Mainstream failure of SL & Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

[Coffee Pancake]

43 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

If I were a game (or game-not-a game) developer, I would likely disregard the Maslow Hierarchy as it was an idea

There is no need to consult psychology to get people to play a game. If your game doesn't have a sufficiently enjoyable hook, no one will play it and your game wont be fun. That failure can be described in psychological terms.

Making games people want to play with engaging mechanics is surprisingly difficult, this is why most games tend to borrow and combine known good mechanics from other successful games, which makes gaming a very incestuous space.

Part of our problem is that people come here from games, this brings expectations that we utterly fail to meet. Common control schemes, tutorial mechanics, provision of base or initial purpose .. which brings us neatly to Maslow's Hierarchy.

[MissSweetViolet]

14 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

If you think any of what I have said implies me thinking Second Life should turn into a non fun competitive game, you have not only missed my point entirely, but have also not even grasped the point of what the whitepaper I linked was talking about or even what, I can imagine, Coffee is talking about.

I will compare Second Life with a game (oh no, the horror). Second life's first experience for the average new user is like a person spawning at the starting zone of WoW with 100 npc's around them with quest markers over their head and the developers decided to leave the user to work out which of those 100 quest giving npc's gives the very first quest to start the main storyline. Then when they work it out and start their story, they have to log-out in a bush because all the PvPers will kill them as soon they log back in as the devs decided not to include a safe zone in to 'rest' at.

As it stands now any new person coming into second life lands at welcome island does a simple tutorial of 'this is how you move' and 'this is how you dress'. There is NOTHING in the past or present welcome areas that shows a person interactively WHAT they can do, HOW they can survive (i.e. make money) and WHERE they can go or how to get there. (The new one still stops way short). It is an abrupt and harsh end in the form of, here is the Mariana Trench now learn how to swim or is identical to the aforementioned analogy of WoW with 100 quest givers.

I in no post here or in any other thread have ever said SL should have a point system, be competitive, turned into a game at the exclusion of others for new users to be retained. I have, however, said that part of the new user experience should allow people to SEE (give direction and a goal) that fun games can be made and played in Second Life should they wish to peruse that as part of their adventure in SL. Yay, LL finally listened and added Laser Tag. Shame it wasn't a little more use of NPC's and experience tools but beggars cant be choosers.

I think a lot of the problem in this thread and others is that when someone mentions or compares a game with second life or suggests that Second Life adopt the minutest game system, certain individuals instantly think that people are suggesting to turn SL into a game. Every person has their own need when playing a game or a creative engine like second life that is there to make them stay. A lot of that, in my opinion, does fall into those two bottom sections of that pyramid, just as the ones above also do.

I remember a thread not to long ago where some where suggesting to add more scripting ability to create better more functional games in second life. Such a thing would not affect any person that didn't want to create said games or play said games in second life, but would have profoundly impacted the fun and retention of people who want to play or create games in second life. All heck broke loose as people, just as now, jumped up and down saying how dare people suggest a thing as would be turning second life into a game, when in fact it wasn't and would never affect those people yet, would meet the needs of those specific user types that wanted that aspect to improve.

I agree with you this is the main issue.

As for others reading, I don't think anyone is stating that it should be turned into an online game as one would typically think of it or that gaming things should be forced on users as a whole, at least I know I'm not. I wouldn't want to be locked it to that in my SL experience, even as someone who identifies as a gamer outside of SL.

But the fact is SL currently doesn't do a super great job at teaching others how to find the type of content their looking for. So if someone came wanting to game, there's actually a fair amount of places they could find that type of content to check out, but if they never find it, they get bored. That's actually not just with the topic of gaming, but finding any kind of topic/content on SL, especially the more niche it is, it likely exists in most cases, but if the user can't find it....well, they'll ether spend awhile trying to find it till they do, or likely leave and find it elsewhere. I think for many new users, that basic need is simply getting started in the first place and finding the content their looking for.

[Drayke Newall]

31 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The overwhelming majority of people who start SL leave almost immediately.

