Pixar's Tie-In Games Not (Doing) So Good

Via a recent Gamasutra article written by Leigh Alexander, it seems that Pixar's CG movie tie-in videogames having been doing all that well in recent years. But according to THQ President and CEO Brian Farrell, this has nothing to do with quality or the contents of the games themselves, but rather an overly saturated kids' games market. As Farrell stated in his recent interview with Alexander:

"The kids' business, as you know, has been a huge focus of THQ for many years," said Farrell. "But there has been a trend away from licensed TV and movie games, and it's become much more competitive for all participants."

Citing examples such as the 2007's Ratatouille tie-in game, which "performed disappointingly" (as did the film, which despite becoming a box office hit, nonetheless had one of the worst openings in Disney-Pixar history), and the more recent Wall-E tie-in, which did even worse, Farrell proposes that it's not that the games themselves that are substandard, but rather that the market is more competitive now than it was back in the days of Toy Story and Finding Nemo.

But did Pixar tie-in games really ever do all that well? Apart from the occasional hit with their Gameboy titles, I just can't seem to remember there being a big smash hit Pixar tie-in within the kids' games market (a little help?). Anyway, Farrell also seems to think that the continued failure of their games to attract players also has to do with the fact that just as there are now more CG animated films released every year, there are more CG animated film-based videogames to compete with. And that as a result, the kids market is getting sliced up into smaller and smaller pieces, with less to go around. Hmmmm...that seems...wrong. Do kids really care about CG or not CG? What about CG television titles? And although box office receipts may very well impact the ultimate success of a tie-in game, it isn't THE deciding factor, seeing as the Wall-E game did worse than the Ratatouille game. Besides which, the kids' market is a market that continues to grow, expanding into younger age groups, into girls' culture, and across multiple platforms. Sounds more like a series of excuses than a real explanation.

It also reproduces a lot of old stereotypes about the kids market - for example, that all you need to do to sell a product is stamp a beloved media character on it, and you're all set. Perhaps Farrell and other media giants should take a closer look at the products themselves - Pixar might win yearly Oscars for their films, but they're not exactly winning Game Developer Choice Awards. And reviews of their games consistently point to some serious design flaws...or at least, the lack of child user-friendliness in their game designs. For example, the difficulty levels climb too high too quickly, there's aren't enough save points (a serious problem among an age group where the average gaming session lasts less than 30 minutes), the written on-screen instructions don't match up with the reading skills (and speed!) of younger kids, etc., etc. The industry - and especially the tie-in/cross-media component of it - really does need to start taking kids' game design more seriously. According to some of the comments included under Alexander's article, the games fall short in other ways as well. As Rob Lazenby writes,

There are multiple reasons why THQ has been failing in this genre, and much of it directly translates to why the company overall has had so many problems:
1). Poor media marketing
2). Lack solid tie-ins with movie based titles
3). Low quality games
One can only hope that Mr. Farrell's team can assemble a new talent that will learn from their paast mistakes.
But I doubt it.

And I really like this other comment, posted by Joshua McDonald:

I'm not surprised to see these games making less money. In fact, I've expected it to start for a while. These work because non-gamer parents buy them for their gamer kids. Now, the number of gamer parents is increasing, and these parents know that most of these games are a cheap experience designed to cash in on a big name. [...] With enough parents in the know, it may actually become necessary for movie tie-ins to be good games before they can succeed.

There's no question that "transmedia intertextuality" - tie-ins, cross-promotion, licensing - are an enormous part of kids' media culture. Enormous. And too often, cross-promotion and branding take way too much priority off of the individual products involved. Certainly, licensed or tie-in games for kids have been a key area where the presence of a tie-in film/TV show/book/toy has become a blanket excuse for phoning it in design-wise. It's strange that so few of these games appear to have employed child-centered design practices. Those that do -- such as some of the Harry Potter games -- seem to be so much more successful at addressing the interests and limitations of their target audience.

I've been thinking a little bit about tie-in games lately, their odd position within gaming culture, the successes, the failures, and the larger role these games can play within transmedia/cross-promotion, intertextuality and branding, as well as within kids' own patterns of cultural appropriation. It seems to me that these tie-in games could easily be used to give kids an opportunity to co-create the story and characters, to make changes and to do things differently...to gain a sense of co-ownership over their (shared) cultural texts. There's a lot of potential here - if brand management wasn't such a stifling priority - to enable kids to explore the vast flexibility and fluidity of narrative, to redefine and make sense of their media heroes and cultural icons in original and more personal ways. Sadly, it's a potential that is very rarely realized.

That said, I'm hopeful that some of the newer or emerging standards within children's game design will eventually trickle down to licensed games as well. Particularly since more and more game developers are now expanding their efforts and expertise into the kids market, which until now was dominated primarily by Nintendo (who generally makes pretty excellent kids games) and the children's television, toy and film industries (whose combined record can be generously described as "hit-or-miss"). For instance, one of the designers behind the immensely popular EverQuest is in the process of launching a child-oriented MMOG (entitled Free Realms, which you can read more about here) that's got a lot of gamers and kids' media critics pretty excited. Not to mention the various innovative titles I've highlighted in past posts, and the growing movement within the game industry to raise the overall quality of kids' game design. My advice to Pixar at this point would be to overhaul its strategy and get in on this movement at the ground level...see if they can't earn themselves a bigger piece of that pie.

CCFC Takes On The Good Night Show

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) is in the midst of a new initiative, calling attention to PBS Kids Sprout's The Good Night Show, a television show that (despite massive evidence to the contrary) promotes itself as a sleeping aid for toddlers. I posted about this same show last December when they held their Christmas Eve "Snooze-a-thon", and many of the same arguments I outlined then can be directly applied to the regular nightly program as well. Anyway, here's an excerpt from the CCFC press release

The Good Night Show which airs every evening from six to nine on Sprout, consists of popular cartoons like Thomas the Tank Engine and The Berenstain Bears, interspersed with original sleep-themed content. The original segments feature Nina, the host, and a puppet named Star, who take on the role of parent and child respectively. Sprout claims The Good Night Show "helps preschoolers wind down after a busy day."

"Parents trust that programming on PBS and its affiliated networks will be beneficial to children," said CCFC's Director Dr. Susan Linn. "Sprout is exploiting that trust by implying that its programming will ease children into sleep when research suggests that screen time before bed undermines healthy sleep habits."

For children three years and younger, television viewing is associated with irregular sleep patterns. Studies have also found that older children who watched TV at bedtime were more likely to have difficulty sleeping. The Good Night Show may also have the unfortunate consequence of encouraging parents to put televisions in children's bedrooms, a practice which has been linked childhood obesity and poor academic performance. The National Sleep Foundation calls television a "sleep stealer"and urges parents to avoid making television a part of their bedtime routine.

The CCFC also highlights the importance of "bedtime" as a nightly bonding ritual between parents and children, and that television is a poor substitute for the interpersonal contact, storytelling, songs and conversations that would/could otherwise take place while putting children to bed. I especially like the quote they include by Robert Kesten, Executive Director for the Center for SCREEN-TIME Awareness, who aptly states: "When television programmers and marketers assume that they know more than doctors and educators about what is best for our nation's children, we all lose." The initiative is just now gaining momentum, but has already received a bit of backlash press coverage (for example, Friedman's MediaPost article uses a sarcastic tone and claims the CCFC is criticizing the show because it "lulls kids to sleep"...talk about missing the point completely, yikes!).

You can get more info about this initiative and other projects over at the CCFC website.

Teen Girls Take On TLC's "Toddlers and Tiaras"

By way of Strollerderby, a very cool story about some intrepid Canadian teens who are trying to have Toddlers and Tiaras, a disturbing TLC reality television show about - you guessed it - toddler beauty pageants and the deeply troubling parents and industries involved in putting them on. High school students Karrin Huynh and Lesley Cornelius, of St. Catharines Ontario, were so disturbed by the show and its underlying messages about girls/children they decided to launch a campaign to have it banned from (Canadian? North American?) television, by way of a Facebook group called "Help to ban the show Toddlers and Tiaras". Here's an excerpt from Hannah Tennant-Moore's Strollerderby post:

"The high school seniors started a Facebook campaign to ban the show, arguing that it sexualises children as young as two and encourages paedophilia. The group quickly attracted close to 5,000 members.

TLC has defended the show, saying they are simply depicting—“from an objective and unfiltered perspective”—something that 100,000 kids take place in each year. For someone like me, who watches the show knowing that toddler beauty pageants are disgusting, the show may appear objective in that it succeeds only in making me even more disturbed by them."

