For my final project I would like to contribute to the online game site Playcrafter. The site is an open platform that people can create their own games and creations to share with others. I will create my own game to share and write a short paper discussing about the website’s experience and my process of making the game. The two out of the three requirements for the project that I will manly focus on are Sharing and Remixing. I may touch a little bit on Collaborating between site users. The following main points and quotes I plan/consider to put in my paper are:

- site and users provide tools and game pieces for creating and remixing new games

-users build on the platform for entertainment = higher value

-“large communities of users and developers participate in value creation” (Tappscott & Williams 75)

-“can easily create their own casual web games and share them with their friends” (quote from Playcrafter site)

- job openings for software engineer; allow users the opportunity to nominate themselves

-forum board and messages allow users to contact each other and collaborate

- take games to another level – artistic, storytelling..etc.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Final Project Paper

♦Shark Land♦

Open platforms on the web 2.0 allow people to remix, share, or collaborate. It encourages people to use the tools on the platforms to create new and original works that can be shared with the world. Online game sites are also one of the open platforms that encourage user participation to build on the site and its quality. An example is Playcrafter, an online game site that is launched in July 2008 by ZipZapPlay Inc. The site allows users to create new games using the tools provided by the site’s staff and users such as game pieces, music, backgrounds, and other graphics. These games made by users can be shared with anyone in the world including friends, registered and unregistered people. Users can remix or change other people’s games if they think some changes would improve the games. The forum board on the site is used for users to connect with each other and create opportunities to collaborate, such as forming a group to create a game.
 

Playcrafter tool box with game pieces, backgrounds, music...etc.

Playcrafter is a site where people can “easily create their own casual web games and share them with their friends” (Jobs). Users build on the platform for entertainment through participation, self selection, and the process of creating and sharing. The tool box used to create games in a DIY way contains game pieces, characters, backgrounds, music, and other kinds of graphics that are created by other users and the staff. Users can create new game pieces to be shared and sold on the site so that other people can choose to use it for free or buy it with pips (the website’s currency/points). The staff would pick the best pieces made by users to be included in the tool box. Some of the pieces in the tool box need to be bought with pips but most of the pieces are free to use.  The way users are able to create new pieces and graphics that contributes to the site’s ever-growing tools shows how a “larger creative community of contributors and editors is the route to higher quality” (Tappscott & Williams 75). The staff allows users to participate in the production of games rather than having the staff or higher-ups control everything. This makes the creations in the site more original and valuable with many different contributors. The site’s quality increases as more users’ creations are submitted so that people can have more works to remix from. Users may self select themselves to become a major contributor in a specific task. An example is the user Edgewing who creates a large amount of music for the tool box, thus increases the quality and value to the music section with more selections that many users like. This open platform can encourage users to share their creativity and skills with others while having a chance to remix other’s works or collaborate with people.

While being able to remix with game pieces and creations made by other people, users of Playcrafter are also able to remix other’s games if the original creator allows it. After developing my own game, there were a few options I have to choose before publishing my game, Shark Land, onto the site. One of the questions is ‘Do you allow other people to copy your game?’. Not fully understanding what that means, I chose ‘yes’ to see what would happen. A couple of days after my submission, I start to see copies of my game where other users decide to edit or make a few changes to the game to make it more appealing or build on my original ideas. One of the users who have made a copy even change the original name ‘Shark Land’ to ‘Shark World’, which is a better depiction for my settings and environments in the game. The user also adds a more detailed description of the game. It lets other people, who may be skimming through the list of games; know more about the game and how it is played before playing. The fact that a game can be copied, built on or edited continuously shows how “not one person can take credit for what gets created” (Shirky 50) in open source. It would make the work better and valuable as many participants remix it instead of a work created by one participant. This in a way is similar to sharing one’s work with other people by allowing others to remix or edit it.

