The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
An article about what we were discussing a couple of weeks ago with Baudrillard "Simulation and Simulacra" and the notions of reality and alternate realities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
Page:
Nobody is mocking anyone for it, saying it's dumb or that they shouldn't.
I was continuing a discussion with Bell about Baudrillard and the perceptions of reality, the use of computers as another means of alternate reality.
Nothing to do with society collapsing or anything else vaguely like that. A theoretical discussion about a subject and the ramifications.
You'll forgive me if I don't hold you as full and final word on the notions of reality and our acceptance of it.
I was continuing a discussion with Bell about Baudrillard and the perceptions of reality, the use of computers as another means of alternate reality.
Nothing to do with society collapsing or anything else vaguely like that. A theoretical discussion about a subject and the ramifications.
You'll forgive me if I don't hold you as full and final word on the notions of reality and our acceptance of it.
Belldandy wrote:
> stuff
As I said in response to Goatboy, that's gaming for you. People have ruled Chess games, dominoes, Poker.
It means nothing other than what people are willing to put into it.
Take monopoly. People buy a board with a load of fake money and exchange it until someone wins. It's exactly the same.
Someone can manipulate game code, so someone can change the rules in a game of chess. But you don't see endless debates over how society is coming to some precipice because people are willing to part with their money for a Monopoly board.
At the end of the day, whether or not what you're buying is applicable to "the real world", if there is such a thing, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you're willing to spend money on.
Why is it OK to buy a game, but not to buy something within that game that can enhance the experience?
Why is it OK to pay for the game, the internet connection, the online subscription, the electricity bills and then not try to make the most out of the experience?
I don't see anything wrong with buying happiness, and you CAN buy happiness. Today's market includes the sale of virtual goods. Who cares? There's no need for a big debate about how abusable those goods are, or how they add nothing to the buyers overall existance. People have been buying pointless nothings for centuries.
Someone sold their soul on eBay. What does that tell you? Someone parted with their money for NOTHING. Literally. Why? Because that's what they wanted to do with their money.
It's no deeper than that.
> stuff
As I said in response to Goatboy, that's gaming for you. People have ruled Chess games, dominoes, Poker.
It means nothing other than what people are willing to put into it.
Take monopoly. People buy a board with a load of fake money and exchange it until someone wins. It's exactly the same.
Someone can manipulate game code, so someone can change the rules in a game of chess. But you don't see endless debates over how society is coming to some precipice because people are willing to part with their money for a Monopoly board.
At the end of the day, whether or not what you're buying is applicable to "the real world", if there is such a thing, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you're willing to spend money on.
Why is it OK to buy a game, but not to buy something within that game that can enhance the experience?
Why is it OK to pay for the game, the internet connection, the online subscription, the electricity bills and then not try to make the most out of the experience?
I don't see anything wrong with buying happiness, and you CAN buy happiness. Today's market includes the sale of virtual goods. Who cares? There's no need for a big debate about how abusable those goods are, or how they add nothing to the buyers overall existance. People have been buying pointless nothings for centuries.
Someone sold their soul on eBay. What does that tell you? Someone parted with their money for NOTHING. Literally. Why? Because that's what they wanted to do with their money.
It's no deeper than that.
On a side note, imagine a site like Tesco.com set out as a real shop, where you could set up a profile with your credit card details, shopping list, and then walk a little character around, chatting with other customers and picking up items to put in a virtual trolley. There's no difference between that and the current system of picking items from a list, yet the character based idea is more appealing because it is closer to what we recognise when we do actually walk to the shops. Sure, it would be more time-consuming and inefficient to spend the same amount of time browsing a map of a shop, but at the end of the day you'd get the same result as physically going there (minus sticky trolleys, carrying bags and mongy checkout people). It's just a part of human nature to be intrigued by ways that are different, yet fundamentaly the same as our own.
Goatboy wrote:
> The experience, the decision to surrender yourself to that world and
> experience - but it does not exist outside of a computer. It is a
> simulation, and it requires a suspension of disbelief or a
> willingness to immerse yourself within that world.
> An alternate reality? I dont know, but neither do you.
That's the essence of computer games. They're not real. You save the world by flapping your thumbs. Yet people pay for them every day. It's no different. People are paying for an experience.
> The experience, the decision to surrender yourself to that world and
> experience - but it does not exist outside of a computer. It is a
> simulation, and it requires a suspension of disbelief or a
> willingness to immerse yourself within that world.
> An alternate reality? I dont know, but neither do you.