Tennant-Moore also provides a link to an actual clip of the show, featured on Jezebel, which is not only disturbing but pretty infuriating. I'm feeling more and more that the UN's needs to broaden and formalize its condemnation of using children for reality television programming, unless strict guidelines are followed in ensuring the shows respect children's rights and dignity. For example, last fall, a UN report on child welfare in the UK warned that the use of "distressed" children in reality shows such as Supernanny could harm their rights, and that these shows "may "constitute an unlawful interference with their privacy" and that the media had to act further to protect children in such shows" (as quoted in the October 4, 2008 edition of The Herald).

A big kudos(!) to Huynh and Cornelius for bringing this show and important issue to public attention.

If you want to learn more about their efforts, you can check out (or join) their Facebook Group, or read some of the original news coverage of the campaign over at the Niagara Falls Review.

Flower and the Rise of Paidia Gaming

A few weeks ago, the PlayStation Network made a new addition to its growing collection of alternative, indie, creation-focused games -- thatgamecompany's innovative, ode to natural beauty, Flower. thatgamecompany, which was co-founded by Jenova Chen (the creator of fl0w) and Kellee Santiago (Chen's co-designer on multi-award winning student game Cloud), is proving itself to be a true pioneer in the current UGC/sandbox/experiential play movement in gaming (which I've discussed in previous posts that you can read here and here), and I'm looking forward to seeing first hand what kind of unique gameplay experience Flower has to offer. So far, the reviews have been incredibly positive. For example, as Ryan Clements writes over at IGN:

"thatgamecompany has depicted something that I never once imagined: what would a flower's dream look like if we could see it? Flower, a PS3 downloadable that comes as a spiritual successor to flOw, is one of the most beautiful games that I've ever played. Not just because the visuals are entirely breathtaking, but also because the experience of playing it offers more enjoyment, emotion and enlightenment than any game I've tried in years."

You'll find a similar celebrations over at Slate. For a more nuanced critique -- aimed primarily at all the surrounding hype and hyperbole -- check out Leigh Alexander's posts over at Sexy Videogameland (or click here and here). I particularly like her comment that the overwhelmingly positive reaction to this game reflects an underlying hope that "As if by lionizing titles with the subtlest signs of promise, we could combat the mainstream's failure to appreciate the dignity of games." Nice.

But I think that whatever the blogosphere's reaction, the game itself represents an important addition to the growing challenge that game designers (esp. indie designers) have posed to the maintream or traditional games market, and against our prevailing ideas and assumptions about digital gaming, and about play more generally. There's a strong and widely accepted notion within Western culture that play should be purposive and rational - structured around rules and parameters, aimed at achieving certain aims and goals, producing points or other measurable outcomes, and resulting in a clearly defined win (or lose). Until quite recently, play and games that didn't meet these criteria tended to be understudied and undervalued, despite their continued presence, prevalence and importance within the play practices of various groups. Today, however, there's a broad and growing interest in things like emergent play, role-play, virtual doll play, etc., which is resulting in an expansion of our understanding(s) and approach(es) to play...particularly within the (programmed/programmable) context of digital games.

So far the most prominent locus for discussions (and observations) of non-rational gameplay has been MMORPGs, where semi-structured role-play unfolds within what are otherwise pretty traditionally-structured game environments. Sandbox games are another example, and I would also predict that quite a few papers at this year's DiGRA are going to look at UGC games like LittleBigPlanet (the call for papers has been extended to April 17th, btw). But games like Flower or PixelJunk's Eden are taking things much further...not only allowing for "non-rational" (experiential, qualitative, non-linear) play to occur within an otherwise rational game structure, but actually making it the central focus of the game itself.

I'm thinking about how we can approach these types of games, and start theorizing on their combined contribution...despite the enormous differences they present in terms of thematic content, levels of player agency, boundaries, etc. My proposal is that if traditional digital games -- and modern, rule-bound games more generally - can be understood or defined using Caillois' concept of "ludus", perhaps a good way to think about these "alternative" models is by using his reverse concept of "paidia". Here's what I mean.

Caillois' theory presents a differentiated conception of play that celebrates the evolution of games into increasingly rational forms of activity, which mirrors modern transformations in terms of play (practice, idealizations, thoughts about...) within modern western societies. He classifies different types of gameplay into four broad categories (agon, alea, mimicry and ilinx), which he then places in a "rank order of progression"...positioning the different types of play along a continuum between two opposite poles. On one end we have paidia, which describes forms of play that feature open-ended fantasy and role-play, free-form diversions and unscripted amusements. On the other end, games with a high degree of ludus are disciplined by rule systems. Because they better reflect the dominant ideology, they are also more likely to be seen and understood as functional, rational and pro-social.

Caillois describes that as a society modernizes, the "frolicsome and impulsive exuberance" of paidia is "almost entirely absorbed or disciplined by a complementary, and in some respects inverse, tendency…to bind it with arbitrary, imperative, and purposely tedious conventions." He argues that in the contemporary era, free-from imaginative play serves a subordinate function to the rational systems of ludus. Caillois describes paidia and ludus in terms of a "natural" progression, reflecting the modern tendency to view structured, rational (i.e. ludus) games as inevitable, desirable and ultimately beneficial...not only in terms of their "civilizing" influence, but also in terms of their ability to produce and reflect modern culture. Needless to say, various play theorists have disputed this idea - reminding us that both paidia and ludus remain important features of contemporary play, and that our privileging of ludus within play studies, within social discourses, and within game design, is socially constructed and hegemonic...a reflection of larger ideas and ideals we have about the role of play in society.

All this to say (whew!), that by putting outdated hierarchies aside and reclaiming the notion and importance of paidia, we can potentially start to theorize and even "name" this new form of innovative, free-form, imaginative game design..and its associated, emerging forms of gameplay. I think that the concept of "paidia gaming" offers an inclusive and timely paradigm. Any thoughts? Is it time to revisit paidia and Caillois?

I've uncovered a few older references applying "paidia" to digital games, a number of which appear to stem from an article by Gonzalo Frasca that appeared in Michael P. Wolf's (ed.) 2003 The Video Game Theory Reader, along with some preliminary "ponderings" by Raph Koster. Frasca uses the term in reference to games like SimCity, which are arguably the likely antecedents of the current crop of open-ended games, albeit still highly structured by rules, parameters and measurable outcomes. I'm not quite sure that these older/previous games really exemplify "paidia" or paidia gaming, which would involve more than simply having "no predesignated goal" or clear winner...although they would contain some of the same qualities, and fall somewhere closer to the "paidia" end of the continuum. It will be interesting to see how this notion has been used over the years and how it's been developed, and to see how my suggestion about this new crop/development in digital gaming fits in with the previous arguments made.

Heads Up! FTC Open Forum on Kids and Advertising Literacy

For those of you in the D.C. area, the FTC will be holding an open forum on March 12, 2009, to gather feedback and input on an upcoming advertising literacy project aimed at tweens. Here are the details:

Ad It Up! Kids in a Commercial World
The Federal Trade Commission staff will host a forum on March 12, 2009 to gather input for its advertising literacy initiative, which will educate and empower tweens to be better informed consumers of information. At the forum, experts on advertising and marketing to kids will discuss a range of issues, including:

* What kids experience in the commercial world;
* What kids understand about their experience; and
* What kids need to know to navigate in this world.

The goal of the campaign is to educate kids to be better informed consumers of information.

The FTC staff invites interested parties to participate by attending in person or via webcast.

The forum will be free and open to the public (and will also be webcast live), and looks like it will at least touch upon some of the existing FTC consumer literacy initiatives, such as You Are Here and OnGuard Online.

Interesting Hook Ups Among the Toy and Media Giants

Two news stories caught my eye this morning, both written by Emily Claire Afan for Kidscreen Daily, and both describing new, somewhat unlikely partnerships between some pretty heavy hitters within the children's (media and toy) industries. The first, an announcement that Disney/Pixar is getting in on the branded Lego action. As Afan writes:

Three Disney and Disney/Pixar properties will be getting the Lego treatment, thanks to a multi-year licensing deal that grants the construction toy company access to develop product for Toy Story, Cars and Prince of Persia.

The plan for now is that all three Disney branded construction sets will be released in 2010. Toy Story-themed construction sets (for kids aged 2 to 12 yrs) featuring themes and characters from the first two films will launch in January 2010. Additional sets will appear in May 2010, coinciding with the big screen release of Toy Story 3, slated to hit screens in June of that same year. The Prince of Persia Lego sets will be released in April 2010, just prior to the cinematic release of the videogame-based film Prince of Persia: Sands of Time in May. And the Cars sets will appear in June 2010, likely somewhere around the same time the Cars MMOG goes live.

The second story involves videogame giant EA and toy manufacturer Toy Island, who are entering into a multi-year deal to produce branded sporting goods for kids. According to Afan:

The multi-year deal will see the toyco developing a new line of branded sports equipment for three demos - three to six, six to nine, and nine to 12 - set to launch this coming fall. It's the first merch deal of its kind for the game label, thanks to its partnership with IMG Licensing, the exclusive worldwide CP and brand licensing agent for EA Sports.