Left to right - my original game, copied first time, and copied second time

Users on Playcrafter can share or connect with other members by comments or using the forums for discussion. While playing other people’s games, users can comment on or rate the game. Advices or suggestions may be exchanged with comments to give the creator some feedback. Some users may have ideas for a sequel to a game that they would want to share with the creator or work together with. Users can also email the game or embed it on their own sites/blogs to share with other people. This allows the games to be shared with anyone that does not visit or know the site, who may be interested in joining. The forums that connect users with discussion topics include: guidance and aid in creating games or using the site; ideas or suggestions to improve the site; or forming group projects with other people. Having a forum board included in the site helps people learn further or share tips/ideas about the process of game creation. They also have the chance to aid others or seek for help. The quality of the site can also be improved by users that give ideas or suggestions to the staff. Users that have an idea for a game in mind but needs help from others to fulfill it may seek for teammates to create a high quality game beyond one person’s knowledge and skills.

Option panel under every game

Playcrafter is a platform where people can create games using other people’s game pieces and creations. The pieces, graphics, and music that are added or shared on the site continuously build the platform’s value and quality. User participation and self selection improves the site’s originality and provide others with more selections to be remixed. Allowing others to edit and change your game would further improve it since other people may have thought of better solutions or ideas that you did not think of. The site’s forums serve as a space for users to connect and share ideas, solve problems/technical difficulties, or collaborate with one another.  The works on the site can be shared easily and quickly through email, personal websites, or blogs.

Works Cited

“Jobs”, Playcrafter, 2009. <http://www.playcrafter.com/#destination=WelcomeCenter>

Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams. 2008. Wikinomics; How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Expanded Edition. New York: Portfolio.

Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Come Everybody. New York: Penguin.

Screenshot: in the middle of making level 1

Screenshot: making of level 7

The traditional media filtering is mostly controlled by professional publishers that decide what should/should not be published. Since broadcasting on television, radio, and newspaper are expensive, there are limits to what can be published. Therefore, the “good work has to be sorted from the mediocre in advance of publication” (97). I think this strategy of filtering before publishing does not give much choice to the audience since they would have to rely on the judgment/choice of the publisher for the best quality of work. The viewers don’t get to participate in the filtering so it sometimes creates some bias since television companies may think a show would not be popular/liked by the public. Television programs may cancel or censor a show from being broadcasted, which may cause disappointment in audiences that want to watch it. The internet on the other hand can now ‘replace’ the television since websites allow people to find shows or programs they want to see such as on Megavideo, TVlinks, Veoh TV, or YouTube. Now the audience is able to control and filter what they want to see with these open platforms.

Today, mass amateurization where anyone can publish anything makes filteration by professionals impossible with the large amount of material posted everyday on the internet. Filtering in new media production changed from being ‘filter, then publish’ into ‘publish, then filter’. When a video is posted on a site such as YouTube, people can rate, favorite, comment, or flag the video. Ratings help the audience know whether the video is interesting or not and can encourage people to watch it. Flaging a video would let the audience know that some content in the video might be offensive or inappropriate for certain ages of people.  These actions of using such tools like ratings and flaging show how the public has been able to take part in filtering media that gets posted. Comments on videos allows viewers to ask questions or discuss the issues or content in the videos, whether if it’s something that interests people; cultural differences/misunderstandings; advices on certain topics; or even ‘how did you do that’ questions. These “conversations that forms around shared photos, videos, weblog posts and the like” (99) allow people to critique works, share information, give suggestions…etc. After posting my food instructable on the Instructables site, I was surprised by how much feedback I got from other users. Some people even suggested different ingredients to put while others asked questions or gave encouraging comments. This shows how open platforms can “offer the kind of advice, feedback, and encouragement that characterizes communities of practice” (102).

