of fellow players. Both individually and collectively, they decidedly change the course and content of the game; often significantly improving it. They play the games in new and unexpected iterations and some even make the jump to creating—and producing—their own games. As Cindy Poremba (2003) describes it, “they not only use the digital game as a mediated experience, but often as a media in and of itself.”
There is a fundamental transition taking place in the way individuals, companies, organizations and even societies operate. It is a transition away from uniformity and hierarchy. It is a transition towards customization and decentralization. Jenkins (2002) describes this new world as a “participatory culture” and argues that it is emerging at the intersection of three broad media trends:
Gameplay communities of wide variety now populate such worlds. They are active, participatory cultures of high sophistication, who seek the perfection of divergent visions (Humphreys, 2005). The question that remains to be answered: Will such communities evolve successful strategies for not only surviving in a virtual multiverse, but for producing and prospering as well?
A complex system is by definition, a system with many components that interact with one another and with their environment in “interesting” ways. For a system to be called “complex” it must display a measurable majority of the following characteristics (CSCS, 2006):
Glean (2005) describes “complex games” as being “simulated strategy games that model and mimic selected elements of complex systems. These games allow players to act as agents in a virtual environment which simultaneously represents real or contrived social phenomena. Glean identifies the Sims, Civilization and the Total War series as prime examples of such complex games. They each mimic the socio-cultural evolution of a human society (a complex system) thereby providing the chance to practice on a virtual stage, the interactive skills mentioned above: agency, differentiation, dynamism, feedback processing, organization and emergent behaviors (Glean, 2005). This explanation is descriptive of the internal machinations of the selected system. Complex games, according to Kauffman (1995) may also allow for meta-system interaction. This is to say, the game may be viewed extrinsically, and its own agencies, dynamics, organization, etc. thereby modified. Complex gameplay communities, Kauffman argues, are capable of self-organizing behaviors. They may change existing or even spontaneously generate structures or behaviors that can then respond to environment, experience, or to forces initiated by other agents.
Self-organization describes the process whereby the organization of a system spontaneously modifies or develops in response to environmental forces, experiential reflection or other agents. Ison (2000) believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that “self-organizing, emergent learning systems” can be expected to develop spontaneously via internet mediated activities. As an example he points to the history of the Linux software. It was developed, modified, and improved by granting free access to its operational code. A self-generating, self-regulating community of practice was created around the code. In time, Linux developed into a robust operating system that many software experts consider to be more stable and powerful than Microsoft’s operating systems.
Emergent gameplay, a self-organizing process, is the creative alteration, combination or multiplication of game elements that are divergent from and unexpected by original design intent and which result in the ‘realization’ of a new game form. This occurs as a more complex and organized behavior emerges out of the free and dynamic interaction of simpler game elements. Such emergence is now commonplace among online gameplay communities and is becoming increasingly prized by game designers (Sigman, 2004). Machinima, mash-ups and mods are examples.
Machinima (Ma-sheen-EH-ma), is the synthesis of the words “machine” and “cinema.” Technologically, it is the morphing of online games with the art of movie making. The machinima director and crew use the game’s platform to ‘shoot’ the film. The subsequent editing, sound tracking and special effects may use the same platform or may introduce outside elements.
Mash-up is a term derived from the hip-hop music practice of mixing multiple songs. It refers to the mixing of at least two different Web-based applications, including games, into a new entity.
Mod, short for modification, is the process of using the game’s own code to modify parts—or even most aspects – of the game. Some developers, seeing potential value in such modification have attempted to encourage emergent play by providing additional tools to player-modders. They also provide online forums where players can develop contacts and build communities.
There are strong indicators—given the extent and diversity of its development—that the self-organizing efforts of emergent gameplay will be a significant ‘player’ in the future development of online gameplay specifically and net culture generally. But the same quality that gives emergent gameplay its value--unexpected developments at variance with the original design intent—also makes it seem too chaotic for use in a more formalized instructional design format. If, however, a creative tension could be afforded encompassing the dynamic energy of emergence AND the organizing element of design, as suggested by the Linux experience, a model for future net-centric instructional design could well be configured, tested and perfected.
The key to the process of self-organization according to Ison (2000) is the “fostering of enthusiasm for collaborative action.” Online gameplay regularly fosters such enthusiasm. Player Web sites quickly grow up around them. Their forums generate enthusiastic communications and foster a wide variety of group actions. Over time, there is movement among player-participants from the merely cooperative (a willingness to work together) to the coordinated (arranging time and resources so as to work together more effectively) to the collaborative. Collaboration is defined by Taylor-Powell, Rossing and Geran (1998), as an organized process wherein parties who are able to see different aspects of a problem can explore these differences creatively and constructively. Hartley (1996) described such collaborative activities as accessing diverse expertise, improving quality through criticism, encouraging differing view points, and improving the skill levels of participant communication. He called these activities the ‘artifacts’ of collaborative learning.