In addition to the obvious associations with EA Sports games, the partnership represents EA's attempt to compete with the Wii in the exergaming arena. As described in the EA/Toy Island joint press release:

"The unique and differentiated EA SPORTS-branded products will bring classic sports activities to life in a whole new way, utilizing infrared, motion and equilibrium sensors. The products, which will serve as a virtual coach as they instruct the user on form and technique, speed and power, and more, are in development for baseball, football, basketball, soccer and hockey. Products will include:

• a line of interactive training tools featuring voice commands and instructional coaching elements designed to take budding stars to the next level;

• a complete game-in-a-box containing all the equipment necessary for kids to practice and play a sport;

• a line of sports toys that will utilize electronics to reward young athletes with cheers when they use proper techniques;

• a basic line of high density-foam balls to help kids develop throwing and kicking motor skills at an early age.

The products will be available for three youth categories: ages 3-6, 6-9 and 9-12. Other sports are expected to follow this year’s launch."

"OMG You Guys Let Me On": Kids vs. COPPA

Via yesterday's YPulse Essentials, a link to COPPA Kids, a site that archives quotes and messages from kids that have been age blocked from sites as a result of COPPA (I suppose the sites are either unable or unwilling to become COPPA compliant, since the Act is about the collection of personal information, not about whether the contents of the site are appropriate for children). Some are hilarious:

"Dear [COMPANY] Feedback,
It says that I am under 12 when I am not. I am 13, but please don’t tell anyone that. I hope all this feedback is kept private. Please let me become a part of [COMPANY], I really want to! =]"

"This thing says I am 12 and under. I am 13. Trust me I am not 12. I would never say that I am. THank u for letting me tell u this horrbile story."

"help im 13 and i axadently put me as 12 lol and im locked out opps sorry can i regester im POKEMON MASTER"

Others reveal some pretty interesting things about how kids feel about and make sense of age restrictions:

"i am 12 but i am a girl and i am responsobal and i will not say any thing bad or innaproprait"

"I dont think you shoud not let someone not be able to register because of their age.Its not our fault we are not 13 yet.I just dont think thats fair.How would you feel if you had to be kept out of the fun because of your age."

"im 14
i put in 2000 as my date of birth!
i just dont want people to know when im born!
datz all!
nufin personal!"

Read more over at COPPA Kids.

Sesame Street Gang

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of everyone's favourite kids' TV show, Sesame Street. In lead up, Mark Medley of the National Post is doing a series of stories on all things Sesame (which is also where the above image comes from), including an interview with the author of a new book exploring the history of the series, Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street by Michael Davis. The interview (and likely the book as well), is full of gems such as:

National Post: Why is the death of Jim Henson still a cultural watershed moment?

Michael Davis: I think it was the shock factor. It came on a day when it was just so unexpected. Here was a man who was in the prime of his life, the peak of his creative powers, and he had this wonderful pied piper aspect to him. He seemed so wizardly and so approachable. People really felt like they knew him. Which is kind of funny because the man, when you look at him in total, was sort of enigmatic. But his persona was so vivid that people thought they knew him, and they felt close to him. They felt like he was in a way an extension of Kermit and vice-versa. I’ve spoken to people over the last five years..who break down in tears talking about him, and how much they miss him, and what the effect has been from his absence....When you look at the videotape of the memorial service, I think what’s most striking, beyond the star-watching, which is kind of fun, but just the folks who showed up with their children and plopped down on the floor of the cathedral and filled its every corner. That is what’s most moving about watching that tape, and I’ve watched it many, many, many times, and everytime I saw something different.

Medley has also written a wonderful article about the anniversary itself, Look who's 40!, which includes some great stories and recollections from longtime Sesame puppeteer Stephanie D'Abruzzo. You can also link back to the paper's previous post listing The Top 8 Most Underrated Muppets, part of an ongoing series called "Puppet Watch" that Medley also contributes to.

In other Muppet (related) news....(courtesy of Gamasutra)

Last month, Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto and EA's Spore were each recognized with Jim Henson Honors, a program "founded to recognize people and products that represent the values of the acclaimed Muppets creator." The highest honor, the Jim Henson Celebration Honor, was awarded to Miyamoto, for both his previous creations and his more recent innovations such as Wii Fit. As the Jim Henson Company press release describes:

As the creator of some of the world’s best-known video games such as Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and the Zelda series (which have collectively sold more than 350 million copies), and the person who ultimately oversees every Nintendo game, Shigeru Miyamoto has reignited America’s love for gaming with the creation of Nintendo’s hugely popular Wii console. Taking the application of video games a giant step forward, Miyamoto recently developed the Wii Fit, dedicated to improving people’s physical health and well being. The game not only serves to entertain and give players a workout, it is also being used as a rehabilitation tool – known as “Wii-hab” - by physical and occupational therapists to help patients with balance, endurance and core strengthening.

The other big winner was EA's Spore, which was awarded The Jim Henson Technology Honor for demonstrating ground-breaking technology in a creative way. Here's the description from the press release:

Spore, the popular video game created in 2008 by celebrated game designer Will Wright and EA gives gamers their own personal universe in a box where players build their own galaxy from scratch. The game is meticulously conceived and executed with infinite detail, allowing a gamer to design and create his own character – a digital alter ego - providing for an unprecedented level of user creativity as his being evolves from a single-cell organism to a galactic god over hundreds of millions of years.

Awards were also given to The Center for Puppetry Arts Distance Learning Center, and guerilla street artist Shepard Fairey (the guy who did that famous portrait of Barack Obama). Included in the press release (and in most of the surrounding news coverage) are statements from Jim Henson's children -- and co-CEOs of the newly reconstituted Jim Henson Company, Brian and Lisa Henson -- who had this to say about this year's recipients.

“The recipients of this year’s Jim Henson Honors demonstrate true creativity and commitment to innovation. They have raised the bar in their respective fields, from Shigeru Miyamoto’s ground-breaking work fusing entertainment and technology at Nintendo, to the Center for Puppetry Arts’ dedication to enriching lives through arts education, this year’s honorees, who so strongly reflect the traditions of The Jim Henson Company.” - Brian Henson

“Each of this year’s recipients inspired us in different ways. In addition to Shigeru Miyamoto and the Center for Puppetry Arts, we also honor the visual brilliance and topicality of street artist Shepard Fairey, who tapped into a generation’s profound desire for change, and the incredibly imaginative and provocative world of Spore. Varied and vast in terms of their impact, this year’s four honorees are true models of originality, innovation and ingenuity. It is a privilege to honor their outstanding work.” - Lisa Henson

Talk about building a lasting legacy!! I just love seeing all my favourite things/people/media forms come together like this :)

Did Family-Friendly Games "Dominate" in 2008?

Coverage of the newest NPD press release on 2008 videogame sales has been circulating this week, in which the market research firm makes the claim that family-friendly games dominated the market in 2008. For example, Kidscreen's Emily Claire Afan writes:

With computer and video game industry hardware, software and peripheral sales hitting a whopping US$22 billion in 2008 - and entertainment software sales responsible for US$11.7 billion of that - the Entertainment Software Association and researcher The NPD Group has also found family-friendly titles topping the market.

Games with an E10+ and lower rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board accounted for more than half of all sales, according to NPD data, with 45.3% of games rated E and 12.1% rated E10+. The family entertainment category rang in as the most popular game genre with more than 19% of all sales.

The US$22 billion figure is a 22.9% increase over the previous year and the NPD found that December 2008 sales set a new record, with industry revenue broke the US$5 billion mark (US$5.3) for the first time in any single month. Industry analyst Anita Frazier says that there's been an increase of sales by a select group of titles - the top 20 games account for 15% of total unit sales, whereas in 2006, it accounted for only 9%.

On the console software side in 2008, total US reached US$8.9 billion (189 million units), PC game sales broke US$701.4 million (29.1 million units) and portable software beat last year's record sales with US$2.1 billion (79.5 million units) in revenue. Overall, approximately 297.6 million computer and video games were sold at retail last year.

