His description of the world is like a complete externalising of selfesteem -you dont decide how you do, you are constantly being marked. Catching people in a constant social obligation to of course "manipulate" and use the system to your best advantage. Now I remember why I dont have facebook. Although of course it is nothing like this the seeming social requirement to one-up everyone you know-you arent allowed just to do stuff, you have to be gaining social qualification- what you do has to be witnessed and liked by everyone you know. It is an extension of social obligations and is basically crab bucket. (If you put crabs in a bucket you never need to put a lid on as any that try to climb out will be pulled back in by thier fellows, after all how many people do you know who have quit facebook even when they dont really like it or have negative experiences with it?)

I disagree, I didn't think his future was chilling at all. Different than the past and a bit different from today, sure, but it doesn't necessarily seem worse. And I totally agree with the last few seconds of the video. These point systems could encourage people to be better (especially loved the environmental stuff like encouraging public transportation use or even driving your car better to save gas). Hell, they encourage people to do all sorts of random crap right now (I spent most of the two months I was unemployed cramming hours into gaining "titles" on Guild Wars, which included such wastes of time as just exploring the entirety of all the maps), so I can imagine a points system could encourage people to improve themselves in many ways even if it's for a silly reason.

So I dunno, maybe I'm weird. I play a lot of video games so I totally see where he's coming at here. Of course I don't really see the human race surviving itself through the next 50 years soooo maybe that's another reason this isn't too scary for me, lol.

Im a little unsure because in some ways i agree with you about point systems -if they change peoples behaviour for the better, whats the problem?- But what i have the difficulty with is the philosophy behind it. "you cant just do stuff because they are good things to do-your egos need constantly massaged by reward reward reward all day" Its infantilising. I love games- my steam account is both extensive and steals large amounts of my time- but i like when Im not playing to be not playing (yes i have done the getting awards for the sake of it thing too.. a lot.. :D). To have a social expectation that you should care all the time about a silly constant reward system invented for the advantage of everyone but yourself? Nah. People should have the maturity to be able to do things for the fact that they are good things to do. The depressing thing is that I have a feeling people dont do things because of that -making it into a game would be what is required to change peoples behaviour.

And- weird people of the world unite! you have nothing to lose but the stigma of actually having meaningless fun!

i'm with you, lisa. i find his ideas of a game-based future to be horrifying. ads programming your REM sleep? sound like a nightmare to me...

also, the speaker's name is Jesse Schell

The kind social manipulation he discusses already occurs today. Coupons, tax credits, frequent buyer cards, etc, are all designed to drive our activities down certain roads. I don't necessarily have a problem with this as long as it is ultimately left up to the consumer whether he or she wants to participate. If they can opt out, and have that long list of books read, or products purchased, expunged from any public records, I don't see the problem.

I disagree with the worthlessness of games such as Farmville. Do things only matter if they enrich society in some way? It/Facebook provide a low-required-cost means of socializing with one's friends. It's a hobby, like knitting or quilting or anything else, except that it doesn't *require* money be spent on materials (although micropayments are available). All hobbies include social pressures to do more more often, or to take it up. Any hobby can be harmful and take over someone's life, or be beneficial and enrich it. Which hobbies are perceived to be which are affected by social stereotypes.

That said, the digital creep is unfortunate, as is the push towards non-privacy. I want to be able to go offline and read a book with a mug of coffee, and not have my digital life impinging on that.

Will there be enough materials for that kind of future? All the stuff I have read about ewaste has made me think that the amount of technology privileged people enjoy won't last all that long.

Kind of reminds me of the Jetsons-esque predictions of the 1950's. How accurate were those guys?

If you're interested in knowing just how WRONG this guy likely is, check out the book "Future Babble" by Dan Gardner, or just listen to the interview of him on CBC's Q (and then pretend you read the book like i just did).

Check out the January 4 Episode with the interview in it:
http://www.cbc.ca/q/episodes/

Anyway, that said, this guy sounds awesome and i will read his book. While keeping in mind that predictions are bogus.

I remember seeing this video and thinking that the projected future was pretty cool.

A second watch-through though, kind of underscored Schell's final point of the video: who, exactly, will eventually exert control over this?

The problem is that his future makes the assumption that the methods he outlined will be used to make you better people, but also to consume more. Basically the difference would be games designed to educate and expand your awareness, and, well... FarmVille. And the FarmVille future would be horrific.

But -- and this is something I also noticed during the second watch-through -- he also mentions about the bit about how people are sick and tired of the fake commercialized bullshit.

Would that mean that once gaming methods start spreading out the way he says it will, that there will be a backlash, from people who know that the things those games do are in essence things that manipulate you into doing things?

Also, does anyone know what his book is called?

Uggg. That is horrifying to say the least. Maybe their should be a tag for destructive capitalism. How freaking scary.

The way he talks about the future makes me think of the La Li Lu Le Lo. What? La Li Lu Le Lo? What are you talking about?

Transcript and captioned version of the video here:
http://www.realtimetranscription.com/showcase/DICE2010/JesseSchell/index.php

This was found with a Google search for 'design outside the box transcript'. Seriously, folks, it's a good idea to include it whenever it's already out there...

Yeah, that $20 rationalization line is just plain wrong. He claims to know about the "old days of gaming" when it was "all about fantasy".

But in the mid 1990's, in the early games of modern computer gaming, games would burst through to reality just as much. The earliest reference I could find to gaining unfair advantage in a networked competitive multiplayer game looks to be from the mid 1990's
"Many otherwise inexplicable happenings can be shown to not be cases involving sysop intervention with TEDIT or AEDIT" http://www.textfiles.com/rpg/iago
regarding the BBS door game Trade Wars 2002, which came out in 1990.

And I know that I have lots of things that I spent money on that I don't think are worth what I spent. I also have a lot of things that I got for free that I think are worth spending time and money on.

He loses the points discussion when he turns points into legal tender: "...and you can use these points for tax incentives." That's not points, that's money. Then he breaks the survey model "...And if they did, then big points for you! Right?" by equating results with information. Because who wouldn't lie on a survey to get a tax rebate? (Full disclosure: I take surveys for 'points'. Those 'points' are directly transferable to actual products, including gift certificates, at known exchange rates. That means that those 'points' are a limited form of currency.

Despite his apparent position, he fails to understand the gamer subculture, and he certainly doesn't understand collecting points or achievements. The easier something intangible is to buy, the less value it has. When Farmville lets me buy in-game coins, it dilutes the value of coins; the same total number of hours has been spent on making coins, but there are more coins in circulation. Do that enough, and the only people left playing are those to whom the exchange of cash for coins is worthwhile, plus those who are noncompetitive but like the game anyway.

And creating a primarily ad-based economy would seem to violate some basic physical law. Can I ever earn enough by being exposed to ads to meet my basic needs? What percentage of the GNP can advertising be? Non-advertised products would be, on average, that percentage cheaper.

I don't particularly care about the fact that companies can see what I'm doing and program more ads into my life, because I don't care about points too much, and I'm not going to do all this crap just to raise my score. I care that they'll have the power to manipulate power. I care that the government can quietly pass bills to confiscate that power, or blackmail companies into handing over some of that power, so the government can run our lives. It would be an a-okay thing to be able to do if the government was good and nice, but power corrupts, and the heads of these chains and the government would have a LOT of power. This is basically an official plan to control the masses.