Constructionism (with an “N”) argues that the process of learning is made most effective when those who are learning are themselves designing, planning, constructing or modifying tangible objects. This is certainly the case with online game communities. Distributed constructionism, as an extension of this argument, seeks to create situations where groups of learners are collaboratively involved (Resnick 1996). This distributed aspect affirms the collective dynamic and recognizes the impossibility of cognition to be the product of any single individual. The process must be distributed among those actively involved and using the constituent artifacts in the work environment.
Squire and Johnson (2000) have observed that when members of a learning community (insert ‘online gameplay community’ here) begin to regard knowledge as dynamic and accessible—rather than static and distant—they soon begin to build their own representations of knowledge. In the experience of collaborative work towards a shared goal, learners develop a “much richer repertoire” of knowledge and skills. The evidence of production certainly suggests that this can be the case among online gamers. The great weakness of online gameplay communities, conversely, is the ratio of failures to successes. What works and what does not is still in the process of evolving.
Online digital gameplay communities are active constructions of the player-participants. They are not merely passive recipients of information being more efficiently delivered over the Internet. Online digital gamers are active constructionists. Such construction can occur on at least two levels: the internal (the mental) and the external (the media). Online digital gamers must operate on both levels: individually and as communities. They internalize their own meaning while also producing external meaning in the form of tangible artifacts. Henry Jenkins (2002), as previously stated, calls this "participatory culture". He believes that players, while drawing “resources from commercial media culture” simultaneously rework them to serve their own alternate purposes. Jenkins’ participatory game culture provides us with insight into the design of the learning (knowledge-creating) process and helps us to understand its importance. It examines BOTH the consumptive as well as the productive aspects of how media assists learners to facilitate learning. The learner is situated in scaffolded communities that support innovation and renovation. This scaffolded activity in turn moves learners toward action, i.e., knowledge use. Such use then motivates the learner to continue the process of their own education vis-à-vis the constructed object. This most effectively occurs when the learner-actors are involved in the construction of authentic tools or objects. They are motivated to create what they will then use.
Participatory game culture constructions, according to Sotamaa (2003), come in four parts:
Diane Walczak (2002) has painted a compelling picture of our technological future: "Broad dynamic content will feed future education technologies… integrating motion and haptic interfaces, display and sound sciences, computer simulation breakthroughs, and next-level communication and information technologies.” The emphasis here is upon the experiential. It has been argued (Roszak, 1986) that it is not in the mere retention of information or even in its organization that humans find meaning. It is rather found in the experience of life itself. Miller (2000) uses this grounding in experience as the basis for comparing conventional schooling with alternative forms such as those found in online gameplay. He characterizes the former as “dry, lifeless academic exercises.” The expectation of such schooling is that “facts”, i.e., knowledge, can be readily transmitted across computers on a network. Learning that is based in an experience requires more than mere facts. It needs to be rooted in “historical, geographical, and biological contexts.” But what do these terms mean when their expression is virtual. Online games do, in fact, have geographies; most have a referent “biology” and many even have histories. For some long term gamers these virtual expressions are as real as any they experience in the mundane physical realm.
Hurst (2006) of goodexperience.com, believes that a Web presence needs to be understood as being far more complex than a set of rules of usability, content editing and some form of graphic identity. A Web presence, such as an online game, is a confluence of many elements. In sum, he argues, it is about the full experience of moving through that space and interacting with all of its various parts. Consider Walczak’s vision of the near future quoted above. Next generation technology will literally take us into the virtual world that online games are just now beginning to build. Walczak (2002) finishes her statement with an exhortation: “The vast possibilities created by these merging technologies make it crucial to bring together great minds from every discipline to begin building a foundation for the development of massive amounts of evolving content simultaneously and in collaboration with the design of next-generation education technology." It is the contention of this ‘Ten Reasons’ article that such construction is already underway in the world of online gameplay.
