When is play considered work, and work considered play? What is fun and what is not? This topic is very interesting to me because how can someone determine what classifies something as work versus play. I think it can also be argued that it is subjective, but there must be a base for it in society, or else no one would get paid for their work. I have my ideas, but I was curious to see how Yee thinks about work and play. I feel like his example on Pharmaceutical Manufacturing in the Star Wars Galaxies game accurately captures my ideas on work and play. How can we find the fine line to define these words, when something that is advertised as a fun game becomes more of a chore? The more you play Star Wars Galaxies, the more time you have to invest in it later if you want to advance. “It takes about 3 to 6 weeks of normal game play to acquire the abilities and schematics to be competitive in the market, and the business operation thereafter requires daily time commitment” (Yee 69). This daily commitment turns into 20 plus hours of work a week. I find that crazy! That is like having a part-time job but without the pay. Video games have become almost a second job to certain players. Although this reading was focused on video games, I think this brings up more questions about our everyday world.
Can work be fun? I think we sometimes forget that just because something is fun doesn’t mean that does not work. Or does it? This is an interesting topic that really cannot be answered simply. However, if I had to give my opinion, I would say, work is the time and energy spent on a task that will add value to yourself, or a certain job, project, company, or activity. Work does not necessarily mean that a person will or is receiving compensation. I think most of us can think of a time we did work without getting paid. Also, without the motivation of obtaining a certain reward for a job well done, how long will someone keep performing the job without some sort of compensation.
Game Studies 
This article was really interesting, and I loved Professor Kemp’s story about becoming an entertainer that was inevitably trapped on a dormant planet before finally quitting. I’ve had this same issue with MMORPG’s before. I remember, funny enough, playing the free-to-play version of Star Wars: The Old Republic. Now, The Old Republic had much more polish than Galaxies, and the gameplay itself was much more akin to RPG’s that the developer, Bioware, had made in the past. The story was interesting, the micromanaging (at first) wasn’t too difficult, but then the warts started to show.
I get my lightsaber (which you get about 20 hours in) and the game started leaving it’s Knights of the Old Republic roots, and branched out into a bastardized version of World of Warcraft. I get that they want people to keep coming back with a monthly subscription, but I would’ve loved them to have made a single-player only version that I could buy to go through the story missions. I really enjoyed being in this world, but the game started to become a chore. Your quote regarding daily commitment is really true when it comes to MMORPG’s and I am hoping that this is something that will be fixed in the coming years.
LikeLike
This argument had me scratching my head when we discussed it in class. Every example that was brought up I felt was just a game that we play, but Professor Kemp was able to convince me that each one was labor in some form or another. But ultimately, I believe I agree with you. It is subjective. What is play for one may be work for another. However, there can be both at the same time, especially for different, interested parties. Like the extreme example he said where playing a game powers a whole city: for the players, it is a voluntary game that is fun, but for the company running it, the players are free labor.
LikeLike