Catherine Flick: Publications, Media, and Thoughts

I was asked by the head of the Staffordshire Games Institute, Chris Headleand, to give a 10 minute talk to our incoming freshers from our games programmes. We run quite a few of these, in game programming, design, and art, covering the full range of roles needed to make games. There would be around 500 students in the room, because that's how many we have (!).

“About the impact of games on society. A bit of a motivational piece,” said Chris. “Oh, yeah, okay. I should be able to do that,” I said.

I sort of forgot the first part, and there was a lot of discussion about generative AI in our student discord, so I made it a bit about that. It ended up doing the bit I forgot anyway, so that was lucky.

I got lost a couple of times in the actual speech because I was getting a bit passionate as I gave it. But I also wanted to save it for posterity, and thought I would post it because maybe there's another university starter out there in games that needs to hear (/read) this. I've edited it slightly to reflect some of the notes I took last minute and to pop a few links in to the more obscure games I reference.


A photo of the back of me, speaking to a large auditorium full of students.

Good morning everyone!

So I’m a technology ethicist, and normally when I get up in front of crowds like this it’s to talk about the doom and gloom of technology. Today I get to do something different, which is wonderful, I get to welcome you to the next chapter of your life!

But I mean, there may be some of you who are worried about technology, especially generative AI, coming into this new chapter of your life. The games industry is in flux. Everyone’s concerned about money, and technology, and jobs, but nobody seems to be doing much about it. And your worries are very valid!

But you are also filled with excitement and hope, because here you are in the best games department in the UK, and for the next few years, you’re going to be making games. Making games! How incredible is that!

Games are the ultimate conjunction of art and technology. They have the ability to change peoples’ minds. They can immerse someone in a completely different experience. They can give us space to experiment with different decisions, with possible futures, with how we express ourselves, with finding our own identity. We can use them to tell stories, share experiences, and make political and moral statements to the world. They can challenge our ways of thinking, our behaviours, our approach to life, our relationships with others. They are actively engaged with, not passively consumed. Games are powerful.

And you know what? These human experiences are things that generative AI is very bad at. Sure, it can reflect the data that has been fed into it, but it can never conjure up a new way of thinking about what it is to have an experience. To see, feel, hear, taste, smell the world. To empathise with human – and non-human – experiences. To feel joy and suffering, and everything in between. This is where our very human creativity is so powerful and unique to every single one of us. We all have something we can express, and we all want to make games.

We want to connect with people. It’s part of our human drive to do that. We are social creatures who need social connections. We tell stories as part of those connections, whether it’s just about our day, or how the weather is. Games are ways to connect with people, whether it’s getting together with friends to play Big Walk, getting annoyed with stinky bugdivers in Helldivers 2 or League of Legends feeders, empathising with someone’s grief in games like That Dragon, Cancer, or experiencing what it might be like to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in The Halting Problem. It might be a huge narrative adventure like Baldur’s Gate 3 that immerses you in different kinds of human (and non-human!) relationships, and uses those to explore experiences you might not ever have in your own life. It might be the in depth lore of Dragon Age games that span centuries of time in those worlds. These are all connections – humans speaking to humans – humans wanting to tell other humans stories that are meaningful to them in some way. Even the potentially toxic interactions with angry players are still human connections that make you feel something! (though maybe not the best of our humanity)

When you make games, they don’t have to be deep and meaningful, but whatever you make, someone will engage with it, and you have space to express yourself, showing off your skills at procedural generation, guiding a player through environmental storytelling, building a level that challenges people in all the right ways. You may have a big community that builds around your game, or it might just be played by 2 friends and your little sister. It might be a silly game about chickens or a complex, thoughtful visual novel about relationships. What I’m saying is – anything you make, you, yourself, is a creative expression of your skills, background, values, and understanding about the world. And that’s to be celebrated in a world where we seem to be increasingly reliant on technologies designed to smooth things out, to make things bland and boringly acceptable to an algorithm that looks for the most mid response to a prompt.

So if you’re worried about technology, channel that concern into being as creative as possible, to embracing your humanity and expressing that through your skills, ideas, interests, and projects. Don’t just give over to the algorithms. Continue to push back against boring blandness by developing your critical thinking skills, by trying new things, by failing and learning from your mistakes. Because that’s the way we humans do things, and valuing the humanity in our games is how we get through this together.

