Background. No scholarship exists on videogames that commodify, or contribute to the emergence of objects of trade. Such games are prone to become increasingly common, however, since the popularity of commodification as a policy tool is on the rise.
Purpose. A procedures of commodification approach is proposed in this article for studying how videogames commodify.
Approach. The approach is based on a combination of classical economics and Ian Bogost’s established framework for studying videogame rhetoric. The resultant framework is suitable for analyzing whether, and how, a game participates in commodity circulation and production.
Results. The approach is applied comparatively to two games on livestock welfare production and consumption.
Conclusion. The results suggest that rhetorical analysis can be fruitfully combined with systemic social theory.
AbtC. C. (1970). Serious games. New York, NY: Viking Press.
2.
BogostI. (2006). Unit operations: An approach to videogame criticism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
3.
BogostI. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
BoivinX.RuisM. (2011). “Quality handling” a training program to reduce fear and stress in farm animals. In 4th Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal well-being (pp. 21-26). Sevilla, Spain: Boehringer Ingelheim.
5.
BraggeJ.ThavikulwatP.TöyliJ. (2010). Profiling 40 years of research in Simulation & Gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 869-897. doi:10.1177/1046878110387539
BullerH.RoeE. (2014). Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 141-149. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005
8.
ConnollyT.StansfieldM.HaineyT. (2009). Current practices in serious game research: A review from a learning outcomes perspective. In ConnollyT.StansfieldM.BoyleL. (Eds.), Games-based learning advancements for multi-sensory human computer interfaces: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 232-250). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
9.
CoxR. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155. doi:10.1177/03058298810100020501
10.
CrookallD. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898-920. doi:10.1177/1046878110390784
DillK. E.GentileD. A.RichterW. A.DillJ. C. (2005). Violence, sex, race, and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In ColeE.DanielJ. H. (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
DoucetL.SrinivasanV. (2010). Designing entertaining educational games using procedural rhetoric: A case study. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (pp. 5-10). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1836135.1836136
15.
Dyer-WithefordN.de PeuterG. (2009). Games of empire: Global capitalism and video games. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
European Commission. (2006). Community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006-2010 (COM/2006/13). Available from europa.eu
GriffithsM. (2002). The educational benefits of videogames. Education and Health, 20(3), 47-51.
21.
HaningerK.ThompsonK. M. (2004). Content and ratings of teen-rated video games. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(7), 856-865. doi:10.1001/jama.291.7.856
22.
HaydenC. (2016). The procedural rhetorics of mass effect: Video games as argumentation in international relations. International Studies Perspectives. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/isp/ekw002
23.
JordanW. (2007). From rule-breaking to ROM-hacking: Theorizing the computer game-as-commodity. In AkiraB. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 DiGRA International Conference: Situated Play (pp. 708-713). Tokyo, Japan: The University of Tokyo.
24.
LamppuS. (2015). Tuntevat koneet. Analyysi eläinten luonnollistamisesta tuotantovälineiksi Euroopan unionin Farmland-verkkosivustolla [Feeling Machines. An Analysis of the Naturalization of Animals into Means of Production on the European Union’s Farmland Website.] (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). University of Tampere, Tampere.
25.
LedermanL. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 145-160. doi:10.1177/1046878192232003
26.
LizardiR. (2012). DLC: Perpetual commodification of the video game. Democratic Communiqué, 25(1), 33-45.
27.
MallinckrodtV.MizerskiD. (2007). The effects of playing an advergame on young children’s perceptions, preferences, and requests. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 87-100. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360206
28.
MariolisT.TsoulfidisL. (2016). Modern classical economics and reality: A spectral analysis of the theory of value and distribution. Tokyo, Japan: Springer.
29.
MarxK.EngelsF. (1975-2005). Collected works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. London, England: Lawrence & Wishart.
30.
MayerI. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825-862. doi:10.1177/1046878109346456
31.
MieleM.LeverJ. (2013). Civilizing the market for welfare friendly products in Europe? The techno-ethics of the Welfare Quality® assessment. Geoforum, 48, 63-72. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.003
32.
MontessoriM. (1949). The absorbent mind. Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House.
33.
MoseleyF. (2015). Money and totality: A macro-monetary interpretation of Marx’s logic in “capital” and the end of the “transformation problem.”Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
34.
PelinkaA. (2011). The European Union as an alternative to the nation-state. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 24(1-2), 21-30. doi:10.1007/s10767-010-9108-2
35.
PerelmanC.Olbrechts-TytecaL. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (WilkinsonJ.WeaverP., Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
PetersV. A. M.VissersG. A. N. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70-84. doi:10.1177/1046878103253719
38.
Plato. (1988). The laws of Plato (PangleT. L., Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
RousseauJ.-J. (1921). Émile, or education (FoxleyB., Trans.). London, England: J. M. Dent.
40.
SchraderP. G.McreeryM. (2012). Are all games the same? In IfenthalerD.EseryelD.GeX. (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 11-28). New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4
TreanorM.SchweizerB.BogostI.MateasM. (2011). Proceduralist readings: How to find meaning in games with graphical logics. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 115-122). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2159365.2159381
WacquantL. (2010). Crafting the neoliberal state: Workfare, prisonfare, and social insecurity. Sociological Forum, 25(2), 197-220. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01173.x
48.
WaigunyM. K. J.NelsonM. R.MarkoB. (2013). How advergame content influences explicit and implicit brand attitudes: When violence spills over. Journal of Advertising, 42(2-3), 155-169. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.774590
49.
Welfare Quality® Consortium. (2009). Quality handling. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
50.
Welfare Quality® Consortium. (n.d.). Trainer’s manual for the multimedia training program Quality Handling. A training program targeting attitudes and behaviours of stockpeople and future stockpeople. Laying Hens. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
51.
WilkinsonP. (2016). A brief history of serious games. In DörnerR.GöbelS.Kickmeier-RustM.MasuchM.ZweigK. (Eds.), Entertainment computing and serious games (Vol. 9970, pp. 17-41). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-46152-6_2
52.
WoutersP.van NimwegenC.van OostendorpH.van der SpekE. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249-265. doi:10.1037/a0031311