This is true of all virtual worlds, we're just slightly better at holding on to a fraction of a percentage more. (This is almost certainly due to social momentum more than anything systemic or inherent to the platform. Having a friend here first significantly lowers the barrier to entry more than all other factors combined.)

Our needs .. as in the tiny minority who stay, have been met. Yours, mine, everyone in this thread. But we're the outliers.

 

I really can not overstated this enough. We are not representative. At all.

If I had to guesstimate numbers, way less than 0.1% last more than a single session here.

The massive turn over is in large part the driving force behind LL's two decade quest for "better people". They have solid numbers demonstrating the core "virtual world" concept's popularity, but something is so fundamentally wrong that literally no one stays.

Second Life is failing to achieve growth and has been failing pretty consistently since the initial bubble.

I think the easiest way to see how many people actually leave second life is through login numbers and sign ups. I dont have the latest numbers but in 2019 Firestorm said that roughly 540,000 unique logins happened consecutively on their viewer each month from 2017-2019 so say 600,000-650,000 for all viewers combined.

If we assume those 650,000 are the same people every month +/- the ones that login and never return it sounds pretty good. But then you have to take into consideration that from LL own admission there is over 350,000 new accounts created every month. Now even if say 50,000 of those were alts of existing accounts (and that's a stretch), that leaves 300,000 new registrations every month yet, the unique logins stay the same. Not to mention that by LL own admission there are over 70million accounts made ever.

So if the unique logins isn't increasing but 300,000 new accounts are created every month, that is an ENORMOUS retention problem.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Drayke Newall

[Luna Bliss]

40 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

f you think any of what I have said implies me thinking Second Life should turn into a non fun competitive game, you have not only missed my point entirely, but have also not even grasped the point of what the whitepaper I linked was talking about or even what, I can imagine, Coffee is talking about.

No, I I think making more little games @ these welcome areas is a lost cause. You may think you have some new good n better ones but I see them as lacking.

There's a saying about doing something repeatedly, failing, yet expecting a different result. All the focus on welcome areas fits into this -- new welcome areas with little games (however innovative you think yours are) is not the solution.

Stressing mentorship is a step in the right direction.

Providing support for educational areas so as to bring in more people from these areas in 1st life is a good direction (I believe they're already doing that to a degree, and lowering the cost again for college regions again was a positive move).

Focusing on the arts, advertising in these 1st life venues, stressing the imaginative and artistic capabilities of SL (via advertising and connections between 1st and 2nd life people involved in them).

Focusing on crude sex....just NO.

Coffee's ideas of focusing on SL as a way to learn about relationships -- YES  (through therapy venues and those in 1st life involved in personal growth though and NOT with general advertising to the public).

In other words, let's focus on people out in the world and bring them in, and stop  focusing so much on those who just happen to wander in here while bored on the internet.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Luna Bliss

[Coffee Pancake]

13 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

But the fact is SL currently doesn't do a super great job at teaching others how to find the type of content their looking for.

This is a fundamentally incorrect assumption.

No one comes to SL looking for something. They ask "What can I do here?"

People already here can't find the stuff they want.

[Drayke Newall]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, I I think making more little games @ these welcome areas is a lost cause. You may think you have some new good n better ones but I see them as lacking.

So tell me, please as I am at a loss. What little games do you think I am suggesting people play at the welcome area? I cant understand how a tutorial in your mind is a game.

[MissSweetViolet]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

This is a fundamentally incorrect assumption.

No one comes to SL looking for something. They ask "What can I do here?"

People already here can't find the stuff they want.

I came looking for something, I needed a social outlet and wanted to be able to make custom looks with an avatar. It was the whole reason I joined SL, so that is not true of every user.