Flickr is an example where users can connect through photo sharing and information gathering. It changed the “old order of group activity [...from] ‘gather, then share’ into ‘share, then gather’” (Shirky 35). This kind of shows a change in social relationships since people would find others that they can connect with through tags without searching in different places to find people that share similar interests, experiences, or point of views. This is the idea of how we can use the web to “reach the people [we] want without having to broadcast [our] messages to everybody” (33). On flickr, users are even able to share photos of events, natural disasters or big happenings such as the London transit bombing. The photos taken by individuals at the place of the events are able to provide more information/coverage, evidence, or experience to the world than professional news reporters or photojournalists. It saves the cost of having reporters or journalists to travel to places. People that are present at the locations can easily record down their personal experiences and situations faster, which show more value to the audience. This new way of reaching out to people through sharing on the web seems like a much easier way to form groups that are cooperative and committed.

The difference between sharing and cooperation is that sharing allows individuals more freedom and choice to share or contribute, while cooperation involves “changing [one’s] behavior to synchronize with people” (49). It is easier for people to share since they can choose whatever content and how much of it they want to provide to others. When working with a group of people face to face, it is difficult to agree with things so it is usually decided with a majority vote or breaking up the tasks like in organizations. When working in groups, I always feel that I have to synchronize with the people in order to come up with an agreement. It gets harder when the group is large and I find myself sticking to a couple of the people in the group that I can communicate better with. This is just like how the Birthday Paradox shows that as the group gets larger, the faster the group complexity grows; making connections more complicated. It is much like having dinner with a large group of people where it is hard to hear the people at the far sides, so everyone ends up talking to the people that are the nearest to them. The web is able to solve these problems in group work with open source platforms that people can connect with others through sharing.

Facebook provokes users to participate within the web space with its many applications such as wall posts, status, photo albums, tagging, quizzes…etc. When I first encountered the site, I was surprised and a bit overwhelmed by the number of tools and applications that were available. It seems that some of the applications are similar to what was originally offered in specific sites. For example, the Fluff friends app where you can ‘own’ a pet is similar to something like neopets. The ability to upload full photo albums from one’s browser is similar to (and an improvement from) servers like photobucket, which only allowed one to do one or limited uploads in the past. The quizzes and games applications also seem to be taken from sites that provide online quizzes and games. Many people would post their quiz results on blogs/websites/forums. But with this added application on facebook, it is possible to share these results with people faster. Users may feel connected through these results from quizzes or games. It may also make others want to participate in the platform and share their results. These applications on facebook seem to be mashups of tools and apps from previous websites. It increases the visibility of facebook since the applications can be linked to other places such as websites and blogs. This is a good example of how “innovation will proceed [...] as services/components are constantly remixed and improved” (189), since facebook is able to improve some applications by mixing components together from different sites.

Mashups of tools and components of search engines like google and yahoo creates new possibilities for services and tools. The creation of map applications in these sites allow searching to be more narrowed and organized/classified, much like the Peoplefinder . By combining the classified sections of newspapers/magazines with online maps, people are able to search for many things precisely such as locations to certain places, restaurants, houses for sale…etc. With these new tools/services that combines other existing ideas; new applications can emerge and improve the quality and value of sites. Shopping sites like ebay and amazon also improve their site quality by allowing users to search for better deals of products so that people can compare items being sold. People would trust the sites more due to this service since they would believe that the site is trustworthy and dependable by letting them select what they want to find/customizing their searches. This is perhaps a form of radical trust where users are able to view what they want to see, whether if it’s good deals, bargains, or any information on items.

Production before depended on markets or firms to produce goods since they had the machinery and services to make the products, which were at higher costs. Now people can self-produce things such as posters, CDs, newspapers, or any other item that can be made with digital aid at lower costs. Just like how Tapscott and Williams note that “people around the planet can cooperate to make just about anything that requires human creativity, a computer, and an Internet connection” (68). The power of collaboration allows people to produce things in larger quantities and higher qualities. Wikipedia shows how much information can be gathered and produced by individuals to make a space that contains fast growing numbers of articles. The quality and value of the space increase as more pages of info are added or edited. It would have been unthinkable for past markets or firms to create such a large and worldwide encyclopedia.

