Topic

Our Collective Efforts Directed to Good

Tiny Speck, as many others have, I've invested many hours into this game, and had a ton of fun along the way, but as I think about this game leaving beta and really trying to be a never ending game, player burnout is going to always be an issue.  I think a lot of players, including myself at some point, are going to say, "How much time am I wasting on this, even though its fun/additictive?".

I'd really like to see the collective efforts of all the right arrow/left arrow/enter key mashing somehow manifest itself into some benefit larger than the game.  Someone manged to take protein folding and turn it into something enjoyable and with societal benefits.  I understand you don't want to introduce something alien/out of context to the world of Ur, but maybe feats could somehow matter in a larger sense than leaderboards and img rewards. The most simple approach I can think of would be to simply tie the collective work of Glitches to charitable contributions TS would make in the real world.  But really maybe there are some puzzles we can solve or tasks we could complete in game in way that fit in the world and that in aggregate would help solve some real world problems.

Its a big task TS, but you've got a lot of imagination at your disposal!

Posted 89 days ago by Kleb Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 Next
  • glitch is about play.  that's enough good for me. it's already pretty great
    Posted 85 days ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ps. i love puzzles
    Posted 85 days ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Charity isn't forced. Forced isn't charity. Those are both true things. For at least some of the glitches contributing to this discussion that is one of their biggest reservations.

    Coupled with this is the notion that it's unseemly to publicly give for purposes of being seen giving, and ill mannered to prosthletize others to give.

    And then there are those who feel that those 'crunching numbers' for a cause should shut their computers off when not using them and stop wasting energy to create a big number to feel good about (there are many more energy efficient ways to do those calculations.)

    Above I haven't even touched on all the reasons to 'minus' this idea. A lot of others have already been presented. Sure, there are pluses too.

    I hope the arguing on this thread can be done (doubtful) and I also very much hope people will quietly and modestly continue to help others in the ways they can. And not fret about whether they see others doing the same.
    Posted 85 days ago by Feldspar Gravity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kleb, can you name any gaming sites that make players a part of charity donations?

    I know only one--Whirled--and it's basically dead now, probably going to shut down in a year or two. 

    If TS wants to donate to charity, great. Player interaction is not necessary. Sounds too contrived to me. 
    Posted 85 days ago by Sororia Rose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Sororia There are games sites that use players' collective energy as a part of charity donations. In Second Life the players raise money for charities all the time. Last winter, the players of The Secret World raised money for a charity by having a gaming mini marathon. No one was forced to do it and the players who wanted to participate had a lot of fun and did something good at the same time. I don't think the OP was suggesting Tiny Speck run a charity that we all had to participate in.
    Posted 85 days ago by Leelah Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think anyone here believes that doing things for the greater good of society is the problem. The problem is forcing a subjective view of the greater good on everyone. Let me decide the greater good that I would like to work towards on my own time, on my own dime, and in the way that I choose.

    If TS had wanted to create a game where the players worked together to solve intricate math problems, or the play patterns of dolphins, that would be the game we would already be playing.
    Posted 85 days ago by Kristen Marie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • By all means, let's throw years of potentially productive time in a hole, but I'll be damned if any good should come of it!
    Posted 85 days ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • thank you, Magic Monkey and Kleb, for your posts that expressed my sentiments better than I could. I don't want to get totally off-topic here, but I think there are possibilities to consider, without just stating "it would never work!" as people have already noted, several major games have gotten involved with the idea of philanthropy, and as Kleb noted, most major companies make charitable donations.

    I feel that people are over-criticizing this issue without really considering it. yes, conception of the "greater good" is subjective, but surely there must be a cause that could work. maybe one somewhat related to the game, eg more computer literacy for students, or something in this area. I'm not actually suggesting Tiny Speck do this; I'm more just making a point.

    I am all for learning while having fun, and making games more applicable to the outside world, and I really feel that this coincides with the feeling of the game, which is (VERY) pointedly cooperative. I hate to see all these reactions that basically reduce it to a fun time-suck, with no possibility for further development.

    and thanks to Kleb for starting this very interesting discussion.
    Posted 85 days ago by Slugbug Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that I will gracefully depart from this conversation.
    Posted 85 days ago by Kristen Marie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hold on here.

    Pretending that time playing a game is "potentially productive" if charity donations are made in parallel to the time is a delusion. The time spent playing Glitch is wasted time no matter what, in terms of charitable needs.

    Volunteering at a soup kitchen instead of playing Glitch, plus donating whatever money the online charity program would have cost you (since this was to be an act of charity and not just a 'spend other people's money' deal, we were talking about OUR money going to this charity, not Tiny Specks money, right???)... Now that would be productive use of time.... and an act of charity.
    Posted 85 days ago by Feldspar Gravity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Pretending that time playing a game is "potentially productive" if charity donations are made in parallel to the time is a delusion."

    yeah, I'm just not seeing how this isn't simply a matter of perspective. I can perfectly well see how one would view playing a game that makes donations to be more than simply a waste of time.

    and no, I personally wasn't talking about donating my own money through the game. there are programs where money is donated by the company running them, or by a third party.

    also, I am starting to resent this implication that just because one is interested in adding some kind of philanthropic aspect to a game, that one will necessarily *not* do things like going to a soup kitchen, etc. 
    Posted 85 days ago by Slugbug Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Slug, I think that other people are resenting the implication that, because they don't want to do things like this online, they are unfeeling and uncaring.

