Minecraft is Life now... apparently

The Jones reading for Thursday, “What were ‘minecraft boosters’? Minecraft, digital distribution and preservative labour,” poses some questions I would never have imagined could be relevant to the game my little brother spent years locked in his room playing. If you mention Minecraft to anyone, gamer or not, they will have an opinion about it. In an age where “let’s play” YouTube videos garner millions of views (the creators making legitimate salaries off of recording themselves play), Minecraft has acquired an almost sacredness among online distribution games. The fact that the game is so PG allowed it to absolutely sweep the nation, all demographics could play, casually, obsessively, or even competitively.

Before reading this article, I actually did not know that Minecraft was released as an “unfinished” game. Jones explains that he chose this particular game because the fact that it is so dynamic. It was/is continually expanding, and the result is that players are aware of the game’s status as a software, a provisional amalgamation of codes and algorithms. Plus, the game encourages players to preserve the game itself, “a fact that adds a unique flavour to its fan-producer relationship” (10).

Minecraft’s unique relationship between player and developer makes it the perfect platform for Jones to discuss the reception of the “death” of specific game mechanics. He posits that “death is, in fact, not always the end – sometimes, it is just an end, necessary to keep the larger whole in proper working order” (8). If only all Minecraft players felt this way. Minecraft’s distribution scheme posed one significant problem which Jones describes well: “If the central appeal of games distributed early in their production cycle is, in fact, their promise of continued novelty, then players are inevitably going to be let down once stability is reached” (11). So should developers just never finish their games? In this class, we have compared videogames to media, from cinema to graphic novels. One massive distinction we have yet to make between the two, is the fact that videogames can be, in a sense, “never-ending.” Not never-ending in a Fast and Furious way, or even in a Call of Duty way; I don’t mean sequels. Rather, videogames, in that they are pieces of software, can promise that creative, exploratory gameplay never ends.

So when the minecraft booster bug was removed, Jones posits that this was a “cellular death” (8). In theory, such a death should progress the game forward, and players should accept it as necessary to further the game’s “narrative.” However, some fans were devastated that they had to rework their entire strategies of play.

Jones article presents an example of players reacting to a videogame as if it is their own life. Something changing within the world of this game causes players stress and discomfort akin to a life altering event. I’m looking forward to Jones’ lecture on Thursday, because although I am very separate from it, I am very interested in this worldwide obsession with online distribution games.