The U.S. televised game Survivor is fascinating for the study of multiplayer games because the winner of a season of Survivor is not dictated by the rules. Instead, a “jury” of eliminated players vote for which of the remaining two to three contestants deserve to win the US$1,000,000 prize, based entirely on their personal opinion. In this article, I present an analysis of Final Tribal Council, where this decision is made, revealing the key themes that influence this decision. I subsequently propose a social constructionist approach to understanding and researching multiplayer games as moral economies, where diverse types of play are given different values by players. I argue that this approach provides a useful theoretical framework for an integrated understanding of how both game and nongame elements work to influence player behavior and experience.
BergstromK. (2013). EVE online newbie guides: Helpful information or gatekeeping mechanisms at work? In Selected Papers of AOIR 2013. Retrieved September 12, 2018, fromhttps://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/692
2.
BergstromK. (2015). Imagined capsuleers: Reframing discussions about gender in EVE online. In CarterM.BergstromK.WoodfordD. (Eds.), Internet spaceships are serious business (pp. 148–164). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
BergstromK. (2017). Temporary break or permanent departure? Rethinking what it means to quit EVE online. Games and Culture. Advance Online Publication.
4.
BergstromK.CarterM. (2015). EVE online for the uninitiated. In CarterM.BergstromK.WoodfordD. (Eds.), Internet spaceships are serious business (pp. 1–17) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5.
BergstromK.CarterM.WoodfordD.PaulC. (2013). Constructing the ideal EVE online player. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2013. Atlanta, GA: DiGRA.
6.
BjörkS. (2015). Fabricated innocence: On how people can be lured into dark play. In MortensenT. E.LinderothJ.BrownA. (Eds.), The dark side of game play (pp. 171–187). London, England: Routledge.
7.
BoellstorffT.NardiB.PearceC.TaylorT. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BowenG. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, article 2.
9.
BrooksI. (2017). Is betrayal in EVE online unethical?Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 10, article 4.
10.
BrownA. (2012). “No one-handed typing”: An exploration of gameness, rules and spoilsports in an erotic role play community in world of warcraft. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 4, 259–273.
11.
ButcherR.SchneiderA. (1998). Fair play as respect for the game. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 25, 1–22.
12.
CarterM. (2015a). Emitexts and paratexts: Propaganda in EVE online. Games and Culture, 10, 311–342.
13.
CarterM. (2015b). Massively multiplayer dark play: Treacherous play in EVE online. In MortensenT.LinderothJ.BrownA. (Eds.), The dark side of game play (pp. 191–209). London, England: Routledge.
14.
CarterM.GibbsM.ArnoldM. (2015). The demarcation problem in multiplayer games: Boundary-work in EVE online’s eSport. Game Studies, 15. Retrieved fromhttp://gamestudies.org/1501/articles/carter
15.
ChampionJ. (2016). Survivor shows and caveman masculinity. The Popular Culture Studies Journal, 4, 240–258.
16.
CharmazK. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructive methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). London, England: Sage.
ConsalvoM. (2007). Cheating. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
ConsalvoM. (2017). When paratexts become texts: De-centering the game-as-text. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34, 177–183.
20.
CrewR. (2006). “Viewer interpretations of reality television: How real is survivor for its viewers?” In EscofferyD. (Ed.), How real is reality TV? (pp. 61–78). Jefferson, NC: McFarland Press.
21.
CroganP. (2007). Thinking cinema(tically) and the industrial temporal object: Schemes and technics of experience in Bernard Stiegler’s technics and time series. Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture, 4. Retrieved fromhttp://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=93
22.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research. London, England: Sage.
GeertzC. (1980). Blurred genres: The reconfiguration of social thought. The American Scholar, 49, 165–179.
25.
GeertzC. (1982). The way we think now: Toward an ethnography of modern thought. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 35, 14–34.
26.
GenetteG. (1991). Introduction to the paratext. New Literary History, 22, 261–272.
27.
GenetteG. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
29.
GierynT. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
30.
GlasR. (2016). Paratext: Unlocking the nature of making-of material of games. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG. Dundee, Scotland: DiGRA.
31.
GoodfellowC. (2015). The Russians are coming! Stereotypes and perceptions of “Russianness” in EVE online. In CarterM.BergstromK.WoodfordD. (Eds.), Internet spaceships are serious business (pp. 77–92). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
KrzywinskaT. (2008). World creation and lore: World of warcraft as rich text. In CorneliussenH. G.RettbergJ. W. (Eds.), Digital culture, play and identity (pp. 123–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
LinH.SunC. T. (2007). “White-eyed” and “Griefer” player culture: Deviance construction in MMORPGs. In de CastelleS.JensonJ. (Eds.), Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games research (pp. 103–114). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
36.
MayT. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.
37.
MäyräF. (2008). An introduction to game studies. London, England: Sage.
38.
MilikO.WebberN. (2017). Barbarians at the imperium gates: Organisational culture and change in EVE online. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 10, article 5.
NakamuraL. (2009). Don’t hate the player, hate the game: The racialization of labour in world of warcraft. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 128–144.
41.
PageR. (2017). To win at life: Tradition and Chinese modernities in EVE online. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 10, article no. 3.
42.
PaulC. (2012). Wordplay and the discourse of videogames. London, England: Routledge.
43.
PaulC. (2015). EVE online is hard and it matters. In CarterM.BergstromK.WoodfordD. (Eds.), Internet spaceships are serious business (pp. 17–30). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
StenrosJ. (2017). The game definition game. Games and Culture, 12, 499–520.
46.
StenrosJ.WaernA. (2011). Games as activity: Correcting the digital fallacy. In EvansM. (Ed.), Videogame studies (pp. 11–22). Oxford, England: Interdisciplinary Press.
47.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London, England: Sage.
48.
TaylorT. L. (2012). Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
49.
Van VughtJ.GlasR. (2017). Considering play: From method to analysis. In GibbsM.DonnellC.O. (Eds.), Proceedings of DiGRA 2017. Melbourne, Australia: DiGRA.
50.
WallG. (2011). Outwit, outplay, outcast? Sex discrimination in voting behaviour in the reality television show survivor. New Zealand Economic Papers, 45, 183–193.
51.
WarmelinkH. (2013). Online gaming and playful organization. London, England: Routledge.
52.
WolfM. J. P. (2012). Building imaginary worlds: The theory and history of subcreation. London, England: Routledge.