[Paladin Tyran]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

No one comes to SL looking for something.

in some cases, not true. 15 years ago, i was in school, and some guy told me "you know there is a game where you can have sex and make real money" (every school boy wet dream - sex and money i guess). So i made an account, and dedicated my next  6 months for sex and money.First lesson: with a noob look and inventory none was possible. so, too achieve that, i had to  learn better english (europe here) to communicate, learn photoshop to make skins, after  was blender for meshes.. etc... the slex part was easy and became obsolete after 6 months, and there were never more than 100-200 USD per month, but i still try to be creative and learn new things. Made a lot of friends, done a lot of things and my goals are now in other directions. but without those words from a guy in school, and my desire for sex and money i will not be here.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

6 minutes ago, MissSweetViolet said:

I came looking for something, I needed a social outlet and wanted to be able to make custom looks with an avatar. It was the whole reason I joined SL, so that is not true of every user.

Same exact reason I joined, too. Less for the social, more for the avatar customization. I'm the type of person to spend a good 2 or more hours in character creation in every game I play and will download a ton of mods to push it even further, if able. A guildmate is the one who nudged me like um, SL might be just the thing for you. Join me in there and I'll show you around. Once I saw the shopping - RIP free time. 😂

[Coffee Pancake]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

here's a saying about doing something repeatedly, failing, yet expecting a different result. All the focus on welcome areas fits into this -- new welcome areas with little games (however innovative you think yours are) is not the solution.

Here's the thing .. you're arguing for the status quo.

You want no change or deviation from anything LL have done or have been doing for the last 20 years.

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Stressing mentorship is a step in the right direction.

Mentorship was a failure that did not increase participation. Mentorship will be a failure on those terms again for the exact same reasons.

The benefits a mentorship program brings are expressed in other areas of the platform.

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Providing support for educational areas so as to bring in more people from these areas in 1st life is a good direction (I believe they're already doing that to a degree, and lowering the cost again for college regions again was a positive move).

SL for Education is a disaster. It has always been a disaster. It's expensive to operate and has to compete with opensim.

The cross over from educational users to regular users is insignificant. 

Who hangs out at school for fun? 

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Focusing on the arts, advertising in these 1st life venues, stressing the imaginative and artistic capabilities of SL (via advertising and connections between 1st and 2nd life people involved in them).

Again, a complete wash. Art installations are typically abandoned and expensive to keep up.

What happens when the money runs out and an art sim closes .. people get upset and LL have to pick up the tab (which raises the cost burden for all of us). No one was going to look at  the art (or contributing to keeping it around). No one cared about the art. Even after LL starts paying for it, no one cares.

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Focusing on crude sex....just NO.

Something people demonstrably enjoying doing here in significant numbers, and them being able to do it has no impact on you or your activities .. 

People expressing themselves sexually, for pure self indulgent fun, is allowed and ok. This was settled before I was born.

(all that hippy crap .. free love .. it means sex, it's all about sex and who gets to control sex and its outcomes)

 

[Coffee Pancake]

43 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I think the easiest way to see how many people actually leave second life is through login numbers and sign ups. I dont have the latest numbers but in 2019 Firestorm said that roughly 540,000 unique logins happened consecutively on their viewer each month from 2017-2019 so say 600,000-650,000 for all viewers combined.

If we assume those 650,000 are the same people every month +/- the ones that login and never return it sounds pretty good. But then you have to take into consideration that from LL own admission there is over 350,000 new accounts created every month. Now even if say 50,000 of those were alts of existing accounts (and that's a stretch), that leaves 300,000 new registrations every month yet, the unique logins stay the same. Not to mention that by LL own admission there are over 70million accounts made ever.

So if the unique logins isn't increasing but 300,000 new accounts are created every month, that is an ENORMOUS retention problem.

Everyone needs to read this again. 👆

Dead serious people .. we're bleeding out and trying to hold onto a steady population of 30-50K a day.

Hundreds of thousands of new accounts are made every month and have been since we started.

20 years in a hole and we're fighting for our lives.

Our own Oberwolf tosses words like irrelevance around every single year he gets to talk to us.

 

If you don't like change.

You will like irrelevance even less.