Games are no longer relegated to the world of entertainment. They are increasingly viewed by a few educators as potentially effective tools in the process of improving education. Prensky (2001), Squire (2002), Gee (2003), Aldrich (2004) as well as Bonk and Dennen (2005) all contend that games, while pushing the creative boundaries of interactive digital media, are also suggestive as useful models for the next-generation of interactive learning environments. Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) argues in his “Art, Science and the Business of Computer Games” that:
Sheldon Brown, Visual Arts Professor and Director for Research in Computing and the Arts at the University of California, San Diego states: “Whether we like it or not, this is the medium that is telling our culture story, and the fact that it is a primary tool of youth and adolescents means it will have a tremendous impact on how the next generation or two plays itself out…” (Brown, 2004).
Understanding the mechanics and processes of online games and online gameplay communities should inform the design of future educationally focused games. At a minimum, there is sufficient evidence that instructional designers and other educational technologists may reap the rewards of closer examination of the ways players and player modders are already interacting with these games and how they might be used in classrooms and other educational settings (Squire, 2003). The last question that needs to be asked then: Is academia ready to join the game?
Aldrich, C. (2004) Simulations and the Future of Learning: An Innovative (and Perhaps Revolutionary) Approach to e-Learning [HREF4]
AAUW (2000) Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education. Washington, DC. [HREF5]
Barab, Sasha (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D. D., & Land, S. M. (2000). (Eds.). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive multiplayer online gaming: A research framework for military education and training. Technical Report # 2005-1. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Defense (DUSD/R): Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL): [HREF6]
Brown, S. (2005) Quoted in Entertainment Software Association Essential Facts: Sales, Demographics and Usage Data. Retrieved October 30, 2005 [HREF7]
CSCS: Center for the Study of Complex Systems (2006) The study of complex systems University of Michigan [HREF8]
DCI: Digital Convergence Initiative (2005) Creating sustainable competitive advantage in Texas DCI Report [HREF9]
DFC Intelligence (2006) Who will benefit from the growth of online game subscription revenue? DFC Intelligence: Monthly Report [HREF10]
ESA (2005) Essential Facts: Sales, Demographics and Usage Data Entertainment Software Association Survey conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates [HREF11]
Glean, N. (2005) Growing complex games Digital Games Research Association Changing Views: Worlds in Play Conference 2005 [HREF12]
Hartley, (1996) Virtual education: Issues and practicalities IEEE [HREF13]
Humphreys, Sal (2005) Productive Players: Online Computer Games' Challenge to Conventional Media Forms Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Volume 2, Number 1
Hurst, M. (2006) Good experience games Goodexperience.com [HREF14]
IEAA: Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (2005a) Top ten industry facts IEAA Web site [HREF15]
IEAA: Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (2005b) Top ten player facts IEAA Web site [HREF16]
Ison (2000) Supported open learning and the emergence of learning communities The Coalition for Self Learning Web site [HREF17]
Jenkins, H. (2002). "Interactive Audiences?" In Harries, D. (ed.) The New Media Book. British Film Institute, London.
Jenkins, H. (2005) Reality bytes: Eight myths about video games debunked PBS: The Video Game Revolution [HREF18]
Kanellos, M. (2005) Texas company demos carbon nanotube TV C/NET [HREF19]
Kauffman, S. (1995) At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity, Oxford University, Oxford
Krotoski, A. (2004) Chicks and joysticks: An exploration of women and gaming London: Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association
LAMP: Laboratory of Advanced Media Production (2005) Actual service use statistics LAMPwiki [HREF20]
Miller (2000) Some thoughts on learning communities and “virtual” realities The Coalition for Self [HREF21]
OECD/ICCP: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development / Information, Computers and Communications Policy (2004) Information Economy Report [HREF22]
Poremba, Cindy (2003). Remaking each other’s dreams: Player authors in digital games New Forms Festival 2003 Vancouver, BC, Canada [HREF23]
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Resnick, M. (1996). Distributed Constructionism. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences. Northwestern University [HREF24]
Roszak, T. (1986) The Cult of Information. London: Paladin.
Sotamaa, O. (2003) Computer game modding, intermediality and participatory culture University of Tampere [HREF25]
Sigman, T. (2004) Hey bro – It’s all relative: The theory of game relativity and its link to design innovation, predicting emergent gameplay Gamasutra Web site [HREF26]
Squire, K. (2002). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games, Game Studies: The International Journal of computer Game Research 1(2). [HREF27]
Squire, K. and Johnson, C. Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (1), 23–43.
Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., Geran, J. (1998), Evaluating Collaboratives, University of Wisconsin Extension, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. [HREF28]
UT Southwestern (2005) Holographic movies show promise for medical, military applications UT Southwestern Medical Center [HREF29]
Walczak, D. (2002) Encompassing education in Visions 2020: Transforming education and training through advanced technologies Department of Commerce U.S. Government [HREF30]