The press release doesn't appear to provide a listing of the games themselves, so I did a bit of digging to find out if "family-friendly" simply meant rated "E" (e.g. most sports games are rated "E", but aren't necessarily targeted to kids and families). I found the following list at Nintendo World Report, which certainly does reflect NPD's claim, particularly if you count the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games...which I would definitely include in the "family-friendly" category despite their "T" rating (a rating earned primarily because of the song lyrics, of all things):

Nintendo World's 2008 Top Ten U.S. Software Sales (by Revenue)

1. Wii Fit (Wii) Rated "E"
2. Guitar Hero: World Tour (Wii) Rated "T"
3. Wii Play w/ Remote (Wii) Rated "E"
4. Call of Duty: World at War (X360) Rated "M"
5. Mario Kart (Wii) Rated "E"
6. Gears of War 2 (X360) Rated "M"
7. Rock Band 2 (X360) Rated "T"
8. Left 4 Dead (X360) Rated "M"
9. Call of Duty: World at War (PS3) Rated "M"
10. Rock Band 2 (Wii) Rated "T"

The figures change somewhat when total software sales (not just revenue earned) are taken into consideration, and when titles are counted across systems (as opposed to broken up as in the list above). According to GamesIndustry, the US sales for game software in 2008 looked more like this (below), but as you can see, although "family-friendly" Wii titles still make up the top 3 best selling, the list is now predominated by "M"-rated blockbuster hits like GTA as well:

1. Wii Play (Nintendo, Wii), Rated "E" = $5.28 million
2. Mario Kart Wii (Nintendo, Wii), Rated "E" = $5.00 million
3. Wii Fit (Nintendo, Wii), Rated "E" = $4.53 million
4. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Nintendo, Wii), Rated "T" = $4.17 million
5. Grand Theft Auto IV (Take-Two, Xbox 360), Rated "M" = $3.29 million
6. Call of Duty: World at War (Activision, Xbox 360), Rated "M" = $2.75 million
7. Gears of War 2 (Microsoft, Xbox 360), Rated "M" = $2.31 million
8. Grand Theft Auto IV (Take-Two, PS3), Rated "M" = $1.89 million
9. Madden NFL 09 (EA, Xbox 360), Rated "E" = $1.87 million [**though I'm not convinced that this game is really for kids or families, I'll count it anyway]
10. Mario Kart DS (Nintendo, NDS), Rated "E" = $1.65 million

Both sources have the same list for the top software sales in December 2008, which leads me to believe that their initial figures were probably the same as well, before they were reinterpreted to reflect "revenue earned" by each individual (and platform-specific) title. Here's the December list, FYI:

December 2008 U.S. Top 20 Software Sales
1. Wii Play (Wii) (1.46m units): Rated "E"
2. Call of Duty: World at War (X360) (1.33m): Rated "M"
3. Wii Fit (Wii) (999k): Rated "E"
4. Mario Kart Wii (Wii) (878k): Rated "E"
5. Guitar Hero: World Tour (Wii) (859k): Rated "T"
6. Gears of War 2 (X360) (745k): Rated "M"
7. Left 4 Dead (X360) (629k): Rated "M"
8. Mario Kart DS (DS) (540k): Rated "E"
9. Call of Duty: World at War (PS3) (533k): Rated "M"
10. Animal Crossing: City Folk (Wii) (497k): Rated "E"
11. Wii Music (Wii) (487k): Rated "E"
12. New Super Mario Bros. (DS) (255k-487k): Rated "E"
13. Personal Trainer: Cooking (DS) (255k-487k): Rated "E"
14. Fallout 3 (X360) (255k-487k): Rated "M"
15. Club Penguin: Elite Penguin Force (DS) (255k-487k): Rated "E"
16. Link's Crossbow Training (Wii) (255k-487k): Rated "T"
17. Guitar Hero: World Tour (PS2) (255k-487k): Rated "T"
18. Madden NFL 09 (X360) (255k-487k): Rated "E" [**Is football really less violent than Crossbow Training?]
19. Call of Duty: World at War (Wii) (255k-487k): Rated "M"
20. Shaun White Snowboarding: Road Trip (Wii) (255k-487k): Rated "E10+"

So what does this all mean? While NPD is certainly correct in its claim that a lot of the top-selling titles in 2008 were games targeted to/designed for children and families -- thanks in no small part to Nintendo! -- I would hesitate to say that these titles "dominated" the market - which is still surprisingly evenly split between family-friendly games like Wii Play and Mario Kart on one side, and very mature titles like Call of Duty: World at War and Gears of War 2 on the other. It seems that as long as the videogames market (and culture!) is maligned by the media and politicians by its more violent, adult-themed offerings, the industry will continue to put all the emphasis on its E-rated successes to prove its cultural worthiness. But what I see here is an extremely diversified market, hitting all age groups and genres, with a noticeable tendency to cluster around its own extremes. Just try putting that in a headline or sound bite, though.

Guest Post on IP Osgoode

Check out my guest post over at IP Osgoode (the Osgoode Hall Law School blog), where I argue that UGC games such as Little Big Planet are opening up virtual IP issues and debates to the mainstream gamer market. Here's an excerpt:

Digital games have evolved considerably in recent years, but from an IP perspective, one of the most interesting and significant shifts has been the introduction of user-generated content (UGC) into corporately-owned digital games and virtual worlds. Early evidence of the legal implications of UGC (also referred to as “user created” and “user contributed” content) first emerged in the form of a debate about ongoing (and as yet unresolved) conflicts between game operators and game players over who could legally (and ethically) claim ownership over virtual items and characters (avatars) produced by players within massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). While this debate and the questions it raised attracted a lot of interest from legal scholars and academics (see, for example, Terra Nova’s “Virtual Law Bibliography”), the conflicts themselves really only directly impacted the small proportion of gamers who both played MMOGs and engaged in virtual item exchange.

Today, however, tools for social networking and collaborative cultural production are being integrated into a much wider diversity of titles and game genres, and UGC is quickly spreading from niche markets made up of MMOG players and hobbyist programmers into “mainstream” markets as well. In some cases, even “casual players” can now produce and distribute their own game content. Accordingly, questions and concerns about IP rights and the legal status of UGC, as well as how players‘ rights will be articulated and protected within predominantly corporately-defined virtual game environments, are attaining a much broader relevance - both within the entertainment software industry and among the increasingly large segment of the population that plays digital games.

You can read the whole post here. Thanks again to Rex Shoyama for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this excellent new resource on all things IP and technology.

Crayon Physics, Dangerous High School Girls, and the World of Goo

Those of you interested in awesome, innovative, independent and kid-friendly games will want to check out Jordan Deam's (of The Escapist) recent review of Petri Purho's Crayon Physics. The game was the grand prize winner of last year's (2008) Independent Games Festival and is a mind-blowingly cool puzzle game that lets you draw in your own solutions...crayon-style. Here's an excerpt from Deam's review:

Crayon Physics is part physics engine, part MS Paint: Every object you draw behaves (more or less) according to Newton's laws of motion. Like so many of the best indie game designers of the last few years, Purho takes this simple concept and develops it into a thought-provoking, charming and completely unique experience.

Crayon Physics' "story mode," consisting of 76 individual puzzles created by Purho, introduces you to the game's core mechanics. The objective is always the same: Guide a red ball into a yellow star through whatever means you can dream up. The game slowly ramps up the difficulty by introducing new construction elements to the equation - you start out drawing basic ramps and platforms, but it won't be long before you're building horrendously complex networks of levers and pulleys to carry your payload across the field.

You can also design your own levels, using the same tools that Purho used to construct the original 76 puzzles, and upload your creations to an online UGC community, the Crayon Physics Playground. The game sounds a lot like the next (though smaller) Little Big Planet - Deam makes the comparison in his review, and the game's description seems to follow the LBP formula of sandbox + UGC + puzzles + cuteness.

The independent games market is really heating up, and producing some absolutely wonderful and unbelievably sophisticated new titles. From DigiPen's Narbacular Drop (the inspiration of last year's dark horse Portal), to Jenova Chen's deeply influential fl0w, to the PixelJunk titles and the plethora of new independent titles coming available via WiiWare, Xbox Live Community Games, Steam and other channels, a growing number of the most highly revered and innovative games out there have been independently designed and/or produced (or inspired by an indy game).

For instance, I just finished playing yet another big indy hit that came out in 2008 (also an Independent Game Festival winner) World of Goo (downloaded via WiiWare) -- a unique, challenging yet intuitive game that allows for casual play, creative problem-solving and fun with physics, all within the very stretchy confines of an appealing game environment populated by tiny adorable gobs of Goo. The game has been getting rave reviews since it first previewed at last year's Nintendo Media Summit, and ends with a not-so-subtle hint of a sequel.

Another example is Mousechief's Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble, a PC game/digital board game/interactive "choose-your-own-adventure" style story that was initially launched last year. Since then, the game has been revamped, and its creator Keith Nemitz has been nominated in the second annual Writers Guild of America awards for games. You can find out more about the game over at Leigh Alexander's SexyVideogameLand, which has been following Dangerous High School Girls... since it first came out (it's also where I first found out about it). The game skews a bit older than Crayon Physics or World of Goo (it's rated Teen by the TIGRS, but in a very tongue-in-cheek, funny, cute and subversive way.