~Oberwolf Linden (you know, that guy)

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

You are taking Maslows list literally based on what is written in the pyramid sections RL wise and not looking at it in a game based way. No one argues with you that SL players dont need food etc to survive. Second life is however a virtual world where in essence your character is what you are RPing. Sure there isn't the threat of death if your character doesn't get its basic needs of food etc, but there is the threat that if those basic needs of why a person joined for them to enjoy and participate are not met or they are not directed to means of finding those needs then their account will 'die' by not coming back.

All games are like this and that is what the link I provided on page 9 discusses in the white paper. Each user type has its own requirements based on that pyramid. Whilst some users can start higher up the pyramid, other user types cannot and start at the bottom to progress. Those that start higher up also gradually start to need those at the bottom to continue to enjoy the platform and stay. A circle of life so to speak and keeping in mind Second Life is a different beast to a normal game.

From that whitepaper listed:

"To summarise, Maslow and Pink state that an individual is motivated to act in a way that fulfils their needs, specifically if a need is particularly urgent. By linking a game’s mechanics directly to these needs, the game designer can motivate players to act in certain ways – this is the core of gamification."

That line from that whitepaper mentioned above says what I am arguing. Using the meeting of those 'needs' to motivate people to stay within Second Life. Second Life as a game has certain specific needs that users (different user types) feel are urgent.

In the case of a person joining for RP their NEED for them to stay playing SL is to have a mesh body and clothes that allow them to participate in that. The bottom of that pyramid. If that urgent NEED is not met then those people as you say can go read a book etc. But in not meeting that urgent need, Second Life does not retain that user as they move elsewhere. By not meeting that urgent need of those lower basic pyramid sections for that user type, retention is not possible.

Likewise, a person looking for relationship (sexual or not) will start higher up on the pyramid and they dont at the first instance need those lower parts of the pyramid like shelter, security and clothes. But just like that white paper suggests, eventually if those lower requirements aren't met, they are unlikely to continue to participate either as eventually they will find that especially in sl, adult activities require things of which a full circle envelops whereby they then need the shelter (private secluded area, lindens, 'gear and certain avatar parts' to continue to participate in their chosen reason of joining sl.

The only user type that fits outside of the pyramid and goes to the top right away and stays there with no requirements of the lower sections or needing to go back to them is an explorer who by the nature of SL requires nothing except content to explore.

It is thereby in the interest of Linden Lab to direct those other users to something that allows them to meet that urgent need. If that is showing them by interaction in a tutorial how to create something they can sell to make lindens to buy the item (or create it themselves) or if that requires LL showing in their welcome area ways for people to earn those Lindens to buy those items to meet their needs then that is what needs to be done to direct them.

Now you say that you agree and have no problem with those things I mentioned the Welcome Area needs. You perhaps think that that like me will help retain players. The difference is, I am basing those welcome area changes I mentioned on what user types play sl and their needs to be met to be retained based on that pyramid. 

You may say that SL 'needs' are just 'wants' as they are not required for 'living' based on that pyramid but what I, others and that whitepaper linked are saying is that those wants, in the case of the game, turn into something a user 'needs' to stay active and participate (alive) in Second Life.

So in this case I think it is a matter of agreeing to disagree.

I think at this point we are sort of talking in circles, or past each other.

To be clear, I am not saying that there isn't some kind of dynamic at work that makes people feel in some sense "compelled" to do certain things -- upgrade their avatar, for instance. Of course there is. And that's probably something that should be built into the new user experience as a "lever" to motivate at least some to progress further on the platform.

What I am saying is that the Maslow model is an irrelevancy in this context (however apt or inapt it might have been in the context used by Rosedale).

I am going to use one last analogy in the hope that I can make clear what I am getting at.

Say someone points a gun at you in RL and is threatening to kill you. That is, literally, an existential moment, and your responses are going to be predicated on your awareness of that. This is a moment that fits at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid.

Now, say someone -- maybe even an NPC -- points a gun at you in a video game, and you realize that if you're "shot" you will lose your progress to that point, and all of the items you've gathered along the way.