That's the essence of computer games. They're not real. You save the world by flapping your thumbs. Yet people pay for them every day. It's no different. People are paying for an experience.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Of course the items exist. Items from gaming worlds that are sold on
> sites like eBay often take tens or even hundreds of hours of internet
> gaming time to acquire. There is then a very real trade-off between
> spending hundreds of hours of your time and spending some of your own
> cash.
It comes down to your belief in the worlds themselves, people expend time to get those items, but when you remove the graphics they are simply reaching a point where the code allows them access to another code. Ultimately someone can destroy that world in an instant given the chance, totally and irretrievably, just as someone can change the attributes of an item, or of how the system works. Say your character is reduced to 0 health, you die, yes ? That's what you expect because gaming conventions condition you to 100 equalliing full health, 0 dead. If someone is killed in the real world it's because something affects them in a way that vital functions cease to operate. If someone dies in a virtual world then it's because the code dictates that they do. in other words there is no reason why a game cannot be coded to make 0 represent full health, and 100 no health. All that stops it is that people would find that representation strange.
No one can alter the real world, but virtual worlds can be altered, cheated, exploited, removed. The real world is made up of molecules, cells, and so on, at the smallest level. They themselves can be represented in computer forms as 0's and 1's. The very same can be said of the code that makes up virtual worlds ! The difference is that certain things cannot be changed in the real world, whereas a simple change of code in a virtual world can create devestation. Same goes on this forum. You see me as 'Belldandy', a name on the screen, and you (hopefully) read what I type. From it, you'll assume things about me, and if you reply then I'll do the same about you. We sit in different places touching a keyboard, pressing letter keys, but the information sent to SR's server is not in a form we understand, but in a form the OS of the Server's programs do, and they translate it for us to understand, and this happens in a near instant, creating the illusion.
> It's not about being a sad loner (although I don't agree with the
> practice myself), it's about knowing how valuable your time is to
> you, how much you want to succeed in the game, and what you're
> willing to pay to get there.
In a way, success in a game is meaningless, because as I've tried to explain, the games themselves have little meaning outside of their own world. You may be the lord of Everquest, but offline that will mean little, except to those who believe in the Everquest world.
> It's no different to selling off a "save game". Just
> because it's not something that you can hold in your hand, doesn't
> mean it doesn't exist. It is, after all, electronic data, and is
> therefore very real indeed.
When someone sells save data they have to sell it on a card, or transfer it to the card. It has value only to those who play the game and cannot do it themselves, hence the value is only real to a small number of people, and a change in the game world, via code change or a cheat, can render the value of a save game or information meaningless.
In the end it's about perception and interpreting the world around you, Baudrillard argues in his gulf war did not happen book that we each, in effect, live in a virtual reality because we interpret everything based on what we know, and believe. A lot of real world things only exist because we believe in them, not because they are tangible. Take the 2003 Iraq invasion. Iraq is only a place because man gave it that name, borders are only as real as maps on the line backed by force of arms to maintain them, and only do so because they defend the country, a creation of people. It's hard to explain, luckily my disseration has ages to go yet and can be 10 000 words :)
> Of course the items exist. Items from gaming worlds that are sold on
> sites like eBay often take tens or even hundreds of hours of internet
> gaming time to acquire. There is then a very real trade-off between
> spending hundreds of hours of your time and spending some of your own
> cash.
It comes down to your belief in the worlds themselves, people expend time to get those items, but when you remove the graphics they are simply reaching a point where the code allows them access to another code. Ultimately someone can destroy that world in an instant given the chance, totally and irretrievably, just as someone can change the attributes of an item, or of how the system works. Say your character is reduced to 0 health, you die, yes ? That's what you expect because gaming conventions condition you to 100 equalliing full health, 0 dead. If someone is killed in the real world it's because something affects them in a way that vital functions cease to operate. If someone dies in a virtual world then it's because the code dictates that they do. in other words there is no reason why a game cannot be coded to make 0 represent full health, and 100 no health. All that stops it is that people would find that representation strange.
No one can alter the real world, but virtual worlds can be altered, cheated, exploited, removed. The real world is made up of molecules, cells, and so on, at the smallest level. They themselves can be represented in computer forms as 0's and 1's. The very same can be said of the code that makes up virtual worlds ! The difference is that certain things cannot be changed in the real world, whereas a simple change of code in a virtual world can create devestation. Same goes on this forum. You see me as 'Belldandy', a name on the screen, and you (hopefully) read what I type. From it, you'll assume things about me, and if you reply then I'll do the same about you. We sit in different places touching a keyboard, pressing letter keys, but the information sent to SR's server is not in a form we understand, but in a form the OS of the Server's programs do, and they translate it for us to understand, and this happens in a near instant, creating the illusion.