Yay for indy game developers, and yay for enabling emerging designers to share their creations with the rest of the world. And yay for free demos, which you can download following these links:
World of Goo (Available for PC and Mac)
Crayon Physics Deluxe (Available on PC only, unfortunately)
Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble (Available for PC and Mac)

CN's Fusion Fall Launches

The kid's media blogosphere is all abuzz this week with news and previews of the newly (finally) launched Fusion Fall -- a big, branded MMOG for kids (and cartoon fans) centered around popular Cartoon Network media brands/characters. For example, as Izzy Neis writes,

Well, ladies & gents, the time has finally come for CN briiiiziiiiliant minds to release their much anticipated MMO of ginormity. And ya know what? Gorgeous.

I was lucky enough to sneak several peeks in the past, but didn’t feel right spilling any beans.

I do have a lot to say about this monster of a project (and it’s good), but I encourage you to go check it out for yourself first. Carve out a bit of time, because the tutorial & the registration take more than the average 2 minutes, and I would recommend spending the time watching the videos that promo along the way.

The game itself will retail at around $20, with a $5.94/month subscription fee. A free version is also (currently) available through the Fusion Fall website, where players can create an avatar and at least start completing quests and collecting items. Players create their own custom avatar - a manga-style human child, in keeping with the design of the Fusion Fall MMOG environment. Through gameplay and cut scenes, players encounter various characters from popular CN television shows - Ben 10 Alien Force, Dexter's Laboratory, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, The Powerpuff Girls, Kids Next Door and Samurai Jack (with more to come later on). While some of the characters are voiced by the original TV show talent, all the characters have been redesigned to fit the game's manga/anime aesthetic. The overall objective is to help the CN characters save the world from "Fuse", an evil alien force that invades through appropriation, fusing itself to planets and living things, transforming landscapes into toxic landfills, and producing evil doppelgangers of their inhabitants. Players team up with both other players and NPC characters to complete missions, which includes building a personal army of "Nanos" - miniature versions of CN characters that are "rescued" by defeating the evil doppelgangers.

One of the first things I noticed about the game was the interesting, intertextual and subtly reflexive way it plays with the idea of different versions of the same character. For example, in the first level of the game, Buttercup (of the Powerpuff Girls) sends you on a mission to save Dexter from "Fusion Buttercup" (the evil, Fuse doppelganger) who you then transform into Nano Buttercup (by defeating her), who then becomes your ally. This fluidity and intertextuality both refers to the way that children experience media branded characters in their own lives -- as television characters, as many different incarnations of toys, as videogame avatars, and as the endless variations thereof the children themselves produce during imaginative play.

But the originality of the characters is soon overshadowed by the clunky game design. My first hour of play was plagued by server overcrowding, a bug that made it impossible to finish a specific quest, and full on browser crashes that repeatedly wiped out all of my progress in a particular level. This is likely more prevalent in the online free version than in the full-fledged software + subscription version that the free site promotes, but if CN wants to attract long-term subscribers, the trial version is going to have to run a lot smoother than it does right now. On the other hand, kids have been waiting so long for this game that it might not matter so much in the short term. Not to mention the fact that since so many of the other MMOGs for kids already on the market are similarly full of bugs and clunky-ness (I'm still looking at YOU Pirates of the Caribbean Online), the standards (and player expectations) among this demographic might not be all that high. According to Emily Claire Afan over at Kidscreen, more than 2.5 million accounts were created during the beta stage -- so at least we'll have a yardstick to measure its popularity against now that the game is live and running.

The (software + subscription version) game is being heavily promoted as a safe haven, family friendly space. I'll have to find out more about the safety features, but the game does incorporate a pretty limited pre-selected chat system. It also offers a family plan of four connected accounts for US$9.95 per month, through which I imagine players in the same household can chat more freely.

More to come once I have a chance to play the full version and compare, or at least find some good coverage and/or more detailed reviews. Unfortunately, I'm too far along in the dissertation writing to include this in my PhD research, but it might be an interesting example of the next generation of MMOGs for kids...if not an example of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Lost Leisure Time

A new study by Harris Interactive has revealed that the average amount of leisure time enjoyed in the US took a dive in 2008, plummeting by 20% to hit a low of 16 hours per week. This contrasts to 20 hours/week in 2007, and to the whopping 26 hours/week Americans claimed back in 1973 when tracking first began. Here's the excerpt:

In a seemingly paradoxical situation, the research shows that Americans increased their work week one hour, yet claim to have lost four hours of leisure time. Harris conjectures that this “grey area” can be explained because the extra time is time spent “just checking in” via computer or wireless devices.

“While our respondents didn’t consider this as time spent working, they also didn’t count it as leisure time,” Harris said.

Also, as leisure time shrinks, Americans appear to be indulging more in solo activities, Harris found. Four of this year’s top five choices are typically done alone: reading, watching TV, exercising, and computer activities. Reading [up 1 point], watching TV [up 6 points] and exercising [up 3 points] all increased this year, while computer activities dropped 2 points. Though this may again seem counterintuitive, Harris said this can possibly be explained by the theory that Americans are spending just as much or more time on computer activities, yet are considering this time as neither work nor leisure.

Some additional findings of interest include:

* Spending time with family and kids is up 3 points from last year, and 5 points since 1995.

* There are some interesting changes in people's exercise patterns since 1995, including spending more leisure time exercising ( which is up 6 points since 1996) but less time swimming (which is down 5 points).

* In terms of "favorite" leisure activities, 30% list reading (up from 29% in 2007), 24% say it is TV watching and 17% say it is spending time with family and kids (up from 14% in 2007). 8% list exercise (8%) as their favorite leisure activity, while 7% list computer activities and 7% list fishing.

* The median amount of time spent working is now at 46 hours per week, a figure that includes non-traditional labour such as housekeeping and studying. This is up from 45 hours in 2007 and 41 hours a week back in 1973. However, because it's a median and because it includes Americans of all ages (including retirees, and I would assume children) 46 hours is actually an underestimate for most working adults. Americans in all three "worker" demographics on average clock in more than 50 hours a week:
- Generation Xers (those aged 32-43) currently work 55 hours each week.
- "Echo Boomers" (or Gen Y or Millenials, aged 18-31) put in 50 hours each week.
- Baby Boomers (aged 44-62) continue to work an average 50 hours a week.

I'm very happy to see that exercise and spending time with family and kids is on the rise, but the overall trend of less and less time for leisure (compounded with the average 50+ hour work week), while surely at least in part a reflection of the recent economic downturn, is also really too bad. I'm also intrigued by this concept of "just checking in", which I know takes up a huge amount of my time...but I have no problem whatsoever identifying it as labour. The idea that Americans are expressing a need for a third category between work and leisure is also fascinating. More evidence of the slippage between work and play?

Pink Aisle Politics

Interesting story out of the UK this past weekend, about the pervasiveness of colour-coding within children's - and particularly girls' - culture. As reported by Sarah Harris in the Mail Online, Sue Palmer - educator and author of Toxic Childhood, is trying to raise awareness about the massive gender segregation that continues to occur within toy aisles and children's product design. Calling it a "pink plague", Palmer and other child experts question the hyper-feminine ideals that underlie girls' toys and consumer goods...from lip-glosses to princess dresses, to pencil cases emblazoned with the Playboy logo (yikes!). Looks like a much-needed attempt to revive an old, but still extremely pertinent, issue. Here's an excerpt:

Stores have been accused of pandering to stereotypes by making girls' products almost exclusively pink. Experts claim a 'pink plague' on the High Street is deliberately widening the gap between the sexes by putting undue pressure on youngsters to conform to traditional roles. Many are becoming 'hooked on the girl colour' from a young age and are being duped into buying products that encourage them to grow up too quickly, such as lip-glosses and Playboy pencil cases.

As a result, young girls are discouraged from thinking for themselves or rebelling against the 'princess role', according to Sue Palmer, a literacy consultant and author of Toxic Childhood. She said the marketing drive to force the colour on girls has been so successful that speech therapists in Durham report that children can easily identify the colour blue, but say 'Barbie' when shown something pink.

'I'm worried about the "pink plague",' she said. 'You can't find girls past the age of three who aren't obsessed with the colour.

'It's just so insidious and it shows how commercial forces can get under their skin even by that age. You can't seem to get anything that's not pink for girls, whether it's clothes, books or toys.

'To me, the real danger is the extent to which marketers influence and infiltrate young children's minds. They have managed to infiltrate playground culture where peer pressure is so strong.'

Harris also describes that a "fierce debate" about the role of "pink" within girls' culture is currently unfolding on parenting websites such as Mumsnet (see here for example).

