2020 Miscellaneous Links: Untitled Moose Game

[dunie]

Hm, see, I'm on the fence there. I think it's the loudness (prompted by social media) that prompted the apology. The leftovers of the 90s did a lot _{of really cool 90s things}, but also had many instances of CA and folk saying the same of Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake, for example. The critiques fell out of mainstream attention, and so did the responses unless you _{secretly used to be a Britney fan}. And yes, I agree that it does something to the perception of our values. But if social engagement and appropriation are some keys to CA not stinging either party involved, what's been good examples of a followup to an apology (his was half-hearted, I might add).

[Captain K]

<- Britney Fan and loud and proud about it.

[dunie]

heck yea!

in the world of celebrity news and caring/not caring this surprised me

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/entertainment/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-divorce/

[NotMiki]

http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/reject-pickup-artists-the-game-dating-simulator

Badass.

[Ranmilia]

https://m.facebook.com/notes/richard-garfield/a-game-players-manifesto/1049168888532667

An excellent article by developer Richard Garfield about whale-funded skinnerbox games. 

[Grefter]

Not even throwing shade.  This was better than I expected it to be when I read it was Richard Garriot.

Then I rechecked and it was Richard Garfield.  That is very much more in line with expectations.

[NotMiki]

MtG obviously has a very different business model than a mobile f2p, but I can't help but feel he's throwing stones from a glass house here. [insert discussion about pay-to-win, commodification, addictive completionism, etc.  The amount of money it takes to "win" MtG in the sense of unlocking everything is prohibitive, and has been for decades.  I'd imagine the money it takes to collect a single set, times sets a year, iis well into abusive territory.]

[SnowFire]

1) The amount of money to buy every single video game that's released is probably also prohibitive.  Magic can be pricy, yes, but it's been creating genuine new content for 20+ years, so it's not exactly comparable to a single game, but it's more like a hobby. 

2) "Collectors" who have to have one of everything existed before Magic, anyway, in non-games like stamp collecting & baseball card collecting.  So for people who really do want to "unlock everything", it's not even necessarily exploitative?  It's certainly a different case than "pay us up multiple tiny hits to get a rush."

2) It's been 10 years since Garfield worked for Wizards of the Coast.  He was generally seen as one of the most pro-game-as-game.  He's publicly opposed adding a new mythic rarity tier to Magic awhile back, for example, as that it brings it too close to the gambling experience, for example.  When Magic was made, it was the first game of its type.  It's basically on record that people bought Magic very differently than Garfield expected - he thought people would spend 30-60 dollars then stop and play casual kitchen table games with their cards, because that's how much you spend on a game.  Collecting a bunch of each rare would be something only a few crazed superfans would do.  Basically, to the extent that Magic does prey on people, a lot of it can't be blamed on Garfield anyway.  Pretty sure if he could do it all over again, he wouldn't have even gone the CCG route if you aren't reading between the lines here - he'd probably prefer something like Dominion as a sales model instead.

[NotMiki]

1) The amount of money to buy every single video game that's released is probably also prohibitive.  Magic can be pricy, yes, but it's been creating genuine new content for 20+ years, so it's not exactly comparable to a single game, but it's more like a hobby. 

Come on.  Video games are made by different companies competing against one another, and are not even all marketed toward the same audiences.

Collecting a bunch of each rare would be something only a few crazed superfans would do.

Well yeah, but that's Garfield's point, isn't it?  Game designers should protect players from themselves by avoiding business models that enable addictive, destructive behavior?  Inherent in the word "collectable" is the idea that folks will collect.  From day 1 MtG has enabled and implicitly encouraged people to spend unreasonable amounts of money to catch 'em all.  I doubt Garfield expected the scope of it from the beginning...but he was involved a lot further down the road than that.

[dunie]

I remember balking at ports when I was a child. I could tell the consumer exploitation from afar; well, exploitation for those who've already played such games. I also remember playing Magic early on and dropping it because it is, in fact, a long-term financial commitment should you choose enter games against broader audiences. I also remember Facebook games and thinking how it seemed to prey on those unfamiliar with earlier precedents for gaming (IE, you should not need to pay for more lives). I think his argument touches pretty well on a popular trend in monetization, though I wish he was not as vague about what comprises which "addictive behavior" group. So it could be strengthened in that way, Facebook gaming and which segments use the "Pay for more---!"

[Grefter]

Eh I dunno dude, he has made plenty of CCGs after Magic.  He has even helped on F2P digital CCG in the last 5 years or so (SolForge).

Richard Garfield is a lot of things and he is very very clearly passionate about games and the purity of games, but he also knows how to make a thing for a business.  Even the Living Cardgame elements to Android: Netrunner is still about baking in a repeat customer model.

That said also agree quoting prices for a Vintage deck or a high power EDH deck is really disproportional on """"Value""".

