It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

[bpr]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

It seems to me you are saying that expenditure of time, or whiling away time, is better done with video games. Is that what you are saying? Were it to be that, then as life goes on, it probably will become clear that time wasted is not time that can regained. Without all the shit that exists these days designed to make money for the producers and waste time for the purchasers after childhood I still pissed enough time anyway, and it is to a degree a regret.

I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to play devil's advocate here.

I am confused as to what these people should be doing, rather than biding their time playing games while on their a**es. Being "productive members of society" is far too broad an answer, since in our society any of the following could be considered being a "productive member of society:"

• purchasing modest homes in upscale neighborhoods, tearing them down and rebuilding larger homes for a profit
• designing new securities products based on an accumulation of existing securities in order to mask the real risk of an investor's portfolio (CDOs)
• writing contracts based on actuarial data regarding the likelihood of a bond default in order to further reduce the risk of bond holders (CDSs)
• designing video games (for which there are no consumers, if we're playing the "what should players do instead of playing" games)

Fact is, these are all considered highly productive members of society. Note that I excluded home flippers and went for a far more acceptable model of purchase and remodel or rebuild ("improve upon"). I would argue that we would be far better off if all of these productive members of society were busy playing video games for the last ten years, excepting the video game producers, whom have made great leaps in their production quality.

Thankfully, games played apparently for hours while sitting on one's ass did not exist when I was growing up. Games of running and sweating did exist and I'm not sorry about that.

There is a case to be made for video games being a training tool for future productiveness. I grew up around the same time as Winch and I used computers for gaming extensively in my youth. It afforded me a comfort level with computers that has allowed me to carve a career path for myself in a way that was impossible for my siblings. Merely five and ten years my senior, their first exposure to computers and video as an interface came after high school.

As for games of running and sweating, they hold their benefits, but most beneficial (or "productive") to the state is the outcome of a fit population capable of military service and physical labor. Secondary are the intangibles (leadership, teamwork), also useful in warfare and production at the management level.

As physical labor becomes more mechanized (then computerized), and as warfare adopts the interface of video games, running and sweating become far less important.

Perhaps as the population continues to explode and jobs become more scarce, then as suggested above maybe video games will serve to keep people ignorant enough not to revolt--that might in fact some day be truly useful.

I'm not convinced that they would be any less ignorant watching the news for 24 hours daily, or reading the newspaper, for that matter.

[roxtar]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

Somebody, anybody, explain to me what would be the impact on the future of the world if as of midnight tonight, all video gaming stopped, no longer worked, no longer would be produced?

I think that it would end up being a net benefit to society. Nowadays, I think a lot of parents use the things as babysitters; and with the introduction of the ability to connect the latest consoles to the internet, kids don't even have to come out of their houses in order to play games with other kids. In my time working with kids I knew of more than a handful of kids that would spend 4-6 hours playing video games ON A SCHOOL DAY, even more on weekends. They literally would come from their bedrooms only to eat, use the bathroom and shower.
Sounds to me like the perfect recipe for a generation of socially retarded children.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to play devil's advocate here.



I am confused as to what these people should be doing, rather than biding their time playing games while on their a**es. Being "productive members of society" is far too broad an answer, since in our society any of the following could be considered being a "productive member of society:"

• purchasing modest homes in upscale neighborhoods, tearing them down and rebuilding larger homes for a profit
• designing new securities products based on an accumulation of existing securities in order to mask the real risk of an investor's portfolio (CDOs)
• writing contracts based on actuarial data regarding the likelihood of a bond default in order to further reduce the risk of bond holders (CDSs)
• designing video games (for which there are no consumers, if we're playing the "what should players do instead of playing" games)

Fact is, these are all considered highly productive members of society. Note that I excluded home flippers and went for a far more acceptable model of purchase and remodel or rebuild ("improve upon"). I would argue that we would be far better off if all of these productive members of society were busy playing video games for the last ten years, excepting the video game producers, whom have made great leaps in their production quality.



There is a case to be made for video games being a training tool for future productiveness. I grew up around the same time as Winch and I used computers for gaming extensively in my youth. It afforded me a comfort level with computers that has allowed me to carve a career path for myself in a way that was impossible for my siblings. Merely five and ten years my senior, their first exposure to computers and video as an interface came after high school.

As for games of running and sweating, they hold their benefits, but most beneficial (or "productive") to the state is the outcome of a fit population capable of military service and physical labor. Secondary are the intangibles (leadership, teamwork), also useful in warfare and production at the management level.