    That is why I have chosen to back out of this conversation, and will beat a hasty retreat once again. Apologies.
    Posted 85 days ago by Kristen Marie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ok, that's valid. I apologize if I implied that at any point. I guess I just find myself easily baffled when it comes to these matters.
    Posted 85 days ago by Slugbug Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Argh.  I feel like this entire thread is my fault for taking a break from Glitch to play Borderlands 2 and neglecting my duties of spreading love and joy throughout Ur with my patented Yeti Hugs.

    That said, I shall now share my Yeti Advice with all of you, my friends.  What you are about to read are my opinions and perspectives.  I could be wrong.  In fact, as the rest of you, I do not work for Tiny Speck and there is speculation and conjecture all over.  If I'm not wrong about at least one point I've made, I'll eat all of my precious Radial Heights cards.

    Tiny Speck is an infant company that is still working hard to solidify a business model for sustainability.  They have really talented and passionate employees who are simply a joy to love, but the development resources some of these propositions would require are unjustifiable from a business standpoint, especially considering their only product is back in beta and they are consuming their capital to reshape core functions of the game.

    I also worry that people are assuming Tiny Speck has an obligation to "give back" through charity.  Tiny Speck's first obligation is to run a successful business that continues to employ the hard working people who have dedicated their time to work on the company's vision.  The changes people are assuming would be quick and cheap are actually considerable investments that could cause a PR nightmare, even if executed perfectly (scandal with a particular charity, etc).  It's also not that appealing to venture capitalists to invest into companies that change their business model to go from being for-profit to partially-charitable.

    Now, I am not opposed to the idea completely, though.  But, I do worry about many of my friends who use this game purely for escapism and the impact it could have if real life gets mingled in with the game.  I would like for my input to be deemed as constructive, so I thought hard about a possible working scenario.

    The only idea I have so far that I _think_ would be an acceptable amount of development resources and not too threatening to the immersion and escapism would be to tie something in with credit or subscription purposes.  You would need a nice list of non-partisan, non-political, and completely secular charity options for people to choose from when buying credits or currants.  A portion of the proceeds could go to that charity, and you could unlock a "goody toe-shoes" hat or trophy that is literally made out of two shoes, or something silly and fun like that.  If people inspect the trophy, they could see what charity it was for, but it wouldn't be up in peoples' faces.

    The reason why I would want to have a layer of obfuscation is to avoid reminding people of the very real-world problems they are attempting to escape from.  While I love the ASPCA, for example, when my dog died and I was escaping from reality for a bit, I would not want to be reminded of the other sad puppies and kitties out there.  For charities centered around diseases, abuse, or other human tragedies, the emotional baggage that comes with thinking of those things can be too much for people to find any further enjoyment from a game.  This would be a Bad Thing™.

    Although, thinking about it, I'm not sure how this would affect the Accounting people at Tiny Speck to have to keep track of donations, which is another thing to consider for a small company.

    TL:DR- I love you all and will return soon to give you hugs.
    Posted 85 days ago by RoboYeti, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Also, so that no one thinks I am missing the point by mentioning charities, I couldn't come up with anything else similar enough to protein folding that could have gameplay wrapped around it.  Maybe I am not imaginative enough and others could think of something.  However, part of what Tiny Speck needs right now is the agility and ability to not be confined by any preset rules about how part of the game should function.  Forcing gameplay around an issue like protein folding is extremely limiting and may not make for compelling gameplay.  Of course, then what happens if protein folding is solved?  Now that part of the gameplay is obsolete and no longer contributing to society.  What do they replace it with?  Would it make for compelling gameplay?

    This aspect of crowd-sourcing problem solving through gameplay interests me in other ways, but I just don't see how to do it within the framework of Glitch.  :-/
    Posted 85 days ago by RoboYeti, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If we set aside the notion of charity (which is somehow controversial), the original suggestion includes the idea of using in-game behavior to solve real problems.  See Foldit as an example.

    This is akin to a gym that uses electricity generated from treadmills and stationary bikes to help power the building.  You wouldn't drive over there for the express purpose of generating a little bit of electricity, but if people are going to be using the equipment anyway, it's cool to get a little benefit from all that energy which would otherwise be "wasted".  And you wouldn't be deluding yourself to take a little pleasure in the idea of what you're doing, even if it's only because the idea is pretty cool.

    From a technical standpoint, it seems like it would be more difficult to find a problem that could be worked on in this way than maybe adding a mini-game or quest...so those with a virulent objection to any sense of greater good can opt out.
    Posted 85 days ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Biff, there's that implication that those of us who don't want to have our "greater good" chosen for us are uncaring and unfeeling ("virulent objection"), rather than thinking humans who live in a world where everything is not what it seems on the surface. In a world where "natural" is a word on a box designed to fool you into thinking you are eating well, why isn't it reasonable to you that someone wants to choose their own greater good using their own knowledge, research and personal values, rather than having it fed to them by a company? It does not make me someone who objects to "greater good" in general, but rather, someone who objects to being told what that greater good is by someone else.
    Posted 84 days ago by Kristen Marie Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 Next