So that is my plea to you, fellow humans with very different experiences from my own. Be your authentic selves, and be them as strongly as you can. University provides the perfect space to do this, to try things, to fail, to try again, and to find your path through an uncertain world, knowing you have a safety net with people around willing and able to help you through.

I remember my first day at university, back in a different century, in a different country, going in to my first class, absolutely terrified. Had I made the right choice? Would my program be for me? What if everyone else was better than I was? What if I fail? I wanted to make my parents proud. I wanted to show all these guys who had been programming since they were 11 years old that I, one of around 3 women in a 300 strong computer science program, could keep up. This was despite the fact that I’d never programmed at school because computing for girls was learning to touch type and setting out leaflets for school fetes. So yeah, I was terrified. And I had to learn quickly, and I failed, and I tried again, and again… and eventually I passed, and somehow at the end I graduated with a first class honours degree (and went on to do a PhD and eventually become a professor!). But that was just the mechanics of it. Along the way I made friends, I did some very stupid and some very clever things, but the best thing I did was I found my people. And we’re still friends today, some ahem years later, and in multiple different countries from where we started.

I wanted to tell you that story because there are probably some of you here who are super confident, you know exactly what you’re getting into, and you have the existing portfolio and skills to match. And you’ll be great. But there might be some of you who have the imposter syndrome I did, eating away at you making you wonder the same questions I had. So this bit is for you. Show up every day. Put the work in. If you fail, have a good cry, then get up and try again. Find some people who show up for you and lean on them for support. Go and join societies. Do some volunteering. Do a game jam or 3. Find your people, because these are your people.

And hey, you, with the portfolios and the prototypes and the artstations and the linkedin connections, you should do these things too. Because you never know what life might hand you, and even if everything goes right, you still just might find the people who you start an indie studio with, or who give you that job, or who you work with in group projects. And meeting people, working together, and sharing your stories outside of formal learning spaces is a wonderful way to make connections that last a lifetime.

So we find ourselves in a world that increasingly empowers money and technology over humanity. And I hope that I’ve shown you that there is still hope for the future, and that you are going to be a very important part of this future, because of the power that games have to help tell very human stories and to connect humans together with very human experiences. You won’t be alone on this journey, you’ll have all these people you see around you coming with you. And the people up on this stage will be there to help you pick yourself up if you try something and it doesn’t quite work. That’s what we’re here to do. So not so much more doom and gloom about technology – we may have to live with it, but we don’t have to be controlled by it. By retaining our humanity: our ability to critically think, to create, to try things, to make and learn from mistakes, to build, to empathise and to connect with others, we are so much more than even the most human-seeming AI model can even pretend to be.

So to finish off, embrace your humanity, be yourself, be creative, think critically, and remember that these people here around you – these are your people. We all want to make games, and games are incredible things to be able to make.

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

While recovering from COVID I've been watching the very excellent People Make Games video on war games and Quinns does a fantastic job of navigating through the really difficult values at stake and deconstructing the power relations at play in the interviews at DSTL. The focus of the wargamers on the games as “tools like hammers” obviously ignores the values inherent in the designs of the games; the problems with the abstraction of designers and players of the games from reality on the ground; the differences between the “right” and “wrong” kinds of wars... and how the active recruitment of game designers and developers by the wargaming sector might mean that you wake up “the bad guy”, especially given the current state of the games industry.

It was a Cook's tour of classic responses to difficult ethical questions: “if I don't do it, someone else will”, “we're on the good side so we need to do this”, “we're just providing analysis, we aren't directly killing people”, “it's used for things other than military purposes”, etc.

“How would you sleep at night?” is a question anyone looking to get into this industry really should be thinking about. Maybe the only way to win is to not play. But how can we avoid it, if we're working in games, game engines, game design, that might become repurposed for military purposes? And can we just ignore the fact that some of these approaches can be used for other strategic decision-making, such as healthcare, extreme weather events? Could we also make traditionally military wargames more human-centred rather than prop up the military industrial complex? (probably not, given the “three witches” Quinns identifies toward the end)

Happy to discuss these tricky questions with anyone questioning whether to get into these spaces or already in these spaces and wanting to demilitarise the sector to push it toward more of the human-centred approaches (and not just as a smokescreen for the military applications – I am not interested in being an ethics-washing attempt by companies in these spaces!).