That also said though, holy fuck the people in that comment chain that down play just how fucking expensive competitive magic is are fucking bonkers.  If you think that most people A) can or do offload their collection onto the secondary market you are delusional and B) if you realistically think the value of your collection is close to recouping your costs you literally aren't buying a single booster ever running purely on buying singles for your deck and are praying there isn't reprints of your best shit.

Checking here at a site I don't know and am relying on Alex to tell me if I am dumb, but it lists the price of current tournament decks.  In Standard this month the majority of decks are $200+.  There is a handful of cheaper decks through out (Mostly a mono red burn deck popping up), but most of them are significant investments even for something that will stick around for 3 or so months in a stable meta.  Online scrapes it together a bit cheaper.

Pauper decks run $50, but literally anything competing at the top levels (which trickle down HARD in M:tG) in other formats is hundreds to thousands of dollars.

You could run proxies but then like, well yeah you aren't competing in sanctioned tournaments and the game could literally be free other than the cost of pen, paper, slips and a few decks of playing cards (or just playing on Chimera).

EDH is a bit less competitive meta to it, but even just a fuck about EDH deck has to be 100 cards with a Legendary in it which unless you are Kamigawa based that's going to be a $value right up front to play just on raw rarity.

You can also only partake in Limited tournaments, but well I hope you are winning constantly and then reselling your cards or you are spending every single time you play.


Magic doesn't have to be a tens of thousands of dollars up front to start investment, but anyone claiming in that comments section Magic isn't really fucking expensive and puts it on even the same scale as Hearthstone is delusional.  Standard in HS is going to PUSH it in that direction, but HS always has that baked in initial cost that keeps giving in the Classic set.  MTG has constant treadmills and reprints Core and shifts around what is in it every damned year.  It is a whole other beast.

It is also not Richard Garfield's to answer for in it's current state.  edit more response to Jim.  Even out the gate MtG was a different beast than he expected it to be.  The original idea was for it to be the base set was its own thing.  Then you could build new versions of the same game.  Expansions and mixing them together was an after the fact thing.  He was still involved and a huge factor for many years afterwards, but it is less him driving the decision making.  By now the tournament scene, the formats, all of that don't remotely resemble when he was involved and even for those a lot of those are other people's babies.

That said I 100% agree, Richard Garfield made games for businesses that he knew would sell.  He does a mix and match of "pure" games that are just games he wants to do purely to do them and games that are compromised for the sake of business.  It is still working on something he wants to do, but he is plenty realistic enough to be able to be part of a corporate entity.

Edit - responses from when I started typing  this is for Dunie.

RG is a lot of things and is super smart.  He is a bit vague on defining the addictive behaviours I believe because of all the things he is, a psychologist is not one of them and he knows it.  He is a master at games design and a mathematician, writing an article as a gamer.  He can speak volumes to player behaviour and responses, but he isn't going to sit there and disect the mountain of various layers of operant conditioning that makes up most games that we tend to dismissively refer to as "skinner boxes".  Probably not the place, not the audience and maybe not something he is comfortable even doing (though he can most definitely point out the degree of randomness in the reward/punishment outcomes from the various levers in place).

edit 10million - SO MUCH TERRIBLE ENGLISH SORRY IT IS 2:30 IN THE MORNING.

[dunie]

http://www.upworthy.com/this-school-replaced-detention-with-meditation-the-results-are-stunning?c=ufb1 I really like this news

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ I revisited this article after a younger peer got into a Facebook flamewar over being a white anti-racist and arguing with a straw-man throwing friend

Re: Grefter
Right, but at least age groups would have been useful. I figure he'd be familiar with the general groups. But, really, I'm more interested in those with 10+ years gaming and if they purchase as many .99c things (or, even downloadable content maybe) as much as groups with little to none. For my own research to do!

[dunie]

and this
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1_Y0LwX0uOz-P63FVhV0OFkDObbBXcy16YPOcsqnBqto/mobilebasic

although it should be addressed to more than white people, which I'll suggest to the manager anyway

[Grefter]

I am pretty sure there has been some interesting articles and presentations come out of GDC over the years that might have stats and stuff on that now.  Normally when they come out the consumer reaction cries about the use of the term "Whale" and doesn't actually disect the stats, but it is around.

[dunie]

I'll check it out!

http://time.com/4493032/lionel-shriver-cultural-appropriation-speech/

Background: Lionel Shriver, famous (maybe notorious?) US author argues that she can and will write fiction from the perspectives of whoever she wants because fiction is fake. She was the keynote speaker.

RE: previous cultural appropriation links - I am disappointed that these conversations always begin and end with who can or should or will do what. The point is that things are done. And they exist in the public. And people have responses to them (who say "cultural appropriation," which is by no way a 21st century thing, maybe the phrase (90s, really?) but there's other synonyms) that draw up lots of questions which shouldn't be immediately invalidated because of some distaste for so-called political correctness. Questions either for or against.

