Club Penguin shut down in March of 2017. It was one of the first online worlds I had been exposed to as a kid, and although I hadn’t played regularly for years by the time the site was taken down, it was still a bizarre feeling to know that all of the digital items I had unlocked or bought in the game were gone. Poof. Non-existent.
This connects to the reason why I prefer physical books over e-readers; I don’t feel as though I truly own books when they are in a digital format. In fact, when e-readers were first released, commentators predicted a quick demise for the printed book, yet…it hasn’t happened. We value things that we own and we see them as extensions of ourselves (source).
How much meaning do we assign to something that is not physically real?
Artwork from ‘Ready Player One‘
A study published by Ozgun Atasoy and Carey Morewedge in the Journal of Consumer Research documents this relationship between ourselves and physical objects. 86 visitors of a tourist destination had their photo taken with an actor dressed as a historical character. Afterwards, half of the visitors were emailed a digital copy of the photo right away, whereas the other half were handed a physical copy. The visitors were then asked how much they were willing to pay for the photo, with the proceeds going to charity. Those who received a physical photograph were willing to pay more, stating “I feel like I own it” and “[I] feel like it is mine” in relation to the physical copy compared to the digital version.
Digital Property
A city built in Minecraft
Digital goods, in most cases, are relative to their physical counterparts. There are digital clothes, furniture, and houses in video games, among other things. There are digital downloads of books and movies that are also available for purchase in a physical form. Do we own these artificial items in the same way we own a “real” physical shirt, couch, or apartment? Technically, yes, although we may not feel like we do, due to the lack of a physical entity going along with that sense of ownership.
The idea that we can own something is one that children grasp by the age of two, and by six are able to place extra value on an object simply because it is theirs (source). So, we come to understand the concept of ownership very quickly, and it plays a large part in the rest of our lives.
Because of this, society promotes physical things over “unreal” ones, i.e. real-life experiences and investments over video games and in-game purchases.
So, then, are digital experiences and goods of a lower quality than physical ones?
We consider climbing a non-virtual mountain to be more of an accomplishment than climbing a virtual one. We acknowledge building a business in the real world to be more difficult than in a game. Therefore, ownership is not the only factor at play here, but also the amount of effort and time a task takes.
Perhaps in the near future, technology will advance to the point where digital activities and items rival that of physical ones, but for that to happen, artificial experiences would have to become much more immersive.
“It could always all be unreal – how could you ever tell otherwise? You took it on trust, in part because what would be the point of doing anything else? When the fake behaved exactly like the real, why treat it as anything different? You gave it the benefit of the doubt, until something proved otherwise.”-Iain M. Banks, Surface Detail
Further watching:
Should a virtual reality player be arrested and possibly imprisoned for crimes they commit in a virtual reality game? These are questions that people are asking. This is a live example of George Orwell’s 1984 narrative put into action; in this dystopian novel, citizens are punished for their
A vast majority of the 7-billion people on our planet would not kill even when ordered to do so. The amount of ammunition wasted during war from trained U.S. soldiers who deliberately shot high or low to not kill is staggeringly high. On average, in a squad of ten men, three would fire their weapons in combat. In WWII, only 15-20% of soldiers fired at the enemy. Now, this statistic did increase a bit for the Korean and Vietnam wars, but even during the Civil War, there were instances in which the winner of a battle was determined through a yelling match, not shots fired. In the animal kingdom, most animals do not kill members of their species, with very few exceptions. Like animals, we confront each other via intimidation, and while the other may fight or flee, they very rarely fight to the death.
Generally speaking, the living room of a house is the designated area for social gathering. Equipped with a couch, a television, maybe some chairs and a coffee table, this household space, though morphing slightly over the years, has generally remained the same. In fact, the last greatest change to the classic living room was most likely the addition of the television, and now, in 2016, we’re about to gain a new groundbreaking addition.
For most users, the “cool factor” is the content, not so much the technology. The better demo presented to buyers will be dubbed the better technology (which can be a bit of a downer for those coming from a strictly tech-based background).
This concept plays a huge role in the upcoming technologies of virtual reality. With 2016 rapidly approaching, it’s time we make another push. It seems as though VR has been on the cusp of going mainstream for years now…why hasn’t it? With futuristic films like Tron and The Matrix, the public is nothing less than excited for the technology to become available. The difference is, 2016 is offering us new and improved technology we never had before.
Economists predict the VR movement will be the 7th largest media/technology revolution in history; right up there with mobile phones and the internet. (Conversely, writers have been predicting this for centuries.)
The Brain Vomit 