Earlier in his talk, he discussed the psychological tricks social game publishers currently play to get money from people (including from parents whose children accumulated virtual money for weeks, but need to pay a subscription fee with real money to cash in the virtual cash for toys).
I hear there's controversy at gaming conferences about "Skinner boxes" and constant reinforcement strategies which are in the designer's toolbox. Negative reactions range from professional disdain (like a cook who sees most junkfood as addictive fat/sugar/salt injection systems), to ethical objections. http://dev.null.org/blog/item/201003110151_skinner_s_xbo
Could be an interesting addition to billboards, movies, TV, cellphones, mail, radio, etc. As more objects have CPUs and sensors, and as tech is increasingly disposable. (Like Schell's hypothetical toothbrushes which give you hygiene points for brushing your teeth, to the delight of the toothpaste industry.)
All the best, Tj
- Gaming is not a mirror. Gaming is a hammer.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Michael Perelman
<michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> We also have people doing virtual work for reap pay -- where poor Chinese
> play games to earn virtual gold. Their employers pay them and sell the
> virtual gold to wealthy players who use it to buy virtual property,
> weapons, or whatever helps them "win" the game.
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>