As physical labor becomes more mechanized (then computerized), and as warfare adopts the interface of video games, running and sweating become far less important.

I'm not convinced that they would be any less ignorant watching the news for 24 hours daily, or reading the newspaper, for that matter.

Some decent points in there, BPR. and a good question is what else should gamers at any age be doing that might be better primarily for their own futures? Not having any children nor the experience of attempting to do things that might best get them off my payroll and onto their own, I definitely do not know the answers.

I guess it would be illuminating to ask parents here who have children in the formative years who spend a lot of time gaming, in what would they prefer otherwise that their children have a serious interest?

I knew of some supposed benefit of gamers to flying drones in the military, and I only glanced at your link, but that is a small job market it seems. Probably equal to all the kids who devote most of their time to pickup basketball games in hope of becoming the next guy to go from high school to the pros and be worth a shit.

Perhaps wrongly, I do not equate sitting at a computer using it to gather information or education from the internet or whatever educational programs that exists, say all the foreign language programs, the same as playing a game on a computer. Definitely both are sedentary and not an ideal activity in that sense, but neither is sitting and reading or studying a book--both of which shoiuld have some value besides pure entertainment.

I agree watching news is not as productive as reading on the internet, though it is contrived to be more entertaining. Newspapers and decent reportage are not a waste of time, though to me the internet is quicker and rather much opens the world.

Fitness has more benefits besides military and labor possibilities. When combined with some luck, fitness improves the quality of one's life and might even extend it, though I have known a longterm jogger who dropped dead while jogging.

You didn't choose to mention the path that gaming apparently led you down with a career, but what is the possibility of the same for all gamers? Is it like pickup basketball where only a few will hit the jack pot?

Between you and your siblings who is most successful with their job and life happiness or any other criteria you wish to judge "success?"

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

There is a case to be made for video games being a training tool for future productiveness. I grew up around the same time as Winch and I used computers for gaming extensively in my youth. It afforded me a comfort level with computers that has allowed me to carve a career path for myself in a way that was impossible for my siblings. Merely five and ten years my senior, their first exposure to computers and video as an interface came after high school.

My "computer" in high school was a much loved K&E mahogany slide rule. My "computer" in college was the Friden mechanical adding machine in the psych dept, and the same slide rule. My college had zip, zero, nada programmable computers of any sort or kind, until late in my senior year when the Administrations Dept got an IBM 1130.

So I would not say "impossible" for I went back to school to learn computers after college and Air Force and a stint fixing Singer-Friden equipment. I went on to be very comfortable with computers and carve out a fine thirty year career in many aspects of them.

[bpr]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

Some decent points in there, BPR. and a good question is what else should gamers at any age be doing that might be better primarily for their own futures? Not having any children nor the experience of attempting to do things that might best get them off my payroll and onto their own, I definitely do not know the answers.

I guess it would be illuminating to ask parents here who have children in the formative years who spend a lot of time gaming, in what would they prefer otherwise that their children have a serious interest?

I knew of some supposed benefit of gamers to flying drones in the military, and I only glanced at your link, but that is a small job market it seems. Probably equal to all the kids who devote most of their time to pickup basketball games in hope of becoming the next guy to go from high school to the pros and be worth a shit.

Perhaps wrongly, I do not equate sitting at a computer using it to gather information or education from the internet or whatever educational programs that exists, say all the foreign language programs, the same as playing a game on a computer. Definitely both are sedentary and not an ideal activity in that sense, but neither is sitting and reading or studying a book--both of which shoiuld have some value besides pure entertainment.

I agree watching news is not as productive as reading on the internet, though it is contrived to be more entertaining. Newspapers and decent reportage are not a waste of time, though to me the internet is quicker and rather much opens the world.

Fitness has more benefits besides military and labor possibilities. When combined with some luck, fitness improves the quality of one's life and might even extend it, though I have known a longterm jogger who dropped dead while jogging.

You didn't choose to mention the path that gaming apparently led you down with a career, but what is the possibility of the same for all gamers? Is it like pickup basketball where only a few will hit the jack pot?

Between you and your siblings who is most successful with their job and life happiness or any other criteria you wish to judge "success?"

I was hoping you'd just say, 'spend time with a loved one,' or something involving real human interaction, rather than maintain my production-oriented argument.

As devil's advocate here, it's going to take some time to formulate my arguments, define success simply enough for the argument, and judge my success against that of my siblings. For now, it's bedtime.