There is something at "stake" in both cases -- in the video game, you probably don't want to start back at the last spawning point, and you don't want to lose that lovely grenade launcher you picked up before that. You don't want to be shot.

But what is at stake in the first case is so vastly disproportionate to the consequences in the second case that your responses will be entirely different. Using the first as a "model" for the second just makes no sense whatsoever; they mean entirely different things, despite the fact that the second is a representation of the first, and that there are negative consequences associated with both situations.

You're not "surviving" in Second Life; you are role playing survival, just as you are in a sense "role playing" sitting on a couch in your Linden home, or dancing at a club using animations.

So, yeah, by all means lets talk about "incentivizing" and "motivating" new sign ups. But drop this stupid and utterly inapplicable model. It's not the Maslow hierarchy of needs you're using: it's a virtual simulacrum of it that bears the same resemblance to the original that the virtual bullet bears to a real one.

[Silent Mistwalker]

40 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If you don't like change.

You will like irrelevance even less.

~Oberwolf Linden (you know, that guy)

@Oberwolf Linden

Quote

Change is not an event. It’s a psychological experience.

[...]

Change is a human process not an event and some processes just can’t be rushed.

3 Reasons Why Humans Hate Change

[Coffee Pancake]

17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I am saying is that the Maslow model is an irrelevancy in this context (however apt or inapt it might have been in the context used by Rosedale).

It's perhaps more relevant as it presents a simplistic model that is more representative of experiences in simulated or virtual environments.

As for the rest of your post, it's bordering on painful. Wow, you're not a gamer, not even a little bit... I can only say, do not underestimate just how powerful a demotivator frustration is.

[Drayke Newall]

32 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think at this point we are sort of talking in circles, or past each other.

To be clear, I am not saying that there isn't some kind of dynamic at work that makes people feel in some sense "compelled" to do certain things -- upgrade their avatar, for instance. Of course there is. And that's probably something that should be built into the new user experience as a "lever" to motivate at least some to progress further on the platform.

What I am saying is that the Maslow model is an irrelevancy in this context (however apt or inapt it might have been in the context used by Rosedale).

I am going to use one last analogy in the hope that I can make clear what I am getting at.

Say someone points a gun at you in RL and is threatening to kill you. That is, literally, an existential moment, and your responses are going to be predicated on your awareness of that. This is a moment that fits at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid.

Now, say someone -- maybe even an NPC -- points a gun at you in a video game, and you realize that if you're "shot" you will lose your progress to that point, and all of the items you've gathered along the way.

There is something at "stake" in both cases -- in the video game, you probably don't want to start back at the last spawning point, and you don't want to lose that lovely grenade launcher you picked up before that. You don't want to be shot.

But what is at stake in the first case is so vastly disproportionate to the consequences in the second case that your responses will be entirely different. Using the first as a "model" for the second just makes no sense whatsoever; they mean entirely different things, despite the fact that the second is a representation of the first, and that there are negative consequences associated with both situations.

You're not "surviving" in Second Life; you are role playing survival, just as you are in a sense "role playing" sitting on a couch in your Linden home, or dancing at a club using animations.

So, yeah, by all means lets talk about "incentivizing" and "motivating" new sign ups. But drop this stupid and utterly inapplicable model. It's not the Maslow hierarchy of needs you're using: it's a virtual simulacrum of it that bears the same resemblance to the original that the virtual bullet bears to a real one.

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I see what you are saying, however, I and many others see it differently. Maslow's Hierarchy has been looked into by game developers and designers for many, many years and used as a way to not only understand why people play games but also to 'retain' a player in said game. It worked so well that the modern survival game is almost a replica of the Hierarchy.

Whilst yes, Second Life is a different form of game, the same Hierarchy is there that can be used in exactly the same way. Understand why a person plays and how to use that to retain a person. Just search Maslow's Hierarchy in game design and you will get plenty of writeups of people discussing it for game design all the way back to the late 2000's.

