Australian Museum

@Linda (18 Feb 2010): Thanks for the pointers. I am familiar with the Pew Internet work, but not the others. I'm surprised that anyone is saying that "...the average American kid spends 10,000 hours on games like World Of Warcraft..." 'Teens, video games and civics' pointed out that most American kids are not playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft. Only one in five, in fact. Those that do are "...more likely to play games on a daily basis and more likely to play for longer periods of time", but they are not the average American kid. Virtually all American teens are playing some sort of computer or video game, but not games like WoW. It turns out that most of the bell-curve is playing racing and puzzle games. And the diversity of games that they play is enormous. The top ten games mentioned in the Pew Internet work are Guitar Hero, Halo (two versions), Madden NFL (two versions), Solitaire, Dance Dance Revolution, Tetris, Grand Theft Auto and The Sims. There is no common link between those games except that they are computer games. I can't imagine anything more different than the quiet, traditional problem solving of Solitaire or Tetris versus the speed, colour and mayhem of Grand Theft Auto or Halo, for example. They do play a lot of games and they spend a lot of time doing it. Just not on WoW and probably not the same amount of time that they spend in secondary school. In the Pew Internet survey, fifty percent said that they hadn't played a game 'yesterday'. Only three in ten said that they played a game every day. If seven out of ten aren't playing every day, I don't see how they can possibly rack up 35 hours a week of gaming. I suppose 12 - 15 hours a day on the weekend and 2 - 3 hours every day or two during the week would get you there. I'm sure that there are kids in America doing that. My nephews in Sydney might even fit that profile. But it doesn't seem to fit the profile of the _average_ American kid as described by the Pew Internet work.

A few years back we experimented with some game based activities linked to mobiles/SMS in the form of treasure hunting: the work is Deb Polson's @ QUT. More here: http://scootgame.com/history/scoot-melbourne. Beyond that we're embedding games into our programs - but that's because it's part of our remit. A lot more of what work we have done it that field here: http://www.acmi.net.au/explore_games.htm - but it also crosses over into our education programs eg: http://www.acmi.net.au/learn_machinima_workshop.aspx

I'm not entirely sure that the appropriation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs motivational model into Jane's "happiness argument" offers much in the way of genuine insight into media, messages and personal learning preferences. Knowing that there is danger in cross valuing medium with message predates McLuhan. PC and console gaming sales are currently in decline (console sales for the first time in 10 years), but that might relate more to the growth in the power and diversity of alternative game and information delivery platforms e.g., cell phones and their like. Broadcast TV has been in decline for some time, thanks in part to the rise of internet and its related displacements. I think a more interesting question for museums and their ilk might be; if the specific digital delivery platform and content sources continue to matter less, how will museums be able distinguish their messages and their "brand" in a less brand-loyal, digitally promiscuous world? In this I agree with Jane; museums really shouldn't be thinking that "their" audiences are any more distinguishable from the other. Notions of a definable digital "generation" are passé; because of the cross generational take up of that technology. Digital diversity, power and its ubiquity may well contribute to an increasing public indifference to its source, perhaps in the same way earlier generations thought little of what it meant to turn on a light switch. It’s vital that museums innovate and borrow eclectically from best examples, but in doing so museums need to do this in a way that distinguishes them from the alternative providers; by better and more uniquely positioning their museum achievements. “The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially”. Marshall McLuhan