My "computer" in high school was a much loved K&E mahogany slide rule. My "computer" in college was the Friden mechanical adding machine in the psych dept, and the same slide rule. My college had zip, zero, nada programmable computers of any sort or kind, until late in my senior year when the Administrations Dept got an IBM 1130.

So I would not say "impossible" for I went back to school to learn computers after college and Air Force and a stint fixing Singer-Friden equipment. I went on to be very comfortable with computers and carve out a fine thirty year career in many aspects of them.

Pythonic, you're right. Impossible was not precisely the word. Your level of education, however, supports the basic point that games provide an easily accessible (even relatively cheap, considering the cost of higher education and the mass-production model of gaming consoles) introduction to human-computer interface that did not exist before the early 1980s.

EDIT: Your examples are analog; my argument is that the introduction to the digital human-to-computer and computer-to-human interface creates an ease of transfer of data. Gaming is an exceptional introduction to this medium for youth. Your ruler and compass may have helped you in your programming feats, but they may not be necessary for future generations with more interactive content in their youth.

You both may come from (or at least be familiar with) that storied generation of shortwave radio tinkering youth that learned about electronics by taking them apart and figuring out how they work. My argument is that the newer generations do not have shortwave radios to intrigue them, so they will play these games, then tinker around to figure out how they were created, thus inspiring a productive vocation.

EDIT: The advent of new IP technologies and laws may completely undermine this, as playing a game on the Wii is nothing like the games played in BASIC or booting DOS and loading a program in the A:/ drive to get your game to play.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

I was hoping you'd just say, 'spend time with a loved one,' or something involving real human interaction, rather than maintain my production-oriented argument.

As devil's advocate here, it's going to take some time to formulate my arguments, define success simply enough for the argument, and judge my success against that of my siblings. For now, it's bedtime.



Pythonic, you're right. Impossible was not precisely the word. Your level of education, however, supports the basic point that games provide an easily accessible (even relatively cheap, considering the cost of higher education and the mass-production model of gaming consoles) introduction to human-computer interface that did not exist before the early 1980s.

You both may come from (or at least be familiar with) that storied generation of shortwave radio tinkering youth that learned about electronics by taking them apart and figuring out how they work. My argument is that the newer generations do not have shortwave radios to intrigue them, so they will play these games, then tinker around to figure out how they were created, thus inspiring a productive vocation.

EDIT: The advent of new IP technologies and laws may completely undermine this, as playing a game on the Wii is nothing like the games played in BASIC or booting DOS and loading a program in the A:/ drive to get your game to play.

I just made a post elsewhere here that explained the short-comings of my own family life, and as I said I have no children, and have spent no serious time in my adult life thinking about how I would have raised them. So I think I am correct in not presuming to have realistic answers as to what children today should be doing.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

the basic point that games provide an easily accessible (even relatively cheap, considering the cost of higher education and the mass-production model of gaming consoles) introduction to human-computer interface that did not exist before the early 1980s.

Well, unlike Jim, I did raise one son. My son, like my father, had little use for school. But I did educate him well in computers and he spent more time than most gaming on some of the fine rigs I custom built. He is now employed in computer tech support, while many of his age are out of work.

So I have experience with one example for your point.

[bpr]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

Well, unlike Jim, I did raise one son. My son, like my father, had little use for school. But I did educate him well in computers and he spent more time than most gaming on some of the fine rigs I custom built. He is now employed in computer tech support, while many of his age are out of work.

So I have experience with one example for your point.

This is a really interesting post, since you identify yourself as the anomaly in your family.

What was it that caused your father to have little use for the educational tools available to him (and you, presumably)? And your son?

In my experience, earlier generations have their own ways of reasoning and they usually turn out quite right.

I don't expect you to answer these questions out here in the open forum -- this is very personal stuff -- but these are very provocative questions that may reveal inadequacies in our educational systems that would be helpful to address for even casual visitors.

Personally, I don't expect any children that I may eventually have have the same educational opportunities that I had. This is probably the end of the line as far as college goes.

It's interesting for me to hear from someone who's children chose not to pursue a similar educational background, yet have succeeded professionally. I'm making a leap here, as "tech support" may not exactly be "succeeding." I see your name (Python may indeed be quite a cash cow for its developers) and think that writing code is closer to succeeding.

I have resisted my parents' educational background for as long as I can remember.

I am, alas, unemployed and considering taking up my father's trade.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

A few points here:

- Since this thread got hijacked, perhaps we should move this conversation to "rant and rave"

- If anyone seriously doubts the health of the gaming industry, one only needs to look at the fundamentals and price performance of chinese gamers like Perfect World (interesting name for a virtual reality company), Net Ease and Shanda. (disclaimer: I own stock in some of these companies)

- As bpr points out, each generation and each individual seems to have an intuition about what path to pursue. Sort of like self selection for an entire generation.