Here's the video on YouTube – very worth a watch. Thanks PMG for starting this discussion, they generally have an excellent critical view into the games industry, and this was no exception.

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

Well, the new job has had me pretty busy! But I've been doing some media stuff which I want to just record here for posterity (and when I ultimately need to look back on what I've done this year and feel like I accomplished something).

2024-01-26 What the hell is going on with the U.K. Post Office?

2024-02-29 AIs get better at maths if you tell them to pretend to be in Star Trek

2024-03-01 Elon Musk asks court to decide if GPT-4 has human-level intelligence

2024-03-07 Why Elon Musk’s lawsuit could slow down AI 

2024-03-08 Women in Games – Level of Detail S2 EP4

2024-03-17 Letter in The Guardian, The impact of screen time on parent-child relationships

2024-03-18 Ady Dayman, BBC Radio Leicester, talking about cyber security in Leicester’s schools and Leicester City Council

2024-04-15 Educating AI, Crossed Wires Podcast

Coming soon: I’ll be doing a TEDxStaffordshireUniversity talk in May, and I’ll be rustling around @emf@emfcamp.org for the weekend running Content and the Arcade!

#media #podcast #radio #newspaper #ai #cybersecurity #postoffice #games #screentime

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

It's a new year, and tomorrow I start a new job as Professor of Ethics and Games Technology at Staffordshire University. I'm extremely excited about this but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit nervous as well!

In the UK it's a big thing to become a professor; it's the thing you strive towards when you first start your academic career. I was asked on Mastodon what it takes to become a professor, and well, if you go internally within the university, you have to fill out a lot of paperwork that shows off your achievements over your career and apply to a panel of other professors within the university to see if you are worthy of the title. Or you can apply to another university that is looking for a professorial level role, fill out a lot of paperwork to apply to the job, go through an interview process and show a panel of other professors that you are worthy of the role. I did the latter, and so I'm moving away from De Montfort University to start in a new department in a new faculty in a new university!

Things I am looking forward to:

  • Everyone I have spoken to seems to enjoy working in the department, so that's a great start!
  • I'm really looking forward to settling into the culture of the department – part of my job role will be to help nurture the research side of things so I'm quite excited about meeting all my new colleagues and finding out what excites them about research. I am also very excited to fire up the writing muscles again and get back into my own research. I have a grant lurking about that needs to be refactored and sent in as well.
  • I'm also looking forward to teaching a new set of students – I haven't taught in a games department before so this will be new and exciting. Normally I concentrate on soft skills like research methods, but here I'm also having to brush up on my programming so I can teach some of that which ... well, we'll have to see how that goes, I'm more an itch scratch programmer but I think there's some skill in being able to quickly hack stuff together as well as being super formal about it (though not perhaps for production level stuff... ;–)
  • I'll have about an hour commute each way so I'm not going in every day. I made it clear from the outset that with my two small children I want to be able to be home for them as well; I was very pleased to hear that this would be fine as I think that there's a lot to be said for having senior level mums of small children in academia. But that hour commute will also be a good time to listen to audiobooks that I've been meaning to catch up on, both fiction and non-fiction.
  • I'm also keen on keeping on with my media and science communication side of things. Critical views of technology need to be more visible, it's too easy to just take the press releases of tech companies as stated. I've become a bit lazy about updating here with my media appearances, so I hope to start that again too.

Ultimately I have a bit of imposter syndrome lurking about but my fantastic mentor Richard Hall told me to “Own it... be true, necessary and kind to all, including yourself” and I fully plan to. Thanks everyone for believing in me! I can do this!

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

OK, so I am the enemy.

The enemy of all those who would design, develop, deploy and maintain systems that ride roughshod over people who are the most vulnerable.

The enemy of all those who would think only of investing in, creating, and encouraging technologies that increase their own wealth at the expense of others.

I am the enemy that wishes to protect people from online-enabled harms like eating disorders, performative violence, child sexual assault material, crypto scams.

I am the enemy that wants to bring people together to love, share, and connect over shared interests and build long lasting friendships and positive communities, not ones that spiral into mires of hate and self-loathing.