The article goes on to describe that the association of pink with girls is a fairly new (post-WWII) phenomenon - as a shade of red, pink was historically considered to be a "masculine" colour. On the other hand, a recent study conducted out of Newcastle University found that girls and women from various cultures around the world demonstrate a shared preference for reds, which extends to pink and reddish blues. Meanwhile, the universal favourite colour is apparently blue. Not that I promote biological determinism, but even if girls do have some sort of natural affinity for pink (I know I always have), that hardly excuses the children's industries' decision to consistently limit girls' culture to a pink monotone. The lack of variation (lack of alternatives, lack of diversity, lack of colour!!!) alone is a valid reason for concern about the state of girls' commercial culture.

The story also reminds me of The Pink & Blue Project by JeongMee Yoon. Her pictures are pretty consistent with Palmer's argument that the pervasiveness of pink within girls' culture extends far beyond the toy aisle, becoming such an ingrained part of children's lives that it becomes impossible to believe that this isn't a commercially-induced phenomenon.

CFP: Youth Studies Conference in Ireland

Happy New Year! Looking forward to all the exciting events and opportunities coming up in 2009, I thought that some of you might be interested in the following CFP for an upcoming conference on young people and media markets, which will be held in Maynooth, Ireland this summer. Here are the details:

"All Change for Young People"? Mobility, Markets, Media, Models of Practice

An international youth studies conference at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUIM)

Thursday 25th - Sunday 28th June, 2009

hosted by the Department of Applied Social Studies, NUIM

in association with the Research Committee on Youth of the International Sociological Association ( RC34 )

and

Youth Studies Ireland

Contributions are invited on all of the conference’s sub-themes (mobility, markets, media, models of practice) as they relate to young people. Diversity of cultural, disciplinary and professional perspectives is welcome, as are approaches which interrogate the key terms and concepts. Contributions which make links between theory, research, policy and practice are particularly welcome.

Deadline for submission of abstracts (no more than 200 words): 27th February, 2009

A conference website will be available shortly.

In the meantime for further information contact: maurice.devlin@nuim.ie

Gamine Expedition on Holiday

As some of you have likely already noticed, I'm taking a short break from blogging over the Christmas holidays.

Gamine Expedition will return at the end of the month!

Merry Christmas!!

Sara

Sprout Promotes TV as Sleep Aid

Hoping to fuel their own new Christmas tradition, PBS Kids Sprout -- the much debated 24 hr television network for toddlers and preschoolers -- will be airing an 11 hour long "Snooze-A-Thon" this Christmas Eve, aimed at building brand loyalty among toddlers, though the network is calling it "helping kids fall asleep" on that most exciting of nights. Here's the description from the press release:

From 6:00 p.m. ET on December 24 straight through to 5:00 a.m. ET Christmas morning, Sprout will air the "Snooze-A-Thon," an 11-hour, uninterrupted block showcasing popular nighttime host Nina and her puppet sidekick Star from The Good Night Show snoozing comfortably on the set, along with clips of beloved characters from preschool favorites like Sesame Street, Dragon Tales, The Hoobs, Pingu and Berenstain Bears catching some zzz's. So, no matter what time of night the kids are up checking for the sound of reindeer hooves on the roof, parents can tune into Sprout to show them that even their favorite television friends are fast asleep waiting for Santa to arrive.

Sure it sounds cute and all, but the idea of actually encouraging parents and kids to use television as a sleep aid (one that also just so happens to prolong kids' exposure to some of the most heavily commercialized brands in their cultural environment) seems irresponsible. Especially considering all the research that's come out showing that kids with TVs in their bedroom aren't getting a sufficient amount of sleep at night.

I'm thinking in particular of research conducted over the past few years for the Kaiser Family Foundation. For example, in 2003, Rideout et al. found that 26% of toddlers (under 2 years) and 43% of 4-to-6 year olds had a television in their bedroom. This study was followed up more recently by a review conducted by Frederick J. Zimmerman, who looked at studies linking heavy media use to sleep deprivation among children and teens. As Zimmerman writes:

Concern about media use and sleep in children dates at least to the 1970’s, and probably much before. A 1981 study of middle-class children in Indiana found a significant association between TV viewing and both shorter daytime naps and shorter nighttime sleep among toddlers. Such results have been replicated subsequently and seem to have grown stronger with time. Three recent studies of elementary-school children found that the amount of television viewed per day is significantly associated with lower total sleep time and with a general measure of sleep disturbance.

An equally strong predictor in one study was bedtime viewing, but the strongest predictor was having a television in the child’s room. The fact that a TV in the bedroom was significantly associated with sleep problems, even controlling for parentally reported total viewing time, raises the possibility that having a TV in the bedroom makes it possible for children to watch before bedtime without the parents’ knowledge. Sleep quality has also been related to media viewing. A recent study of infants and toddlers found that the amount of television viewing is associated with both irregular naptimes and irregular bedtimes.

These findings have been supported by a variety of sleep experts and pediatrician studies, including this one and this one.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that children in general are not getting as much sleep as they used to. As Zimmerman describes:

Recent research in the United States suggests that most children do not regularly get an amount or quality of sleep that would ensure optimal development and health. A 1981 study of children ages 1–5 in the U.S. identified average total sleep times of 11.5–13.5 hours. Twentyfive years later, a 2005 study of a similar sample of 1–5-year-old children identified average total sleep times of 9.5-11 hours. [...] Yet another recent study found that children ages 1–5 sleep an average of 8.7 hours per night. While the amount of sleep that would be judged adequate for this age range is unclear, it is almost certain to be more than the reported amount in this study.

In addition, it's estimated that between 20 and 30% of young children have some type of "sleep problem". This has lead some analysts to wonder if the relationship between media use and lack of sleep is really all that causal, or if it is perhaps correlational...i.e. kids who can't sleep end up using more media. But even with this added wrinkle (which reproduces the same argument that is eventually launched against any media effects research), there is absolutely nothing to suggest that media use in any way helps kids fall asleep.

Of course, empirical research doesn't always (or usually) have all that much influence on cultural practice when it comes to families and media use, and it seems to be no different here. According to Rideout et al.'s 2006 Media in the Family report, 30% of parents who put a television in their child's bedroom did so because they believe it "helped them sleep". Rideout et al. write:

Most parents don’t put their children to sleep to the TV (67% don’t have a TV in their child’s bedroom, and of those who do, 40% say they "never" put their child to bed with the TV on). However, as noted above, sleep crops up several times in the survey as among the reasons that many parents decide to put a TV in a small child’s room. Among parents with a TV in their child’s bedroom, three in ten (30%) say one reason they put a TV there is that it helps their child fall asleep, and about two in ten (19%) say they did it to try to get the child to sleep in his or her own room (instead of in the parent’s room). Among children with a TV in their bedroom, 37% (or 12% of all children) go to bed with the TV on half the time or more.

Parents also tend to see TV as having a generally calming influence on their children. In the same 2006 report, Rideout et al. describe:

Just over half (53%) of parents say that TV tends to calm their child down, while only about one in six (17%) say that TV gets their child excited. The rest of parents either say: TV calms and excites their child equally (9%); it depends on what the child is watching (8%) or on the child’s mood or time of day (3%); or they don’t know (10%). Television’s effect on children does not vary reliably with the child’s age or gender. Children who watch mostly entertainment shows are more likely to be calmed by TV than are those who watch mostly educational shows (72% vs. 50%).

This is likely part of what supports the idea that some parents have about TV helping their kids fall asleep. On the other hand, is "calming" the same as sleepy? Research would suggest not.

Another big issue here is the question of whether or not these findings are consistent across age groups. There are various and quite significant differences between children depending on age, maturity level, habitus, etc., both in terms of how media impacts them, how well they understand the content, and how media consumption makes them feel. And Zimmerman has found that although TV can be relaxing for "children of preschool age and older," it is quite possible that this is not the case for toddlers. Differences in cognitive processes between age groups, as well as the lack of research into toddlers' responses, are both good reasons to use caution when making generalizations on this issue.

This is also true of "television programs that have been specifically created to calm children down and help them fall asleep, and are promoted to parents as such." Just like the Baby Einstein scandal, where it was eventually uncovered that there was NO research or evidence to support the company's claim that their products assisted children's development...a fact made all the more troubling when contrasted with the growing amount of research demonstrating that media exposure can actually have various harmful effects on toddlers and babies...there is no research to suggest that "calming" shows are more or less effective than other shows among this particular age group. I agree with Zimmerman's conclusion that "More research is required to assess the effects of different types of content on children’s relaxation and alertness at different ages."

Job Posting at the University of Sheffield

I've fallen upon an extremely enticing job posting for a research associate at the University of Sheffield's School of Education. Not only will the successful candidate get to work on a project called "Children's Playground Games and Songs in the Age of New Media" (how awesome is that!?!), but they'll get to work with Jackie Marsh (!)...an amazing (and very friendly) kids' media scholar who researches kids' virtual worlds, games, new media and other forms of pop culture (find out more about her work via her blog Digital Beginnings). Here's the job posting description in full:

Job Title: Research Associate (Part-time, Fixed-term)
Department: School of Education: "Children's Playground Games and Songs in the Age of New Media"

Ref No: R06924

Closing Date: 5th January, 2009

Summary: The postholder will conduct ethnographic research to study how the oral traditions of playground games relate to children's media cultures. Applicants should have a higher degree, preferably a doctorate, in a relevant field (e.g. Media/Cultural Studies, Education, Sociology), with a research-training component. Experience of social research in the field of childhood, fieldwork with young people, and the qualitative analysis of data is also essential. The post is funded by the AHRC as part of the 'Beyond Text' programme and is tenable from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2011, working on a part-time basis of 17.5 hours per week.

Kids Gaming for Good

A number of studies have come out over the past couple of years supporting the idea that children are not only highly empathetic, but also capable of incredible altruism and environmental consciousness as well. For example, as Afan wrote in a Kidscreen article back in September:

Altruistic impulses seem to be on the rise with kids, according to a recent study from Stamford, Connecticut's Just Kid Inc. The company's research team found that a full 90% of US kids believe helping others is important, and 21% of the sample group said they would purchase products that donate a portion of profits to a good cause.

Thinking about how much of kids' everyday lives are filled with discussions and lessons about sharing and cooperation, it's hard to reconcile how it is that kids' culture (in the post Sesame Street/Yo Gabba Gabba years anyway) can be so utterly devoid of these very traits. For the most part, the emphasis is on individualism and accumulation...qualities conducive to consumer socialization, rather than community service or charity. When empathy and affect are included, it's usually mobilized to create stronger links between kids and branded characters/toys, and used to nurture brand loyalty and stimulate repeat purchases rather than make any real connections between kids' capacity for caring and the people and things that might really need/deserve it.

Within virtual worlds, however, this trend appears to be shifting in a significant way. Although the vast majority still contain a heavy emphasis on market exchange, accumulation, and producing "subjectivities of consumption" (Pybus, 2007), this emphasis is offset and possibly even contradicted by an influx of features that allow kids to transform their participation in online gaming communities into real-world philanthropy. I don't know what it is about virtual worlds...perhaps it's the built-in "community" dimension, or perhaps it's the unprecedented access to kids' thoughts and opinions that's spurring it on...but more and more kids' virtual worlds and MMOGs are incorporating opportunities to do good, give back and help others. And kids appear to be responding in a big way.

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Club Penguin
For the second year in a row, Club Penguin is donating $1 million to three different charities, and letting its players decide how the money is allocated by donating their own virtual coins to their cause of choice (well, their favourite of the three). The Coins for Change campaign was a massive success last year - according to the Club Penguin website: "More than 2.5 million children donated in excess of 2 billion virtual coins they earned playing games on Club Penguin to support the environment, children's health or children in developing countries." This year the program will run from December 12-22, and given the amount of hype around it, should draw in even higher levels of participation.

Shining Stars
Following the Webkinz model, Russ Berrie's Shining Stars is a line of plush toys that comes with the access code to a tie-in virtual world. Buying a toy gets you naming rights to an actual star, and the company donates part of its proceeds to The Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation, a charitable organization that "helps kids with serious illnesses and their families cope with their conditions." The site drew in more than 1.5 million registrations in its first year, and its early success inspired Russ to develop two more charity-associated toylines - Seapals and Treetures. The company estimates that "15% to 20% of the company's net sales in 2007 were driven by environmentally-friendly or charity-related products. Consolidated net sales for 2007 increased by 12.4%, to US$331.2 million from US$294.8 million the previous year" (Afran, 2008).

Dizzywood
As Amy Jussel described back in April: "Dizzywood is ‘planting’ the concept of collaboration, as kids nourish and tend a garden that grows faster with teamwork…By rewarding kids with seeds instead of the usual ‘coinage and consumption’ cues, they’re enabling more meaningful content to take root, a prize in itself." The site also teamed up with The Arbour Day Foundation to create an in-game Earth Day event last spring, during which "for every virtual tree planted in Dizzywood, a real one was planted on Earth."

SecretBuilders
This newly launched virtual world, which incorporates themes and characters drawn from classic literature, includes a charitable donation program called "One for All", a multiple choice quiz activity through which the company will donate real money to real charitable organizations as players answer questions correctly. For now, the charity seems to be limited to "planting a tree", but the site describes that "We are continuously seeking to establish partnerships with non-profit organizations to provide children with opportunities to contribute to important causes such as tree planting, clean water, hunger, endangered species, book donations, health and the environment."

Pixie Hollow
Although not tied to a real-world charity, Disney's Pixie Hollow features a virtual economy based (at least in part) on community service. Fairies must make and donate clothes (and other items) to the Pixie Hollow community at large before they are able to make things solely for themselves. The notion of giving to the community before taking for oneself is really surprisingly socialist (I won't say Marxist, because I know the negative connotations this word has in the US, so I'll just stick with "communal" and "community" and push the ideological baggage aside for now), especially for Disney. But then again, their other MMOG Toontown is centered around taking down the corporate cogs...hmmmmmm...it looks like someone at WDIG has a really well developed sense of irony.

Various other sites have featured one-off events of this nature as well. I haven't heard of any examples of kids organizing themselves to transform their virtual play in this way (it would be really hard to do without a big corporation behind them), but I wouldn't be too surprised if there were some out there (particularly within "educational" virtual worlds and MMOGs, or as in-game initiatives like the Pixie Hollow example). But then again, I can't think of any comparable examples from the realm of teen/adult virtual worlds either...a lot of real world exchange and business transactions unfold in Second Life, but I don't recall any stories about World of Warcraft players donating gold to charity.

Little Big Planet: UGC vs. IP

I've been meaning to write about this for quite some time, but thought I'd wait to see if the story would initiate a more widespread discussion first. The quirky-cute and much anticipated UGC-focused PS3 game Little Big Planet has now been on the market for about a month (it's currently #13 on VGChartz, which is awesome for a PS3 game), and by all accounts players are busying themselves making their own levels with the game's innovative player-generated-level design feature (you can check out a demo here, or a more detailed walkthrough of the design process here). Of course, it was only a matter of time before questions and conflicts began to arise around the ever sticky issue of IP...What happens when players integrate images and themes taken from other cultural texts into their UGC levels? And, perhaps more importantly, who owns the IP rights over the levels that players create?

In terms of who owns the copyright over players' original UGC creations, the issue was discussed within various forums when the game first came out in October. Although Sony originally indicated that players would be able to sell their creations - implying that players would retain IP ownership over the levels they create - more recent changes in the TOS seem to contradict this. For example, as I Have the Princess points out:

Sony have recently made changes to their PSN terms of use, notably adding terms and conditions for user generated content. No doubt, this is a legal precaution leading up to the release of LittleBigPlanet, obviously there needs to be guidelines to allow Sony to define and take action again inappropriate content.

But what really got my attention were some of the rights Sony have concerning your generated content…

You also authorise us [Sony] and our affiliated companies, without payment to you, to license, sell and otherwise commercially exploit your User Material
The document continues on outlining that Sony may sell subscription services or gain advertising revenue related to your content. Certainly sounds a far cry from what we’ve heard earlier about selected users being able to set a price and sell their levels, but I guess we’ll know soon enough how this will effect entrepreneurial users.

Similar concerns were voiced over at GameCulture blog, which argued:

...in three weeks, we could all be working for Sony, crafting and sharing levels that Sony owns outright. Perhaps some of those levels will end up being packaged as downloadable content, much the same way that fruit of some of LittleBigPlanet's best beta players is being packaged with the official release. [...] The revenue we generate for Sony by building their content for them is just part of the genius of their business model.

But how does the equation change as user-generated content becomes less a matter of remixing existing intellectual property by 'modding' a game and starts to look more like the creation of original work? What happens when the systems game developers build for us are less games than platforms for the creation of new games?

Since these earlier posts, the only real development has been in relation to copyright infringement within player-designed levels, some of which have been deleted/removed by Sony without warning, much to the chagrin of the players (read this post over at Joystiq for some good background and legal discussion). A bit of a controversy (and some hints of resistance) has erupted among players, but it also looks like Sony is still trying to decide how it will approach these issues. For example, as GameIndustry reported:

While one of the biggest draws for the PlayStation 3 game is the ability for users to create their own content, such freedom is providing a headache for the developer faced with moderating submissions for download.

Simply removing the offending content has sparked some complaints from the fan community, but Media Molecule has said that it is working on a solution to better communicate with users as to why levels have been deleted.