By taking the collaborating method used in Wikipedia and applying it to some jobs or businesses may be a good way for work to become more enjoyable and less stressful for workers. Since people would voluntarily work on a project they enjoy (such as writing/editing articles on Wikipedia). This would be a great way to appoint the right person to the right task. Work can also be less stressful by breaking tasks into ‘bite-sized pieces’ through collaboration. The example of The California Source Textbook shows how education can be developed and easily accessed through open source materials so that everyone can have a chance to learn. An interesting site (which also has a Creative Commons license) that provides free software and resources is a good example for aid in open source education through collaboration. I believe that it serves as a resourceful place for people and students to obtain tools that can aid in the production of projects with no cost of buying various programs.

One of the obvious downsides to peer production and open source is that “anybody can claim to be an expert on any subject” (74), which can become vandalism by creating false information such as in Wikipedia. But there would always be inaccuracy and rumors in many things such as the television, news, books, magazines…etc. that are not self-published. People would always have to face the fact that filtering the information presented in any form would be needed.

Peer production can also let people gain more experience for jobs or skills. Many people like me learned the basics of design through information on the web, such as image/photo manipulation, computer graphics, or web design. For example, there are many tutorials that people can follow and study upon to become more skillful and experienced in areas such as design, cooking, or even fixing items. These knowledge provided by other people can be beneficial to one’s future goal in a study or job. Thanks to the many people that provided Photoshop tutorials, it was able to help me learn the usage of the program faster.

Websites, blogs, and wikis play a part in the interaction between people and allow them to participate through creating, sharing, and collaborating. One can create websites or forum boards and let people join to participate in discussions/sharing interests, uploading their works/art/writing for people to use/remix/critic, sharing multimedia or other contributions. The web 2.0 encourages people to become open and share ideas, knowledge, projects, or entertainments through sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, livejournal …etc. As the large quantities of entries, videos, and pages uploaded by users pile up, the more value and resourceful the sites become. These open sources also include tags that make the sites easier to access and surf through with many categories.

Tags are similar to a filing cabinet or book/binder with tabs that aids the user to find information under specific categories. The usage of tags on the web provides more efficiency in gathering information while also creating a data base that becomes shared and used by others. The Del.icio.us site for bookmarking with tags allows one to browse through other people’s useful and recommended sites. In a way, it kind of allows the information to ‘find you’ since the tags would lead you to find the information you want or discover new things that you didn’t expect. Tags make searching faster through the collaboration of people that contributes their own findings and information in the large open source.

The act of collaboration on the web has the ability to “add value to larger-scale economic systems in ways that were previously impossible” (Tappscott & Williams 33). In Wikinomics, Tappscott & Williams states that collaborations in the past were mostly in smaller scales such as associating with the people you know (family, friends,or co-workers).  By being able to connect to people all over the world on the web, it provides more opportunities for gaining more ideas/knowledge, exposure, and peering. One can start a business by creating a site that can be accessed internationally to obtain wider audience and customers. People can gather from different areas and collaborate in projects or business. Acting globally seems to be a good method that the industry and business can take advantage of.

The example of the Goldcorp in Wikinomics depicts that collaborating globally leads to a greater success in industries or business by obtaining and gathering more information or skilled people from other places, that are beyond their own value and capabilities. Companies would usually keep their resources or intellectual property protected due to competition. However, being able to open their doors to the world would benefit their business since “companies that make their boundaries porous to external ideas and human capital outperform companies that rely solely on their internal resources and capabilities” (Tappscott & Williams 21). Companies and businesses can also associate with their customers closely through websites so that “customers can see the true value of products better” (21) through images, descriptions, prices and such. There are many online advertisements to get people’s attention other than in newspapers/magazines since companies would need to adapt to the Net Generation’s digital life. Product reviews online also allow both customers and companies to know more about their products. I think this is a good way for both sides to work together and help improve on businesses.