Personally, I see no problem with gaming. Just the opposite. The youngsters in my family that are the most involved in gaming, ironically, seem the most well adjusted with the most robust social life outside gaming.

And as for the business and technical resources devoted to gaming: Asking what good gaming is, is like asking of what use was Pong or a Commodore 64. No doubt, much of this new technology will find its way into highly productive and highly profitable industrial and commercial use.

Let's keep it real, shall we?

[LargoWinch]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

Winch, I have no idea what you are suggesting in saying that video games are a more effective medium that TV. If you care to, please try to explain what you mean.

It seems to me you are saying that expenditure of time, or whiling away time, is better done with video games. Is that what you are saying?

Jim, I regard video games as the most "immersive" medium for entertainment.

Hence, yes, some people including myself, would certainly care if they were no longer available as you suggested.

I would also like to point out that top talent working in the movie and other industries (such as the music industry) have since a few years embraced the medium. This top talent is now working to create games that are light years ahead than what the industry was offering just a few years ago. Case in point, Spielberg is now developing games for Nintendo. I tried to demonstrate this point by embedding a clip from the geniuses at Japan Studio, but Heavy Rain from Quantic Dream would have done just as fine:

1min. 42sec.

All I am trying to point out, is that too often the video games industry is perceived as juvenile, idiotic and a mindless button mashing entertainment. That is in a world where Madden Football will, year after year, sell over 1 million copies at $50 a pop in a single weekend (for a cool $50 million in less than 48 hours), while Hollywood considers a movie breaking the $100 million-mark a "blockbuster".

Lastly, I find disconcerning that too often Video Games are associated as the root cause for all the youth problems. The medium is also frequently blamed for all the world's violence, drug on the planet or anything that can go wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sadly, if there is a crime somewhere, there is always an idiot ready to blame "Grand Theft Auto".

Now, I am not saying that there are no stupid worthless games, of course there are.

In sums, the medium has evolved and grown and is constantly morphing due to its obvious ties to the advances in computer hardware/software. It is in the end, a very powerful and promising entertainment tool, especially when coupled with the internet.

Were it to be that, then as life goes on, it probably will become clear that time wasted is not time that can regained. Without all the shit that exists these days designed to make money for the producers and waste time for the purchasers after childhood I still pissed enough time anyway, and it is to a degree a regret. Thankfully, games played apparently for hours while sitting on one's ass did not exist when I was growing up. Games of running and sweating did exist and I'm not sorry about that.


Perhaps as the population continues to explode and jobs become more scarce, then as suggested above maybe video games will serve to keep people ignorant enough not to revolt--that might in fact some day be truly useful.

Here Jim, is a perfect example of the stigma associated with Video Games: If you play them, you are lazy, unfit and ignorant.

Now, I do not want to expand on this, but I think this is an obvious lifestyle issue. As pointed out by bpr, this has nothing to do with video games.

Certainly, one can be just as ignorant, unfit and lazy watching tv, reading books and playing Baseball.

[swgprop]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

My son and I (16 and 52 respectively) have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours over the past 10 years playing a variety of PC and console based games. Gaming proved to be a common interest we could share. How many other shared interactive activities could have spanned that time frame?

Certainly we've done other things - basketball, billiards, self-defense, weight lifting .. but each of those has either fallen from favor or was primarily pushed by me in the first place.

But gaming has survived the test of time thus far. And as he approaches an age where hanging out with dad will not be at the top of his hit list, I'll take what I can get.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

What would happen if any other entertainment industry suddenly ceased to exist? What if every single sports stadium was razed? The vast majority of TV channels went off the air? Most radio stations went silent? Most books spontaneously combusted? All theaters burned down? All musical instruments were trashed? Forty percent of the Internet disconnected?

I guess I don't understand the point of your point. It's an entertainment industry. That's the point.

I think the point he was making is the video games are anti-social and anti-intellectual. Point taken. Nobody outside of say the Japanese thinks that video games are actually good for kids, or virtually any one, but this is a form of elitism that is pretty common. There was a time when Shakespeare was not considered literature. We need to recognize that there is a potential for complex plots characters and emotions in this very new art form and it is impossible to say what direction it will take in the future. Having said that, given the lopsided economics of the industry today, it seems difficult for new artistic innovations to get a toe hold.

P.S. you can pry my ukulele from my cold dead hands.

[BrianL]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

Well, for starters, I'd be out of work. ;)

[Ghent12]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

My point and opinion about gaming is that it is a pure waste of time, and without it people might begin to try to find better uses of their times.

So...
Everyone should be productive 100% of the time? Worked to the bone, Gulag-style? By saying that video games are a "pure waste of time," are you saying there is no value to fun?

This must be a generational divide.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: It wasn't too long ago that the "video-game" industry was deemed "recession proof"

So...
Everyone should be productive 100% of the time? Worked to the bone, Gulag-style? By saying that video games are a "pure waste of time," are you saying there is no value to fun?

This must be a generational divide.

Everyone cannot be productive 100% of the time, and 100% of most lives usually are not spent in the formative years. I don't know what line of work roxtar is in, nor the significance of "more than a handful of kids" spending considerable time gaming. My perspective to all of gaming is at best distant, but I'll continue to demonstrate my ignorance in asking what is the value beyond a period of entertainment. I'll take swgprop's input of there being value to time shared with his son, but unless time spent gaming resulted in a lot of transference or at least exposure of values, experiences from father to son, or example of the father being a "good human" rubbing off on the son, then though gaming surely represents time the two spent together, it might not represent much beyond that. If I had sat in a duck blind 6 hours with my father with little conversation, I would see little real value to it.

I think that it would end up being a net benefit to society. Nowadays, I think a lot of parents use the things as babysitters; and with the introduction of the ability to connect the latest consoles to the internet, kids don't even have to come out of their houses in order to play games with other kids. In my time working with kids I knew of more than a handful of kids that would spend 4-6 hours playing video games ON A SCHOOL DAY, even more on weekends. They literally would come from their bedrooms only to eat, use the bathroom and shower.
Sounds to me like the perfect recipe for a generation of socially retarded children.

Ghent, you make a valid point that my wording of "pure waste of time" was ill chosen. There is probably some value to "fun," but I don't know that as a psychological fact. Reader's Digest used to have a section of humorous anecdotes titled "laughter is the best medicine," but again I don't know that is a fact. I tend to largely believe that childhood should be the time of least responsibility in one's life, and things that lend themselves to that are not necessarily bad. And it is my opinion now that probably few things are bad for humans when engaged with moderation.

Already in the US kids apparently spend the least time in formal schooling than in most other developed societies--don't ask me for link, just something I think I recall correctly. Perhaps even in childhood for the sake of coming generations it would be better if children did work hard these days in school and thus maybe earned the opportunity to play hard at whatever as reward for their work toward becoming educated. I don't know that anything like that is happening to a large extent. Again from a distance, it seems the biggest focus in general is mostly to seek enjoyment first in childhood and to hell with educational endeavor.

No doubt, Ghent12, and I assume 12 is not your age, between me and some of the posters here there is a generational gap. I grew up without computers, family had one radio, family got one TV when I was 13-14 y/o. I used to listen to radio mysteries when I was less than 11 y/o, and I watched some TV but was certainly never addicted to it--but programming then with all things was tremedously less. Had it been more, I might have watched TV more.

The development of personal computers has for me been the most significant technological advance that has affected my day-to-day life in my lifetime, followed by the internet. My experience with them was first in practice of oral surgery, and what they allowed was phenominal compared to so much we did prior to buying the first really simple machine. It was day to night difference. And the possible uses as I saw as productive and with management of information on patients just got better and better, and all that was before we ever got to the stage of having higher speed and bandwidth connections. I'm truly incapable of expressing what I think of the usefulness of computers and the internet from the perspective of managing data, communication, and accessiblity of information.

It is a fact that I am inclined to look upon what seems to me to have been the further evolution of computers and software (and I am rather sure I have a limited view about this) for what I might best term as use by the general (non-business) population as having two or three main directions: manipulation of music, photos, and gaming. All of those are rather much purely entertainment areas, and seems to not have much future with regard to betterment of individuals or the world at large, though no doubt someone here will likely show me where I am incorrect.

Anyone can use their computer and internet access to read every post made to iTulip and there is some usefulness to that, and at one time I did largely did that, and in retrospect it was to a degree a mistake, because there is so very much more out there, of which I am sure I don't come close to availing myself. But just as reading only one or two or even three websites about an area of interest, which I look upon as a mistake, I look upon gaming the same way if it is the predominant use of a child or adults computer time--granting people are free to do what they choose along these lines.

At least reading iTulip, even with Lukester gone, I still daily get exposed to some new vocabulary some of which I eventually even retain.