"We're reviewing the moderating system currently to provide better feedback on why levels are moderated," said a spokesperson for publisher Sony on the official forums.

"Primarily, any level that is reported using the grief tool will be checked over by a moderator, at which point they'll examine it in line with the EULA (End User Licence Agreement). If a level is found to be in violation of the EULA it will be moderated and you'll receive a message to that effect," explains the post.

"We're moving towards a system where additional information is given, however for the time being if you don't want your level moderating avoid anything unsuitable for users of all ages and copyright content."

Levels featuring content from games and other media including Metal Gear Solid, The Legend of Zelda, Batman and Scrubs have all been removed from the servers – with users complaining that they have spent hours creating content and have no back-up of their work.

Sony has said it hopes to inform users how they can tweak their creations to make them suitable, rather than be forced to delete the entire level.

For a good description of the delicate balancing act that Sony is facing with this, check out Izzy Neis' post from a couple of weeks ago. It would be more than awesome to see Sony adopt a user-centered approach to its TOS and copyright policies, one which better reflects the user participation and importance of UGC in the game's design...Not to mention its business model (see GameIndustry excerpt above). In the meantime, however, the vague threat of corporate copyright appears to be taking precedence, trampling over fair use and players' ability to engage creatively and critically with their culture.

Not that this is surprising, of course - as we've seen in various other games and digital cultural practices (mash-ups, machinima, etc.), a big part of UGC is the appropriation, integration and subversion of popular commercial cultural texts. And the industry as a whole is much more easily swayed by concerns about protecting corporate copyright than it has by individuals/players' potential IP and fair use rights. Then again, although Sony has taken some levels down for fear of copyright infringement, they also seem to be trying to figure out a way to moderate and manage UGC in a way that still fosters user feedback and player creativity. It's a fascinating case study in the problematic position of user-centered design within an impossibly stringent corporate copyright regime. It's also a great example of the social construction of technology, as the company attempts to respond to legal pressures and player demands/criticisms (despite an adequately developed policy on either copyright or player rights) in its shaping and management of a new technological/cultural form.

Alice in Promoland

Just a little "head's up" today on a new Disney marketing initiative that's slowly starting to gain momentum. You've probably heard all about the upcoming Disney/Tim Burton live action/CGI adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (which you can read more about here and here). The film won't hit theaters until 2010, but Disney is already slowly building buzz around the property's rebranding. While the original animated Alice in Wonderland is definitely a beloved Disney classic, it isn't exactly associated with the kind of cross-promotional hoopla that the company has perfected with properties like Monsters Inc. and the Disney Princesses. So it's not surprising to see that the company is using Burton's re-imagining of Lewis Carrol's original tale as an opportunity to give the property a promo-focused face lift.

Preliminary evidence of this campaign emerged this past September, with the (re?-)release of a new hardcover Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland book, illustrated by Mary Blair (*****Update: After just a tiny bit more hunting online, I found out that Blair was actually a longtime illustrator and animator at Disney, and was the one who produced the original concept artwork for Alice in Wonderland in 1951!!! Which explains the dark undertones of the Disney classic animated film, while also supplying a great historical/nostalgic anchor for the new adaptation. Thank you Wikipedia******). Blair's illustrations also happen to do a fantastic job of bridging the original Disney animated film's characters and style (which were of course ultimately much more cartoon-y and bright than Blair's concept art) with the darker and more gothic Tim Burton aesthetic. While it's too early to start identifying consistencies between the book and upcoming movie, I couldn't help but notice that the Mad Hatter in both versions now has wild red hair. I'm not sure how the stories themselves will compare (Burton seems to be staying truer to the Lewis Carroll story), but my interest is definitely piqued. I'm also wondering at the unlikely coincidence of Sesame Street's newest direct-to-DVD project Abby in Wonderland, which was also released in September.

Club Penguin and Social Sites for Kids

As I write up my thesis chapter on kids' virtual bedroom culture, I've gone back to dedicating large portions of my days to inhabiting and revisiting my case study worlds - BarbieGirls, Club Penguin, et al. I've found myself spending a particularly significant amount of time in Club Penguin - not only is the site in the midst of launching a new tie-in toy line and Nintendo DS crossover - but a number of very interesting events and new developments have taken place there of late, which I've found important to make note of. The snow-in at the dojo...the amazing community celebrations that occured around the site's 3rd anniversary and then around Halloween. The ongoing obsession with ninja sightings. All great stuff when it comes to studying emergent play vs. viral marketing in kids' virtual worlds. Anyhow, perhaps it's because I've been spending so much time there lately (in addition to the hours and hours and hours I've logged in this and my other case study sites over the past two years) that I was particularly disturbed by this new piece of alarmist nay-saying that featured in the Vancouver Sun over the weekend. It seems that a newly launched kids' online safety watchdog group in the US called CyberSafeNation has found some evidence that some kids' sites aren't doing enough when it comes to chat moderation and player monitoring. Unfortunately, instead of revealing their evidence and naming some specific examples of risky sites, they've decided to go after kids' virtual worlds in general...with Club Penguin positioned right at the centre of their campaign to have kids' access to online communication shut down altogether.

The folks over at Club Penguin have already responded to the accusation, pointing to the fact that their moderation system does effectively block out the types of inappropriate talk that CyberSafeNation has found in other sites. They also point out that they offer a SafeChat system that does already limit players to a selection of pre-approved and extremely G-rated chat sentences. And I have to say, that even after all this time, my position on Club Penguin's above-average safety and highly effective moderation system hasn't changed. Having now logged well over 80 hours in the site, observing kids' interactions and making note of any type of deviance, the vast vast majority of which is innocuous, I've never seen or heard anything that remotely resembles CyberSafeNation's description of "kiddie porn". That said, the same is certainly NOT the case for some of the other sites I've examined...Nicktropolis has basically turned into a cruising bar, and a segment of the BarbieGirls community is as obsessed with "dates" as it is with clothes. Although both sites have arbitrarily restricted players' ability to engage in critical discussion with one another, they have been amazingly lax when it comes to monitoring chat for inappropriate themes and conversations (which often take place in full view of other players) or at identifying potentially risky workarounds (the article mentions spelling out phone numbers to get around bans on putting in the numbers directly...the sites I'm studying haven't missed anything THAT obvious, but there are plenty of other, more subtle examples). CyberSafeNation's findings are reflective of a number of sites geared to kids that currently attract enormous population bases and expose/enable players to various degrees of inappropriate talk, propositions and behaviours (of course, I also advocate taking a much more nuanced and less alarmist approach to kids' "inappropriate" behaviours - but that's a topic for another day).

So why pick on Club Penguin? Well, the goal here is obviously to create a whole lot of widespread worry and panic about kids' virtual worlds, and since Club Penguin is so massively popular among kids (not to mention the high visibility and media-panic-responsiveness of parent company Disney) it's an easy target. What frustrates me most about all this is that I wholeheartedly support the need for a more concerted and widespread public debate around kids' VW's. We SHOULD be talking about the ways in which they're regulated (or not), designed, manipulated for commercial gain, but we also need to consider the ways in which these sites are used to construct meaningful communities of interest, provide a much needed space for social and peer group play, allow for player creativity and innovation, and give kids an opportunity to express themselves in a public forum. If previous digital games/media/culture debates have taught us anything, it's that polarized, essentializing and misinformed dichotomies do little more than kill legitimate debate about these issues and developments. An "all or nothing approach" that claims banning kids from online communication as the only acceptable solution not only accentuates (and very likely exaggerates) the risk while completely ignoring the benefits of virtual worlds and other types of CMC, but it also dismisses the importance and legitimacy of children's rights to free expression and to create their own cultural spaces and discourses. Let's not punish kids for our systemmatic failure to protect and promote their rights, interests and safety online. We've got a lot of options here beyond banning kids outright from a significant new form of culture and human communication...better (or even just 'some') regulation, corporate accountability and transparency, and the establishment of support systems that facilitate parental involvement are all viable possibilities that have never been given serious consideration.

It's also far time that advocacy groups, politicians and the press stop making sweeping and potentially dangerous generalizations about various forms of media and technology. Groups like CyberSafeNation can provide an absolutely invaluable (public) service by acting as watchdog and holding corporations accountable, but only if their findings are reported fairly and accurately. If certain games are more dangerous than others, isn't it important to report on precisely WHICH games are high risk and have poor moderation systems? Rather than stir up some potentially unrelated panic about a more popular site? I'm deeply disturbed by the lack of responsibility shown in the Vancouver Sun article...obviously the examples they cite aren't ones that were actually found in Club Penguin, but they were found somewhere. Why did feeding panic about Club Penguin take priority over protecting the kids who actually use the sites where the risky behaviours were recorded by CyberSafeNation? And how are parents supposed to be able to make informed choices without specific, timely and accurate information?