Some people don't understand, or care maybe, that representation of all forms contributes to and/or effects perceptions of those living the experience. And some people assume that white people always begin with ill intentions. There needs to be some meeting point where people work together for rigor and equality in the workplace.

[NotMiki]

You can look at cultural appropriation from the consumer or creator standpoint.  I tend to look at it from the consumer standpoint, and this is part of why I don't fully buy into it as a problem.  From that perspective cultural appropriation also goes by the term "marketing stuff to white people because they have money."  So I frame it as two questions: what may be sold to white people, and who may sell it?  I think those who denounce cultural appropriation would say to the first question, "elements of minority culture, especially traditional and religious ones."  So question two is almost irrelevant - if there's stuff that can't be sold, then no one can sell it.  And this is where I have a big problem, because to me that sounds like rural whites telling the folks they grew up with not to get above their station, or black kids telling each other not to act white, or artists complaining bitterly that their peers sold out.  I like to say that cultural appropriation treats minorities like endangered species.  To me the impulse not to commodify minority culture sounds a lot like a call for separatism, and when white academics call for it, it sounds a lot like environmentalists calling for habitat protection for endangered species.

I said I don't "fully" buy into cultural appropriation as a problem.  Where I agree it is a problem is when stuff is sold or consumed in a way that is inherently disrespectful.  Bollywood is our current ground zero here.  It's a product made for a domestic Indian audience, and it's flashy and melodramatic and has musical numbers, and white people love it, but only because they funny-sounding foreigners doing over-the-top stuff funny.  They're laughing at it, not with it.  They like it because it is exotic, not because it has inherent qualities that appeal to them. (Anime may seem like it's in a similar position, but since Japan has actively been pushing it as a cultural export, I don't think it's really comparable.)

I go back and forth about this stuff.  Don't think it's at all straightforward.  As for the white marketers of the world, whether it's objectionable is really a case-by-case thing.  (Katy Perry's body of work is in objectionable territory, because it seems to consist mostly of pointing out how weird and exotic non-white culture is).

[dunie]

Yeah, it is all about power, who has it and who doesn't. A murky space indeed. It's interesting to think about it from a consumer standpoint, and I think about target groups at that point. And then the producers, as well, but I always feel like people lie about their audiences, or maybe even misunderstand them. Or certain target groups are implied and misinterpreted. I'm more interested now in cases where white folk aren't the dominant populace in either. Oh, living.

Edit* Right, I forgot to add an instance of hipocrisy - defending Beyonce's bollywood stuff is purposely separatist and also not correct. She is doing what other white folk have and who have been lambasted. Sure considering blackness in that may be a good intellectual exercise, but it no less faulty.

[Lady Door]

Japan and Oregon, peas in a pod. This video is literally a love letter.

[Cotigo]

Japan and Oregon, peas in a pod. This video is literally a love letter.

"Odnarotoop" is Portland spelled backwards with Japanese pronunciation.

k im done

no for real tho if the goal of this is actually to woo japanese tourists nobody is gonna fuckin understand what the shit a odnarotoop is

actually having the japanese syllables arranged backwards (as opposed to every phoneme which isn't how the language works) would be "Do-n-ra-toh-po" (ドンラトーポ), which is just as obtuse but would make a japanese person go "Eh, Sugoi" after having it explained to them, which would be better for tourism while still satiating the need for the artist to feel like he's clever without attracting ire from unemployed people who would be better at their jobs than them

ANYWAY actually it's a pretty neat song and the japanese is childish but a lot better than I expected.

And if the city is doing this sort of tourist outreach it's a damn shame it's so expensive to live out there because that is one of the only niches my skillset actually fills

[NotMiki]

I thought Japanese localities were all about extremely lame, vaguely robotic tourism campaigns?

[Cotigo]

yeah that too actually

[Anthony Edward Stark]

And if the city is doing this sort of tourist outreach it's a damn shame it's so expensive to live out there because that is one of the only niches my skillset actually fills

STOP MOVING HERE

[Lady Door]

Did someone just call Oregon expensive? Jesus Christ, I need to move. Preferably to Portland where things are like 20-50% cheaper than they are here.

[AndrewRogue]

Did someone just call Oregon expensive? Jesus Christ, I need to move. Preferably to Portland where things are like 20-50% cheaper than they are here.

The more I joke about Texas, the less of a joke it is.

[Cotigo]

Did someone just call Oregon expensive? Jesus Christ, I need to move. Preferably to Portland where things are like 20-50% cheaper than they are here.

in fairness new mexico has always been dirt cheap to live in because most people are poor

like comparing california to new mexico is probably one of the most drastic cost of living differences in the nation

side note the 2008 recession didn't hit the state relatively as hard as it hit other states because there was not a lot further down to drop

anyway point is if I lived with a roommate I could find a place for about 500/mo after utilities pretty easily so there are benefits

And if the city is doing this sort of tourist outreach it's a damn shame it's so expensive to live out there because that is one of the only niches my skillset actually fills

STOP MOVING HERE

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha