Persuasive and Serious Games
Copycat – A Persuasive Game
Final Report
Simon Cutajar
May 23, 2012
Introduction
0.1
Team
• Simon Cutajar
– Team Leader, Sound Design, Music Composition
• Casper N. Voigt
– Programming
• Anders Lystad Brevik
– Programming
• Simon Maurer
– Game Design
• Edda Rós Þorsteinsdóttir
– 2D Art
1
Chapter 1
CopyCat – A Persuasive Game
1.1
Persuasive Objectives and Game Objectives
Our group formed around the common theme of piracy, and after iterating through several
different subthemes, we finally settled on two distinct persuasive objectives in our game.
First of all, we intended to persuade the player that piracy is not theft. Secondly, we
intended to convey the message that the media industry hides and distorts the reality
of the situation for its own benefit. The game is meant to inspire critical thinking and
discussion about the topics being discussed in the game.
1.2
1.2.1
Design Decisions
Domain Knowledge
Before deciding on a particular stance that we wanted to take for piracy, we decided to
read further into the subject, including sources such as films and games. What will follow
is a brief discussion of the literature and sources that we took into account.
As can be seen from recent events in the media, piracy is a wide-ranging and often
debated topic. Piracy is present in the distribution of several different types of media,
such as music, films, games, books and in the near future, physical objects. However,
piracy isn’t necessarily a new phenomenon. (Bowen, 2011) describes the advent of the
Internet as a disruption, redefining the products and changes the way that businesses have
to think. Moreover, these disruptions have happened before, going all the way back to
Beethoven and sheet music. (Weinstein, 2007) states that the invention and subsequent
popularization of the printing press was similarly received by the industry powers of the
time.
We should first start out with a definition. What exactly is piracy? The RIAA1 does
not provide a definition on their website, but describes piracy as being “music theft” when
referring to music, and more globally as “online copyright infringement” (RIAA, 2012b).
1
Recording Industry Association of America
2
The IFPI2 refers to piracy as the “deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial
scale” and distinguishes between several different types of piracy, such as bootlegging
and counterfeit products (IFPI, 2012). In this report, we shall only be concerned with
digital piracy, which is the act of “making or distribution of copies of sound recordings
. . . without the permission of the rights owner”.
The RIAA claim that piracy has caused music sales in the U.S. to drop 47 percent,
from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion (RIAA, 2012a). They also refer to a technical report
by the IPI3 which claims that not only does the U.S. economy lose over “$12.5 billion in
economic output each year”, but also it loses over 70,000 jobs Siwek (2007). However,
several claims have been made, saying that not only does piracy not cause lost sales,
but it helps to boost them. Rovio, the company behind the popular video game Angry
Birds, prefers to treat its customers like fans, rather than users, and feels that it is a
waste of time to send pirates to court (Dredge, 2012). Markus “Notch” Persson, creator
of Minecraft, goes one further and claims that not only is piracy not theft, but also that
piracy has nothing to do with lost sales (enigmax, 2011). He asks that if piracy were a
lost sale, does a bad review of a game count as a lost sale? Moreover, (Masnick, 2012)
states that although the RIAA insists that the music industry is not faring so well, the
reality is that revenue (such as from touring) has tripled.
Several campaigns were made in an attempt to stop piracy, such as the Home Taping
is Killing Music campaign by BPI4 launched in the 1980s (Ohlsson Collentine, 2010), or
the campaign more commonly known as You Wouldn’t Steal a Car launched in 2004 by
the MPAA5 (Government of Singapore, 2004). Google has also tightened its policies on
copyright by directing copyright offenders to a video called YouTube Copyright School
(Roe, 2011). Lately however, the MPAA seem to have stopped calling piracy “theft”,
admitting that they should be more consumer oriented (Ernesto, 2012).
Another method that industries have employed in order to try and curb piracy is
by introducing DRM, digital rights management. This limits the use of the product by
authenticating with an online server before playing a game, or by limiting the amount
of times the product can be installed on different machines, for example. In 1998, the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed, which made the circumvention of DRM
systems illegal (Suehle, 2011). However, many people believe that by adding DRM to
their products, the industries have now made it harder for legitimate buyers to enjoy
their product. (James, 2003) claims that no matter how secure the DRM system is, the
general community has more resources and programming skills to eventually break the
system.
In (Nunneley, 2012), the games company CD Projekt provides an anecdote that he
feels explains why pirated didn’t pirate The Witcher 2 ; most pirates crack DRM systems
and copy-protection in order to get respect by their peers due to their hacking skills.
2
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
Institute for Policy Innovation
4
British Phonographic Industry
5
Motion Picture Association of America
3
3
The DRM-free version of The Witcher 2 was not pirated simply because there was no
challenge involved in cracking it. Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, states that adding DRM
to products like games only serves to inconvenience the actual customers, instead of protecting against piracy (Campbell, 2011). He instead insists that “piracy is almost always
a service problem” and that his goal was to “create greater service value than pirates”.
(Weinstein, 2007) insists that DRM is a doomed technology, and we will eventually look
back on it as a failed attempt to control entertainment. Paolo Coehlo, the Brazilian
novelist, approaches piracy as a method of ‘free marketing’. He worked with The Pirate
Bay to link their logo to his work and by encouraging people to download his work and
to buy a physical copy if they liked it, an initiative which was praised by his fans (Flood,
2012).
A trend that has recently picked up in the music industry, and is also starting to pick
up in other industries like books and games, is alternate distribution. Nowadays, with the
Internet at everybody’s disposal, it has become very easy for people to write songs, write
novels and make games and distribute them over the Internet without having to resort to
working through a middleman. Brad Turcotte, for example, distributes music for free as
a one-man band under the moniker Brad Sucks, and even though he distributes his music
for free, people still seem willing to donate money (Turcotte, 2012). Other sites such as
Jamendo6 and Bandcamp7 also encourage people to release their music under different
pricing models, such as pay-what-you-want or under a Creative Commons license. (Veen,
2004) writes that musicians state that they make more money if people buy merchandise
from a gig than they would if they bought an album from a record store. A recent trend
is the use of crowd-sourcing. (Braue, 2010) states that The Tunnel is a movie entirely
funded through crowd-sourcing and then given away for free over BitTorrent. Recent
successful examples in other media include the as-of-yet unnamed Double Fine Adventure
(Tito, 2012) which raised over $3 million, and the e-paper watch Pebble (Eddy, 2012)
which raised over $10 million, both projects crowd-sourced through Kickstarter8 .
To our knowledge, there are only two games that deal with piracy. The first one is
PirateCraft (Snowstorm, 2011), also created for the Persuasive and Serious Games at
the IT University of Copenhagen. In the game, you play as a pirate ship that must
attack other ships that represent entities from particular industries (for example: game
companies, record labels and film studios). Here, pirates are represented as individuals
that do not support the companies and creators, and since they do not buy the products,
they might drive them out of business.
The second game is the Free Culture Game (Molleindustria, 2008) by Molleindustria,
an Italian company that create political Flash games. The game showcases the dual role
that people can play by being producers or consumers. If producers are not fed ideas,
they turn into consumers, and if consumers do not get fed ideas by the vectorialist, they
turn into producers. Also, the vectorialist steals the ideas that are made by the producers
to feed them to the consumers. Essentially, the game can be played without the input of
6
http://www.jamendo.com
http://bandcamp.com/
8
http://www.kickstarter.com/
7
4
the actual player; and more than piracy, the game is more focused on the use of copyright,
since it advocates the use of Creative Commons (Creative Commons, 2002). It is also
interesting to see how the medium in which the message is being portrayed is also the
product that can be affected.
With all the mediums that are currently been affected by piracy, it is only a matter of
time until it spills over into a new medium; 3D printing. (Walters, 2012) claims that due
to the rise of 3D scanning and printing technologies, it is only a matter of time until the
3D models that are necessary to print out the objects are available. The Pirate Bay also
claims that like every other digital media, “companies will do their level best to create
DRM on these objects”, which will ultimately be broken.
1.2.2
Iterative Development
Although we kept the common theme of piracy throughout the development process, we
went through 2 game iterations before settling on the final, third version. This was due
to constant evaluation of the scope of the game, as well as its possible interpretation by
the players.
In the first iteration of our game (with the informal name of ßåñðż ), we designed the
game so that players would play the game from the point of view of the band. We decided
early on that we wanted to avoid taking a side, whether it was pro-piracy or anti-piracy,
and preferred to keep our position neutral. This meant that we wanted to showcase the
fact that piracy has both good sides and bad sides to it. This is done by displaying
random events to the player while playing the game. The decisions that the players take
will have effect on the environment and on the events that occur in the game. The players
can therefore try to use piracy to their advantage and to the band’s advantage, or they
can try and stop their music from being pirated (such as by voting in ACTA).
In the second iteration of our game, we shifted the player’s point of view to the music
industry. Here, players play as the music industry and must collect music in different
formats, which is produced by musicians, and distribute it to the customers that want
that particular format. The game starts in the 60s and progresses till it reaches the 00s,
and different formats are unlocked as the game progresses. The player starts out as being
able to distribute LPs, and later on, CDs and MP3s become available. In this case, the
message we wanted to portray was that the media industry should adapt to the needs of
the customers, rather than stick with an antiquated business model.
In our third and final iteration, we shifted the game’s point of view to a person pirating
music. In this iteration, the industry on the left distributes music to the customers, which
are situated on the right. The player can intercept the music to pirate it, and if he or
she does, the people at the top receive it, representing the people who pirate music. As
long as the player pirates music, both sections of people remain happy, while industry
gets angrier and angrier, signalling a contradiction to the player.
5
(a) First iteration, as a concept
(b) Second iteration, Distributia VII, as a prototype
(c) Final iteration, CopyCat, as a prototype
Figure 1.1: Iterative Development in Our Group
6
1.2.3
Theory and Influential Literature
First of all, one must argue the reasoning behind choosing a game to express an opinion
or idea. After the popularization of digital games, there was an attempt to apply the
concept of video games to areas outside of entertainment. Tooth Protectors (Johnson
& Johnson, 1983) for example, was one of the first attempts to use video games for
advertising a product. A more well-known example is the use of games in education,
and well known games include The Crystal Rain Forest (Sherston Software, 1992) and
Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (Brøderbund Software, 1996). (Zyda, 2005)
claims that the subsequent failure of the edutainment genre of games was due to the poor
combination of educational software and gameplay. Games were also used in other areas,
such as propaganda games and awareness-raising games.
One advantage that games as a medium has over other media is the immersion of the
player. Contrary to a book or a film, where the reader or viewer is simply following the
events as they unfold, the player takes direct control over what happens in the game. The
effect is therefore amplified in certain serious games, such as The Trolley Problem (Barr,
2011) and Hit the Bitch (Børn og Unge i Voldsramte Familier, 2009). This is particularly
in Hit the Bitch, where the game makes you do something horrible in order to better
understand the problem.
In (Johnson, 2006), we are introduced to Aristotelian rhetoric and the differences
between logos, ethos and pathos. While pathos is an appeal to the player’s emotions and
ethos is an appeal based on how credible the game’s creator is (similar to an appeal to
authority), I feel that logos, the appeal made through sound logic and proper reason,
should be the most used in serious games in particular. This is because from a scientific
perspective, a person cannot argue with hard, proven facts, especially if these facts are
backed up with evidence and sources.
1.2.4
Rationale Underlying the Game’s Mechanics and Designed
Experience
We attempted to keep the first iteration of our game as neutral as possible. Unfortunately,
making a game while trying to be as neutral is a difficult task. Frasca goes so far to
say that an ideologically neutral piece of software is impossible to make (Losh, 2006).
Moreover, having to cater for both pro-piracy and anti-piracy stances would have made
the scope of the game way too big for a team of 5 people to handle.
The basic premise of the third and final iteration is that the music industry is constantly selling music to customers, and as a player, you can choose to copy the music or
not. We first started off by making the player play as a pirate. The player is placed in
the center of the screen and can identify himself due to the pirate flag. We visualized the
music industry as being businessmen wearing shirts and ties, and to make sure that the
player associated the businessmen with people from the music industry, the background
contained elements of both music (a music stave) and money (dollar signs). On the right
side of the screen, we placed regular customers, people willing to buy music from the
7
industry. This made it easier for the industry to distribute music to its customers, simply
because the music only had to travel in a straight line. At the top of the screen, we placed
customers that pirate music.
The gameplay is quite simple in that it focuses on the choice that the player can make.
As a pirate, the player can choose whether he or she wants to copy the music or not.
This is done simply by intercepting the music. If a player does so, a copy of the music
is made and travels towards the pirate customers at the top of the screen. The original
is not affected, however, and still travels to the customers on the right hand side of the
screen. This is done mainly to outline the statement that piracy is not theft, as argued
by Markus “Notch” Persson (enigmax, 2011). The more the player continues to pirate
music, the angrier the music industry gets, and the harsher the statements it says get.
The player may also choose the dodge oncoming music in order to prevent piracy, but this
does not make the industry less angry. This was intentional; we wanted to highlight the
fact that even if piracy were to suddenly stop, the music industry would not be content.
We made sure that the statements that were said by the music industry weren’t
invented, but could be backed up with sources. The sources for each of the statements
are available on the game’s accompanying website9 . The use of IP addresses in some of
the later statements is intentional, as it draws attention to the common practice of music
industries trying to identify people based on their IP address, which doesn’t work (Musil,
2012). When the music industry is at its angriest, it actively threatens the player to quit
the game. However, the game only ends unless the player specifically chooses to, there is
no endstate to the game. This is also intentional, as we wanted to highlight the fact that
the individual has control over whether or not he or she pirates music.
Similar to the industry progressively getting angrier, there are two other progressions
in the game. The more music the player pirates, the happier the customers get (both
pirating customers at the top of the screen, as well as regular customers on the right
hand side of the screen), which is indicated by a growing number of smiley icons. This
is meant to jar with the players experience of the music industry getting angrier; why is
the industry getting angrier while the customers become happier? Also, the more music
the player pirates, the bigger the character gets, and towards the “end” of the game, the
player becomes as large as the screen so that he or she is able to intercept all the music
that the industry sends. This was done to illustrate the fact that the more people pirate,
the easier it becomes for them to pirate since they are so used to it now.
If the player decides to quit the game, a highscore list is presented. No sign of any
score is presented during the game, as CopyCat is not meant to be a traditional game
involving a game, but more of an experience. The player is not allowed to input his or
her name into the highscore list; rather, it is kept anonymous, as can be seen in Fig. 1.2.
This again drives home the point of anonymity when sharing files using torrents. It
also mirrors a point raised by (Nunneley, 2012), which states that people crack software
and games both as a challenge to bypass whatever DRM was used, as well as an opportu9
http://www.scutajar.com/files/games/copycat/index.html
8
Figure 1.2: Anonymized High Score List
nity to show off their capability. In a sense, the cracking scene is a competition in itself,
and we attempt to show this area of piracy in our highscore.
1.3
The Ethics of Our Game
More than the debate of whether or not piracy is good or bad, we didn’t want to take hard
stands on the topic and preferred to let players come to their own answers. We helped
them along by including sources to interesting articles (both for and against piracy) in
the website. During the game, we wanted to stress two main points, that piracy is not
theft, and that people should be critical about the messages the music industry portrays.
One point that may be raised is the representation of the music industry in the game.
In the game, they are never represented as happen, but start out neutral and progressively
gets worse when the player pirates music. Moreover, if the player stops pirating music,
than the industry doesn’t get happier, but remains at the same level. This is obviously
an oversimplification of the music industry, which we felt was necessary due to the large
size of the topic. The customers are also represented as not being critical of the situation,
they are simply happy to receive their music, another oversimplification.
A design choice was made to not add any links to money in the game (so players
wouldn’t have an amount of money as a score for example). However, the only sound in
the game is the sound of a cash register when the industry releases new music. This may
cause doubts for the player as to whether or not he is actually committing theft.
The target audience that we considered for our game was young adults from the ages
of 12 to 24, as well as people of all ages who pirate stuff. Our reason for choosing the age
range that we did was that it could be considering unethical to try and persuade children
to do something, whatever the persuasion (Rossiter, 1974).
9
1.4
Reflections on the Design Process We Adopted
The design process that we adopted turned out to be a strange mixture of the Values
at Play Approach and the Design, Play and Experience Framework. Note that since we
did not have any knowledge of these frameworks and process until after we had started
developing our game, we can only look back on our process and retrospectively decide
which process we seemed to have used more or less.
First of all, we decided on the values that we wanted to represent in the game. These
values varied depending on the iteration of the game, and shifted from neutrality to
factuality and openness. This was the discovery phase of the Values at Play Approach.
In the third iteration of our game, we constantly made sure that factuality and openness
were represented in the aesthetics and mechanics of our game, and we tried to verify
these values in the testing process (Mary Flanagan, 2007).
Although we did not consider our game to be a learning game, we did consider it to
be an informative and factual game, and therefore felt that some elements of theDesign,
Play and Experience Framework could be applied to the process we used. For the learning
layer, we felt that our game was not really an educational game, but more of an informative game. Therefore, this particular layer could be interpreted as “things we wanted to
inform the player” and “things that the player should feel informed about”(Winn, 2009).
The second layer is the storytelling layer, and while our game does have a small
progression, there is no direct story that the player should understand. Therefore, this
layer can not directly be applied to our design process. The gameplay layer, in my opinion,
is also not directly relevant, since the game is intended to be more of an experience than
a game. The player should only get a feeling of competition when the highscore screen
shows up, and is not aware of it while playing the actual game. Finally, the user experience
layer focuses a lot on the user interface and how the player engages with the game. We
didn’t want our game to feel too busy or detract from the experience of the game. At one
point, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of having pictures or videos instead
of text, trying to find a balance between having too little information and bombarding
the player with too much information.
A similar point we discussed was the inclusion of music in the third iteration of our
game. For the second iteration of the game, I had starting composing small snippets of
music which were representative of the decade that the player was currently in. However,
since we wanted the player to felt the connection between the game and a torrent client,
and to allow the player to play the game with his or her own pirated music in the
background, the decision was made to not compose music for the third iteration of the
game.
1.5
My Contribution to the Team
I was the team leader, sound design, music composer and I also helped out with the
programming.
10
As a team leader, I organized the meeting times and relevant topics of discussion
in the actual meetings, such as points that needed to be taken into consideration while
developing the game. I also posted relevant articles on our Facebook group that could
help strengthen the points that we were trying to make in the game. I was also responsible
for setting up meeting times with our assigned teaching assistant.
I was also involved in setting up and running the playtests for our game. I set up
two different questionnaires that would be filled in before the game was played, as well
as after it was played.
I also composed some music for the second iteration of the game, representing different
decades in the game. Here, I approached the music as being something that should not
interfere with the player’s experience, but rather add to it. I made sure that the music
I composed was relevant to its time period. For example, I composed the music for the
60s in blues/lounge style, while the music for the 90s was more in the style of Eurodance.
However, this iteration of the game did not end up being the final iteration, so I had to
scrap all the music made. Eventually, we decided on not having music in the third and
final iteration of our game, as discussed in Section 1.4.
I was also in charge of sound design for our game, and while we didn’t focus on it
too much for the first few iterations of our game, it became particularly relevant for our
third and final iteration. We discussed the ethics of having certain sounds being present
in the game (as can be seen in Section 1.3), as well as the gameplay considerations (such
as the excessive use of sounds that might distract the player from the game itself).
1.6
Game Evaluation Approach Adopted
Our first evaluation of the third and final iteration of our game was on the 25th of April,
2012, during the Prototypes Workshop session, where we demonstrated our game to the
class. During the demonstration, we asked the class to fill in a questionnaire that was
available on the Internet. The questions can be found in the Appendix in Section A.1.
We received a total of 19 replies to our questionnaire, and 79% of the respondents
identified the theme of the game as piracy. It was interesting to see that when asked
whether or not they agreed with piracy, 37% of respondents were neutral, while 47%
agreed with piracy. 84% of the respondents correctly identified the people on the left
as being part of the music industry in some way (whether it was the record labels or
producers10 ), while 79% correctly identified the player character in the game as being a
digital pirate of some sort. 74% correctly identified the people at the top of the screen as
being other people that pirate in some way, while 74% correctly identified the people on
the right as being regular consumers, people that bought their music.
Our second evalution of CopyCat was during the Demo Day on the 9th of May, 2012.
10
Interestingly enough, one respondent wasn’t sure whether musicians were included in this group or
not.
11
(a) Songwriters and artists are being hurt by
piracy
(b) If you pirate music, you do not support the
artists
(c) There is no quick fix to digital piracy
(d) Support the artist! Buy the CD!
(e) It is piracy, not overt online music stores,
which is our main competitor
Figure 1.3: Respondents’ reactions to the slogans we were using
This time, we approached the use of questionnaires in a different way by asking players
to fill in a questionnaire before playing the game, and then filling another questionnaire
in after playing the game. The questions asked in both questionnaires can be seen in the
Appendix in Section A.2.
12
6 people filled in both our pre-game questionnaire and our post-game questionnaire.
All of them admitted to pirating stuff from the internet, although 66% said that they
pirated on a regular basis (once a week or more). 33% of the respondents agreed with
piracy being unethical, 33% disagreed and the other 33% staying neutral. Notably, the
people that agreed with piracy being unethical went on to disagree with the statement
that it was sometimes ethical to pirate stuff. Also, the people that disagreed with piracy
being unethical went on to disagree with the statement that they would be inclined to
change their opinions if presented with facts that back up the opposing argument.
After the respondents played the game for an amount of time, they went on to answer
the post-game questionnaire. 66% of the respondents correctly identified the game as
being about piracy, while the rest of the respondents thought that the game was about
something more specific, like ACTA. We then asked the players what they thought the
message of the game was, and whether or not they agreed with it. It was interesting
to see that the messages that the respondents derived from the game were all different.
33% said that the game was specifically anti-piracy, while 17% said that the game was
specifically pro-piracy. However, regardless of the messages that the players felt the game
was trying to portray, 83% of the players wanted to follow up the experience they had
playing the game by asking further questions about piracy. It was also interesting to see
that the criticisms that the respondents posed to us were actually intentionally designed
(such as not having an endstate or by leaving control up to the player). Finally, 67% felt
that the game was not played in the most persuasive circumstances possible. One person
in particular mentioned that the game could be more persuasive if played when the user
is looking to download pirated content.
1.7
Conclusion and Future Work
We tried our best to make a game that teaches you to be critical about the messages that
are given by the music industry, as well as being informative about the current situation
if the player is interested. Admittedly, the topic of piracy is such a vast and abstract
topic that the group had trouble trying to discuss it in the context of the game, and we
had to iterate through several different subtopics before settling on one that was possible
to convey.
As can be seen in the evaluation results, most of the players felt that the game was not
played in the most persuasive circumstances it could have been played in. We identified
two particular approaches that could be taken with our game. The first approach is to
“gamify” a torrent client by adding our game to it. The second approach is to take an
anti-piracy stance and add the game to legitimate ways of obtaining music, such as iTunes
or Spotify.
13
Appendix A
Questionnaires
A.1
A.1.1
25th April Questionnaire
CopyCat – The Game
• What do you think the game is about?
• Who do you think the guys on the left are?
• Who do you think you represent in the game?
• What action/s do you think the player character is doing?
• Who do you think the guys at the top of the screen are?
• What do you think they’re doing?
• Who do you think the guys on the right are?
• What do you think they’re doing?
A.1.2
Piracy
• From a scale of 1 to 5, do you agree with piracy? (where 1 means Disagree completely
and 5 means Agree completely)
A.1.3
Slogans
Here is a list of slogans that are included in the game. From a scale of 1 to 5, do you agree
with these slogans? (where 1 means Disagree completely and 5 means Agree completely)
• Songwriters and artists are being hurt by piracy.
• If you pirate music, you do not support the artists!
• There is no quick fix to digital piracy.
• Support the artist! Buy the CD!
• It is piracy, not overt online music stores, which is our main competitor.
14
A.2
A.2.1
9th May Questionnaires
Pre-Questionnaire
• E-mail (We’ll use your e-mail to send another questionnaire later on. Your e-mail
will not be used for other purposes.)
• Do you currently pirate stuff from the Internet? (It could be anything from music,
books, software and games? )
– Yes
– No
• If you do, how often do you pirate stuff from the Internet?
– Every day
– 2-3 times a week
– Once a week
– Several times in a month
– Once a month
– Very rarely
• Do you think it is unethical to pirate stuff? (where 1 means Disagree completely
and 5 means Agree completely)
• Do you think it can sometimes be ethical to pirate stuff? (where 1 means Disagree
completely and 5 means Agree completely)
• How inclined are you to change your opinion about Internet piracy if you were to be
presented with facts that back up the opposing argument? (where 1 means Disagree
completely and 5 means Agree completely)
A.2.2
Post-Questionnaire
• E-mail (We’ll use your e-mail to send another questionnaire later on. Your e-mail
will not be used for other purposes.)
• What do you think the game is about?
• Do you think the game was played under the most persuasive circumstances it could
be?
– Yes
– No
• If not, where / when would that be for you?
15
Bibliography
Barr, P. (2011). The Trolley Problem. [Online Game]. http://www.pippinbarr.com/
games/trolleyproblem/TrolleyProblem.html.
Børn og Unge i Voldsramte Familier (2009). Hit the Bitch. [Online Game]. http:
//www.hitthebitch.dk/.
Bowen, J. (2011). “Beethoven as Bill Gates. A talk about change in the music industry
over the last centuries”. TEDxSMU 2011, Dallas, TX.
Braue, D. (2010). Crowd-funded thriller could be studios’ worst nightmare. APC. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://apcmag.com/crowd-funded-thriller-could-bestudios-worst-nightmare.htm.
Brøderbund Software (1996). Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? [PC].
Campbell, C. (2011). Gabe Says Piracy Isn’t About Price. IGN. Retrieved May 21, 2012
from http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1213357p1.html.
Creative Commons (2002). Creative Commons. Creative Commons. Retrieved May 20,
2012 from http://creativecommons.org/.
Dredge, S. (2012). Angry Birds boss: ‘Piracy may not be a bad thing: it can get us more
business’. The Guardian. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.
uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jan/30/angry-birds-music-midem.
Eddy, M. (2012). Record Breaking Pebble E-Paper Watch Tops $10 Million on Kickstarter.
GeekoSystem. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://www.geekosystem.com/pebblekickstarter-10-million/.
enigmax (2011).
Piracy is Theft?
Ridiculous. Lost Sales?
They Don’t Exist, Says Minecraft Creator.
TorrentFreak.
Retrieved May 21, 2012 from
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-theft-ridiculous-lost-sales-theydont-exist-says-minecraft-creator-110303/.
Ernesto (2012). MPAA: Piracy is NOT Theft After All. TorrentFreak. Retrieved May
21, 2012 from http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-piracy-is-not-theft-after-all120520/.
Flood, A. (2012). Paulo Coelho calls on readers to pirate books. The Guardian.
Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/01/
paulo-coelho-readers-pirate-books.
16
Government of Singapore (2004). Launch of Anti-Piracy Movie Trailer. Government
of Singapore. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/topNav/news/
pre/2004/Launch+of+anti+piracy+movie+trailer.htm.
IFPI (2012). What is piracy? IFPI. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.ifpi.
org/content/section_views/what_is_piracy.html.
James, D. (2003). Digital rights management & music - a barrier to creativity? Sound
on Sound. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug03/
articles/drm.htm.
Johnson, J. D. R. J. C. B. J. (2006). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Readings.
Longman Pub Group.
Johnson & Johnson (1983). Tooth Protectors. [Atari 2600].
Losh, E. (2006). Making things public: democracy and government-funded videogames
and virtual reality simulations. In Sandbox ’06 Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Videogames, pages 123 – 132. ACM.
Mary Flanagan, H. N. (2007). A game design methodology to incorporate social activist themes. In CHI ’07 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems, pages 181–190.
Masnick, M. (2012). RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing;
Reality Shows It’s Just The RIAA That’s Collapsing. TechDirt. Retrieved May
21, 2012 from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/15023417795/riaainsists-really-that-music-industry-is-collapsing-reality-shows-itsjust-riaa-thats-collapsing.shtml.
Molleindustria (2008). The Free Culture Game.
molleindustria.org/freeculturegame-eng.
[Online Game].
http://www.
Musil, S. (2012). IP address doesn’t ID individuals in piracy lawsuit, judge rules. CNet.
Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57427671-93/
ip-address-doesnt-id-individuals-in-piracy-lawsuit-judge-rules/.
Nunneley, S. (2012). CD Projekt âĂŞ Pirated games are not lost sales, DRM
is ‘a lot’ for legitimate users to put up with. VG 24/7. Retrieved May 21,
2012 from http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/19/cd-projekt-pirated-games-arenot-lost-sales-drm-is-a-lot-for-legitimate-users-to-put-up-with/.
Ohlsson Collentine, J. (2010). The Anti-piracy campaign that back-fired! Home Taping Kills. Collentine blog - Transparency, Social Media and Cultural Patterns. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://collentine.com/the-anti-piracy-campaignthat-back-fired-home-taping-kills.
RIAA (2012a). For Students Doing Reports. RIAA. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from
http://www.riaa.com/faq.php.
17
RIAA (2012b). What is Online Piracy? RIAA. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://
www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=What-is-Online-Piracy.
Roe, M. (2011). Google hires Happy Tree Friends to explain copyright to YouTube
uploaders.
89.3 KPCC – Southern California Public Radio.
Retrieved May
21, 2012 from http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2011/04/14/2862/googlehires-happy-tree-friends-explain-copyright-/.
Rossiter, T. S. R. J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persuasion: An attribution
theory analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(1):13–20.
Sherston Software (1992). Crystal Rainforest. [Acorn Archimedes].
Siwek, S. E. (2007). The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy.
Policy Report 188, Institute for Policy Innovation.
Snowstorm (2011). PirateCraft. [Online Game]. http://franticpixel.com/games/
piratecraft/.
Suehle, R. (2011). The DRM graveyard: A brief history of digital rights management
in music. opensource.com. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://opensource.com/
life/11/11/drm-graveyard-brief-history-digital-rights-management-music.
Tito, G. (2012). Tim Schafer Raises $1.3 Million - Update Again. The Escapist. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115746Tim-Schafer-Raises-1-3-Million-Update-Again.
Turcotte, B. (2012). About Brad Sucks. BradSucks.net. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from
http://www.bradsucks.net/about/.
Veen, J. (2004). How I stopped buying CDs and started loving music. A website by Jeffrey
Veen. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000515.
html.
Walters, R. (2012).
The Pirate Bay declares 3D printed “physibles” as the
next frontier of piracy.
ExtremeTech.
Retrieved May 21, 2012 from
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/115185-the-pirate-bay-declares3d-printed-physibles-as-the-next-frontier-of-piracy.
Weinstein, L. (2007). Memo From the Future: Why DRM is Doomed. Lauren Weinstein’s
Blog. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000209.
html.
Winn, B. M. (2009). Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education,
chapter The Design, Play, and Experience Framework, page 15. IRMA.
Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 34(9):25
– 32.
18