What Coffee posted is not new. Its old and has been working for developers for a very long time. Even down to the reason why that Mobile game forces you to pay-up after a certain time or make you wait.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Drayke Newall

[Love Zhaoying]

29 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think at this point we are sort of talking in circles, or past each other.

To be clear, I am not saying that there isn't some kind of dynamic at work that makes people feel in some sense "compelled" to do certain things -- upgrade their avatar, for instance. Of course there is. And that's probably something that should be built into the new user experience as a "lever" to motivate at least some to progress further on the platform.

What I am saying is that the Maslow model is an irrelevancy in this context (however apt or inapt it might have been in the context used by Rosedale).

I am going to use one last analogy in the hope that I can make clear what I am getting at.

Say someone points a gun at you in RL and is threatening to kill you. That is, literally, an existential moment, and your responses are going to be predicated on your awareness of that. This is a moment that fits at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid.

Now, say someone -- maybe even an NPC -- points a gun at you in a video game, and you realize that if you're "shot" you will lose your progress to that point, and all of the items you've gathered along the way.

There is something at "stake" in both cases -- in the video game, you probably don't want to start back at the last spawning point, and you don't want to lose that lovely grenade launcher you picked up before that. You don't want to be shot.

But what is at stake in the first case is so vastly disproportionate to the consequences in the second case that your responses will be entirely different. Using the first as a "model" for the second just makes no sense whatsoever; they mean entirely different things, despite the fact that the second is a representation of the first, and that there are negative consequences associated with both situations.

You're not "surviving" in Second Life; you are role playing survival, just as you are in a sense "role playing" sitting on a couch in your Linden home, or dancing at a club using animations.

So, yeah, by all means lets talk about "incentivizing" and "motivating" new sign ups. But drop this stupid and utterly inapplicable model. It's not the Maslow hierarchy of needs you're using: it's a virtual simulacrum of it that bears the same resemblance to the original that the virtual bullet bears to a real one.

I'm beginning to see the light, although the logic requires mental gymnastics: if some people only see Second Life as a "sex game", and Second Life is their only outlet sexually, then of course that is the most important aspect to them. Who are we to judge? 

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

I'm beginning to see the light, although the logic requires mental gymnastics: if some people only see Second Life as a "sex game",

This is just a reduction. SL is for sad weirdos who can't get any for real.

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

and Second Life is their only outlet sexually,

Wildly presumptive and in my own experience, not at all accurate.

SL is great place for the sexually active to practice, refine, and expand their real world horizons. The BDSM scene is huge here for a reason.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

33 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I'm beginning to see the light, although the logic requires mental gymnastics: if some people only see Second Life as a "sex game", and Second Life is their only outlet sexually, then of course that is the most important aspect to them. Who are we to judge? 

Sure, but my argument isn't about relative rankings of "importance." It's about the quality (by which I mean not "value" but rather component elements) and nature of the experience.

A virtual experience -- sex, or even death -- can be very intense indeed. And both very "real," as an experience, and very important.

But it is not, qualitatively or categorically the same kind of experience as the real thing. That doesn't mean it's better or worse. It means it's different.

Perhaps the sex you've had in SL is better than anything you've ever experienced in RL. Perhaps your SL sex life is more important to you than your RL one -- maybe because here you can express your sexuality in ways you can't in RL. 

None of that changes the fact that the way that you experience and respond to these two events or activities -- at a psychological, physiological, and emotional level -- is fundamentally different because one is virtual and the other is not. Again, that doesn't means "better" or "worse," or even necessarily less important (although if you're equating getting shot in a video game with being shot in RL, you should probably hone your critical thinking skills).

Applying a paradigm that relates to one kind of reality to another, very different one, is like saying "when I eat an apple, I just bite in and eat the peel. So the same principle should apply to eating an orange. Right?"

Edited July 1, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Sure, but my argument isn't about relative rankings of "importance." It's about the quality (by which I mean not "value" but rather components elements) and nature of the experience.

