This article examines the use of Let’s Play (LP) in Manila, Philippines. LP is an emerging genre in which players record, narrate, and broadcast video game play online. While in Western contexts LP is predominantly viewed in domestic settings, our focus is on the distinct manner in which LP is viewed in the Philippines, resulting in unique social architectures of play that coalesce public and private practices. In particular, the arcade-style vending machine, pisonet (a conflation between the Filipino piso [currency] + inter[net]), plays a key role in shaping net cultures within everyday life. Through the pisonet, unique forms of performative play happen in and around the watching play of LP. These types of performativity around LP see intergenerational and public forms of play, spectatorship, and surveillance entangle. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in Metropolitan Manila, this study aims to conceptualize how public spaces, screens, and play—through the LP on pisonets—bring about unique modes of sociality and surveillance of care. In doing so, this paper complicates established viewership models of LP, exploring how their manifestation in Manila gives rise to a particular type of Filipino sense of play.
AndrejevicM (2006) The discipline of watching: detection, risk, and lateral surveillance. Journal of Critical Studies in Media Communication23(5): 391–407.
2.
AndrejevicM (2013) Surveillance in the big data era. In: PimpleKD (ed.) Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT): Ethical Challenges, Opportunities and Safeguards. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 55–69.
3.
BallesterosMM (2010) Linking Poverty and the Environment: Evidence from Slums in Philippine Cities. Makati: PIDS.
4.
BalmfordWDaviesH (2019) Mobile minecraft: negotiated space and perceptions of play in Australian families. Mobile Media & Communication. Epub ahead of print 6 February 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2050157918819614.
5.
BatanC (2012) A conceptual exploration of the istambay phenomenon in the Philippines. Philippine Sociological Review60: 101–130.
6.
BorowyMJinDY (2013) Pioneering e-sport: the experience economy and the marketing of early 1980s arcade gaming contests. International Journal of Communication7: 2254–2274.
7.
BringulaRPBasaRSEnriquezJBRet al. (2013) Development of scales on the effects of gaming in cyber cafes in Manila. In: Asian conference on society, education and technology, 24–27 October 2013. Osaka, Japan.
8.
BringulaRPLugtuCPMAvilesADV (2015) “How do you feel?”: emotions exhibited while playing computer games and their relationship to gaming behaviors. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education8(1): 39–48.
9.
BurroughsB (2017) YouTube kids: the app economy and mobile parenting. Social Media + Society3(2): 2056305117707189. DOI: 10.1177/2056305117707189.
10.
BurwellCMillerT (2016) Let’s Play: exploring literacy practices in an emerging videogame paratext. E-Learning and Digital Media13(3–4): 109–125.
CincottaKAshfordKMichaelK (2011) The new privacy predators. Women’s Health. Available at: https://www.womenshealth.com.au/ (accessed 2 July 2018).
13.
DillonR (2011) The Golden Age of Video Games. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
14.
DonnerJ (2015) After Access: Inclusion, Development, and a More Mobile Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
FarmanJ (2011) Mobile Interface Theory: Embodied Space and Locative Media. New York: Routledge.
16.
FungAHoV (2015) Game industries in Asia: towards an Asian formation of game culture. In: HjorthLKhooO (eds) Routledge Handbook of New Media in Asia. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 3377–3389.
17.
GlasR (2015) Vicarious play: engaging the viewer in Let’s Play videos. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication5(1–2): 81–86.
18.
GulbeILCasiaJMCondeABet al. (2016) Online gaming affecting the academic responsibility of Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering (BSMarE) II at Cebu the Technological University Daanbantayan Campus Daanbantayan, Cebu. In: Paper presented at the international conference on research in social sciences, humanities, and education, Cebu, Philippines, 20–21 May 2016.
19.
HamiltonWAGarretsonOKerneA (2014) Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’14, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014, pp. 1351–1324. New York: ACM.
20.
HjorthLChanD (2009) Locating the game: gaming cultures in/and the Asia-Pacific. In: HjorthLChanD (ed.) Gaming Cultures and Place in Asia-Pacific. New York: Routledge.
