When Games Invade Real Life

I just watched Jesse Schell's presentation "When Games Invade Real Life" from DICE 2010. It caught my attention because I recognized the name, having read his book on game design, and because a number of comments and responses were from people who either dismissed him as a paranoid nut, or joined in the chorus of panic at the dystopian vision he presented.

If you can spare half an hour, the presentation is available online at http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-2010-design-outside-the-box-presentation/

If you can't, the thrust of it was this: that more and more, companies are using "point" and "reward" systems as a method to motivate behavior, and Schell spoke of a future vision where technology, though use of sensors, enables commercial and political entities to monitor the behavior of the average citizen in detail and provide "points" as a way to motivate behavior.

In the end, I'd agree that it's a dystopian vision - but it's based on a handful of misconceptions:

• First, using the promise of rewards to motivate behavior didn't originate in computer gaming. The concept is central to virtually every human relationship, but technology merely provides a more precise method for monitoring the behavior and keeping score. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a more obvious and systematic method for rewarding behavior might be a good thing in the end, as compared to the vague and subjective way it is typically done.

• Second, Schell seems to assume that people will get lost in the game - that they are so motivated to earn points that they will fail to consider whether what they're being asked to do is worth the effort, inconvenience, and abdication of autonomy that is demanded in return. It's rather a dim view of humanity that doesn't hold much water, given that marketing efforts based on this premise have been dismal failures (S&H Green Stamps, frequent flyer miles, Camel Cash, etc. did not alter behavior to an appreciable degree, but merely rewarded existing behavior).

• Third, and most important of all, is that in any situation in which reward is offered for behavior, the individual or institution offering the reward is in a disempowered position. If they had power over the other party, they would not need to resort to offering rewards, but would merely command obedience. It is only because they have no power that they must offer the other party something in exchange for their voluntary cooperation.

Those things considered, I have the sense that Schell is onto something here, though perhaps he presents his ideas in a manner that is too exaggerated and silly to get his point across. But at the same time, I can't entirely agree with his detractors either: the desire of institutions to control behavior is real, and the tactics he describes are not at all unreasonable (again, it's applying technology to "improve" a practice that's as old as humanity itself) ... but there is little likelihood that people, in large numbers, will abdicate autonomy and self-interest to earn "points" toward some trivial credit or reward.