A virtual experience -- sex, or even death -- can be very intense indeed. And both very "real," as an experience, and very important.

But it is not, qualitatively or categorically the same kind of experience as the real thing. That doesn't mean it's better or worse. It means it's different.

Perhaps the sex you've had in SL is better than anything you've ever experienced in RL. Perhaps your SL sex life is more important to you than your RL one -- maybe because here you can express your sexuality in ways you can't in RL. 

None of that changes the fact that the way that you experience and respond to these two events or activities -- at a psychological, physiological, and emotional level -- is fundamentally different because one is virtual and the other is not. Again, that doesn't means "better" or "worse," or even necessarily less important (although if you're equating getting shot in a video game with being shot in RL, you should probably hone your critical thinking skills).

Applying a paradigm that relates to one kind of reality to another, very different one, is like saying "when I eat an apple, I just bite in and eat the peel. So the same principle should apply to eating an orange. Right?"

Yep, I agreed to that a long time ago. Applying Maslow's Hierarchy to a virtual world is folly. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

33 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's perhaps more relevant as it presents a simplistic model that is more representative of experiences in simulated or virtual environments.

I think I'd substitute "reductive" . . . and maybe "misleading."

34 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

As for the rest of your post, it's bordering on painful. Wow, you're not a gamer, not even a little bit... I can only say, do not underestimate just how powerful a demotivator frustration is.

No, I'm not a gamer. I'm beginning to think that's a good thing.

Critical thinking is, amongst other things, about analyzing things and being able to spot important, vital, and defining differences between things, and employing those distinctions to produce a valid analysis or judgement.

Tell me that you are using a simulacrum, a "pretendy" version of Maslow's hierarchy, which no longer means the same things it did applied to RL, to analyze motivation in games, and I'll likely agree -- with caveats.

Telling me that you can apply a real life paradigm straight up to a gaming one . . . well, you're starting to scare me, Coffee.

[Coffee Pancake]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, I'm not a gamer. I'm beginning to think that's a good thing.

If you're going to talk with any authority on gaming and gamers, please go play some games. 

They are very accessible, entertaining and cover a bewildering array of subjects, themes, styles and challenges. If you're going to use a PC, they are also very cheap, you can pick up triple A releases from a few years back for a few dollars (steam), or free if you're prepared to be patient (Epic).

I have no doubt that you will be able to find lots of personally engrossing titles. We could even suggest a few.

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Critical thinking is, amongst other things, about analyzing things and being able to spot important, vital, and defining differences between things, and employing those distinctions to produce a valid analysis or judgement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Coffee Pancake

[Ayashe Ninetails]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, I'm not a gamer. I'm beginning to think that's a good thing.

Hey! 😒

But no really, I'm glad SL attracts all kinds of people. Ya know, with different needs n stuff.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If you're going to talk with any authority on gaming and gamers, please go play some games. 

They are very accessible, entertaining and cover a bewildering array of subjects, themes, styles and challenges. If you're going to use a PC, they are also very cheap, you can pick up triple A releases from a few years back for a few dollars (steam), or free if you're prepared to be patient (Epic).

I have no doubt that you will be able to find lots of personally engrossing titles. We could even suggest a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

 

Plato's point in the allegory of the cave is precisely that one needs to be able to distinguish intelligently between "the Real" and "the copy" -- i.e., the simulacrum or the virtual. And that philosophy -- or any kind of analysis -- needs to focus upon "the Real" in order to have any validity at all.

I'm not sure how this is assisting your point, Coffee.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Hey! 😒

But no really, I'm glad SL attracts all kinds of people. Ya know, with different needs n stuff.

 

Oh, totally. Of course. I'm just responding in a slightly peevish way.

And I do play games. And watch them being played.

And watch the player playing them. (Partially because he's kinda cute.)

[Coffee Pancake]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not sure how this is assisting your point, Coffee.

If you're only interested in the mechanics of debate, not the subjects at hand, there is no point.