21.
HjorthLArnoldM (2013) Playing at being social: a cross-generational case study of social gaming in Shanghai, China. In: HuntemannNAslingerB (eds) Gaming Globally: Production, Play and Place. New York: Palgrave, pp. 101–117.
22.
HjorthLPinkSHorstH (2018) Being at home with privacy: privacy and mundane intimacy through same-sex locative media practices. International Journal of Communication12: 1209–1227.
23.
HumphreysL (2011) Who’s watching whom? A study of interactive technology and surveillance. Journal of Communication61(4): 575–595.
24.
HuntemannNAslingerB (eds) (2012) Introduction. In: HuntemannNAslingerB (eds) Gaming Globally. Production, Play, and Place. Critical Media Studies Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–15.
25.
JanssonA (2015) Interveillance: a new culture of recognition and mediatization. Media and Communication3(3): 81–90.
26.
JinDY (2010) Korea’s Online Gaming Empire. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
KousariMMehrabiM (2017) Parental mediation of children’s video game experiences: Iranian parents’ strategies of mediation. IAU International Journal of Social Sciences7(1): 1–14.
28.
LiboriussenBMartinP (2016) Regional game studies. Game Studies16(1).
29.
LuptonD (2016) The diverse domains of quantified selves: self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society45(1): 101–122.
30.
LyonD (2002) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination. Abingdon; Oxon; New York: Routledge.
31.
MarwickA (2012) The public domain: surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society9(4): 378–393.
32.
MarwickABoydD (2014) Networked privacy: how teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society16(7): 1051–1067.
MejiaS (2013) Fair Play: Copyright Issues and Fair Use in Youtube “Let’s Play” and Videogame Livestreams. Tallahassee, FL: Florida A&M University.
36.
MeyrowitzJ (2009) We liked to watch: television as progenitor of the surveillance society. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science625(1): 32–48.
37.
MitchellD (1995) The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers85(1): 108–133.
38.
NemerDFreemanG (2015) Empowering the marginalized: rethinking selfies in the slums of Brazil. International Journal of Communication9: 1832–1847.
39.
NikkenPJanszJ (2006) Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: a comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology31: 181–202.
40.
PinkSHorstHPostillJet al. (2016) Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: SAGE.
PolsJ (2012) Care at a Distance. Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.
43.
PostigoH (2014) The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: converting play into YouTube money. New Media & Society18(2): 332–349.
44.
RangaswamyNAroraP (2015) The mobile internet in the wild and every day: digital leisure in the slums of urban India. International Journal of Cultural Studies19(6): 611–626.
45.
RangaswamyNNairS (2012) The PC in an Indian urban slum: enterprise and entrepreneurship in ICT4D 2.0. Journal of Information Technology for Development18(2): 163–180.
46.
Schofield-ClarkL (2013) The Parent App. Understanding Families in the Digital Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
ShrutiI (2017) The “smart” women: how south Asian women negotiate their social and cultural space through mobile technology. In: TelleriaA (ed.) Between the Public and Private in Mobile Communication. New York; Oxford: Routledge, pp. 101–119.
49.
SjöblomMHamariJ (2017) Why do people watch others play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users. Computers in Human Behavior75: 985–996.
50.
SoloveDJ (2008) Understanding Privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
SorianoCRRCaoRJ (2017) Of owned, shared, and public access ICTs: constructs of privacy and publicness in marginal spaces. In: TelleríaA (ed.) Between the Public and Private in Mobile Communication. Oxford; New York: Routledge, pp. 77–98.
TaylorN (2015) Play to the camera: video ethnography, spectatorship, and e-sports. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies22: 115–130.
54.
TrepteSReineckeLJuechemsK (2012) The social side of gaming: how playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior28: 832–839.
55.
WajcmanJ (2010) Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics34(1): 143–152.
56.
WalkerA (2014) Watching us play: postures and platforms of live streaming. Surveillance & Society12(3): 437–442.
57.
ZarikoZ (2016) Screening Embodiment: Let’s Play Video and Observable Play Experiences. Master’s thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