> It's not about being a sad loner (although I don't agree with the
> practice myself), it's about knowing how valuable your time is to
> you, how much you want to succeed in the game, and what you're
> willing to pay to get there.
In a way, success in a game is meaningless, because as I've tried to explain, the games themselves have little meaning outside of their own world. You may be the lord of Everquest, but offline that will mean little, except to those who believe in the Everquest world.
> It's no different to selling off a "save game". Just
> because it's not something that you can hold in your hand, doesn't
> mean it doesn't exist. It is, after all, electronic data, and is
> therefore very real indeed.
When someone sells save data they have to sell it on a card, or transfer it to the card. It has value only to those who play the game and cannot do it themselves, hence the value is only real to a small number of people, and a change in the game world, via code change or a cheat, can render the value of a save game or information meaningless.
In the end it's about perception and interpreting the world around you, Baudrillard argues in his gulf war did not happen book that we each, in effect, live in a virtual reality because we interpret everything based on what we know, and believe. A lot of real world things only exist because we believe in them, not because they are tangible. Take the 2003 Iraq invasion. Iraq is only a place because man gave it that name, borders are only as real as maps on the line backed by force of arms to maintain them, and only do so because they defend the country, a creation of people. It's hard to explain, luckily my disseration has ages to go yet and can be 10 000 words :)
Insane Bartender wrote:
The benefits do
> exist, hence so too does the product.
--
That's the crux of what Bell and I were discussing a couple of weeks ago.
The experience, the decision to surrender yourself to that world and experience - but it does not exist outside of a computer. It is a simulation, and it requires a suspension of disbelief or a willingness to immerse yourself within that world.
An alternate reality? I dont know, but neither do you.
The benefits do
> exist, hence so too does the product.
--
That's the crux of what Bell and I were discussing a couple of weeks ago.
The experience, the decision to surrender yourself to that world and experience - but it does not exist outside of a computer. It is a simulation, and it requires a suspension of disbelief or a willingness to immerse yourself within that world.
An alternate reality? I dont know, but neither do you.
The taking of drugs is not a phantom product.
It directly and biologically affects your brain, it produces chemical reactions that alter the way in which information is transported around the body.
It has a very real effect.
It's not a choice of perception or personal involvement should you ingest a narcotic - it will happen regardless of whether you want it to or not.
But the online gaming world is an entirely personal, subjective experience.
Items that exist within that world do not possess any kind of form or shape outside of that world, they hold no real-world value.
It's the willingness, as you said, to partake in the game and to be willing to pay your money for an avatar that allows you to continue.
It directly and biologically affects your brain, it produces chemical reactions that alter the way in which information is transported around the body.
It has a very real effect.
It's not a choice of perception or personal involvement should you ingest a narcotic - it will happen regardless of whether you want it to or not.
But the online gaming world is an entirely personal, subjective experience.
Items that exist within that world do not possess any kind of form or shape outside of that world, they hold no real-world value.
It's the willingness, as you said, to partake in the game and to be willing to pay your money for an avatar that allows you to continue.
What's the obsession with "real world" sensations?
People around here readily admit to having taken drugs. You hand over money. They make you feel good. Then what? Nothing.
THAT is paying for a phantom product. Purchasing something which can be used in some online game can be used as much as you want, until you decide to sell it on yourself. If the product truly doesn't exist, neither do the possible benefits of owning it. The benefits do exist, hence so too does the product.
People around here readily admit to having taken drugs. You hand over money. They make you feel good. Then what? Nothing.
THAT is paying for a phantom product. Purchasing something which can be used in some online game can be used as much as you want, until you decide to sell it on yourself. If the product truly doesn't exist, neither do the possible benefits of owning it. The benefits do exist, hence so too does the product.
*shrugs*
It's not to do with the game or items in the game, it's to do with how you percieve something and the notion of reality.
I know what I mean, I just cant vocalise it.
It's not to do with the game or items in the game, it's to do with how you percieve something and the notion of reality.
I know what I mean, I just cant vocalise it.
I can see what you mean. If you have a common interest with someone that might be impressed with your collection of virtual goods, then it is worthwhile as a hobbie. But there's no "real world" sensation of actually owning the object. It will always be escapism...until someone sets up a system that actually sends you the item - like a role-playing game of shopping.
Page: