Games critics arguably influence the form games take, identities of players, and identities of game developers. However, very little work in Game Studies examines how critical games journalism, games, developers, and independent actors intersect. This article argues that pragmatic sociology of critique, developed by Luc Boltanski, can act as a theoretical framework to aid in understanding these processes of critique. Utilizing a theoretical lens such as this helps us better understand the function of games critique within the video game industry. Applying this framework to a case study of monetization and “loot boxes,” this article emphasizes the role and power of journalistic critique in shaping gaming cultures, and the consumption and production of media more generally.
Based on empirical research, this article addresses the role of cultural intermediaries in the production, distribution, and reception of independent or "indie" digital games. Festival and showcase curators, local community organizers, co-working space managers, promoters, critics, funders, granting agencies, and other support actors are central to sustaining indie game cultures, but are often overlooked. Our research makes visible the diverse taskscapes of cultural intermediaries; the wide variety of brokering, translating, value-ascribing, connection-making, and care work involved; and the attendant tensions and challenges. We contend that cultural intermediary work in the game industry is characterized by precarity, extensive and largely invisible behind-the-scenes work, complex networks of interdependence and support, blurred boundaries between the personal and the professional, and a delicate balance between autonomy and integration.
Commercial game makers at all scales of production have increasingly come to incorporate livestreaming into every stage of the game development cycle. Mainstream hits like Fortnite and League of Legends owe their ongoing success in no small part to their massive uptake by streamers, and triple-A releases from major publishers can reliably expect significant attention on streaming platforms. But what about smaller, lower budget games? For independent game developers, the costs and benefits of streaming are less clear. Based on interviews with small commercial indie developers in Toronto and Montréal, this article critically examines different discourses around streaming and commercial indie games, focusing on developer perceptions of the benefits and risks of streaming and its impacts on indie game-making practices, including production, promotion, and community-building. Contrary to persistent popular myths about streaming as the key to ‘discoverability’, commercial indie game development remains a precarious form of cultural work, and indie games collectively attract only a tiny fraction of the overall audience on streaming platforms. There is a high level of uncertainty about the factors that led to a given game’s success, leaving many indie developers ambivalent about leveraging influencer attention and even as they commit significant time and energy trying to doing so.
Gambling research has highlighted substantial activity-specific differences in gambling behaviours, but measures of problem gambling remain non-specific. This paper aims to examine the consistency of general versus activity-specific Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores among a sample of moderate-risk and problem gamblers in Québec, Canada. Correlations and t tests were conducted to examine associations and differences between general and activity-specific PGSI scores. Results were analyzed by number of activities reported and activity rank for lottery, video lottery terminals (VLTs), and slot machines and suggested that PGSI scores may not accurately reflect problem gambling severity for all specific activities. General and activity-specific PGSI scores were more highly correlated when lottery was the primary activity, whereas for VLTs, scores were highly correlated regardless of number or rank of activities. General PGSI scores were significantly higher than activity-specific scores for lottery, but general and activity-specific scores were not significantly different for VLTs, demonstrating that the PGSI is a better indicator of activity-specific scores for some forms of gambling over others. Researchers conducting population surveys should exercise caution in assigning general PGSI scores to specific activities.RésuméLa recherche sur le jeu a mis en évidence des différences majeures dans les comportements de jeu spécifiques à des activités, mais les mesures du jeu problématique demeurent non spécifiques. L’étude vise à examiner la cohérence entre les scores généraux de l’indice de gravité du jeu problématique (IGJP) et ceux propres à des activités parmi un échantillon de joueurs à risque modéré et de joueurs compulsifs en [province, pays]. Des corrélations et des tests de Student ont été effectués pour examiner les associations et les différences entre les scores IGJP généraux et ceux spécifiques à des activités. Analysés en fonction du nombre d’activités déclarées et du classement des activités de loterie, d’appareils de loterie vidéo (ALV) et de machines à sous, les résultats laissent entendre que les scores IGJP pourraient ne pas refléter avec précision la gravité du jeu pathologique en ce qui concerne des activités particulières. Dans le cas où la loterie était l’activité principale, les scores IGJP généraux et ceux propres à l’activité étaient très fortement corrélés; pour les appareils de loterie vidéo, les scores étaient fortement corrélés, quels que soient le nombre ou le classement des activités. En ce qui concerne la loterie, les scores IGJP généraux étaient largement plus élevés que les scores propres à l’activité, mais ils n’étaient pas très différents dans le cas des ALV, ce qui démontre que l’IGJP est un meilleur indicateur seulement pour certaines formes de jeu. Les chercheurs qui mènent des enquêtes auprès de la population doivent faire preuve de prudence lorsqu’ils attribuent des scores IGJP généraux à des activités spécifiques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.