I am the enemy that sees a future where technology is built for the good of society, and not destructive to today's and tomorrow's people in the service of a fantasy science fiction future.

I am the enemy that sees a technological future that serves society and helps it achieve its goals of equality, fairness, reconciliation, safety, peace, and all the other things that exist to make us flourish in a global community of human beings.

I am the enemy that requires trust and safety, technology ethics, social responsibility, sustainability, risk management. The things that make people pause and think about what they will do before they do it, and guide them to making a choice that will benefit society as a whole, not just themselves or their bosses.

I am the enemy of narcissistic, selfish billionaires who think that the future is just for them and their legacy.

And I'm actually pretty okay with that.

I'm also the enemy of really bad philosophy, just by the way.

Fight me.

Forgive me for a little bit of a self-indulgent outlet for frustration about a certain “manifesto”. While slightly tongue in cheek, I also mean it.

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

Yesterday the UK government released its new Video Game Research Framework.

The framework establishes a structure that guides games research and development and presents exemplary research practices, and it is important to everyone in games because it represents the first time that policy makers, industry and independent researchers (academics) in a key games market (the UK) sat down and took a good, hard look at themselves, games, their work so far in the context of games, and how to realise the positive potential of games in society, while avoiding the negatives. These same stakeholders then discussed what information and knowledge is needed to achieve that positive potential, and then hashed out a plan for how to get there.

This has importance outside of the specific confines of UK-based games R&D. The framework as it exists now sets out the research priorities – it tells is what knowledge we need to build. That is relevant whether you are based in the UK or not.

Furthermore, the framework establishes a range of best practices for how to build that knowledge, and provides standard for academic and industrial research.

The recommended priorities within the framework encompass understanding the motivations behind people’s engagement with games, investigating the influence of games on both physical and mental well-being, and examining the effects of in-game elements, such as expenditures and advertising, on players’ overall experiences. Additionally, the framework proposes broader areas of concentration, including exploring the economic possibilities of the industry and investigating the role of video games in education.

But importantly, the framework moves beyond just setting research priorities, but also covers challenging topics such as ethics, data privacy, data sharing, online safety design, and the economic impact of games. These are topics that it can be challenging to deal with, but nonetheless, we must do so in an open and transparent way, informed by data sharing and collaboration, if we are to move forward in a significant way.

Data sharing is particularly important – for an industry with an estimated 4bn active users and some 225bn USD in global revenue, preciously little hard market and behavioural insights exists. We have done a lot of laboratory-based or small-scale work in games, but there is longer between the papers that work with the ultra-large scale data that the games industry holds. Similarly, it is rare to see the industry collaborating with academics to reach players. There are good reasons for this – liability issues, data protection, and other factors can make collaboration cumbersome. In this, the framework also helps, providing a strong methodological foundation to guide data sharing including suggestions on how to respect relevant law and gathering data with player consent.

The framework even considers broader research priorities, including AI and heritage, to encourage academics to think about tackling a broad variety of games-related topics.

We are among the academics who worked with the other stakeholders on the year-long process of creating the framework. As public experts, we are used to working with policy makers and with industry, but it is a bit rare to have all three in the room together in the way that it has happened here. It speaks well of the UK government (and the DCMS in particular) that it has taken up the challenge of how to realize the immense positive potential of games – learning 21st century key skills, enabling creativity, building meaningful social connections, alleviating stress, enabling new forms of learning at scale, and more besides – and is not afraid to confront the problematic aspects of games either – gambling-like experiences, well-being impacts, ethical issues, legal challenges, toxic behaviour, predatory monetization and similar challenges.

The support of UK games industry stakeholders such as UKIE and TIGA are a keystone in the process of turning this ambition into reality. The framework puts forward a socially responsible agenda regarding data sharing, ethical game monetization and ensuring player wellbeing. But it is only when industry, academics, and policy makers work together in harmony that these goals can be realised. We eagerly anticipate to a new generation of open and equitable data access and collaboration with industry in light of the framework.

The Video Games Research Framework provides us with a roadmap for exceptional research and development, benefiting policymakers, the gaming industry, and ultimately all the billions of people who engage with games and recognize their ever-growing significance in our lives.

Anders Drachen (University of Southern Denmark/University of York, Director, SDU Metaverse Lab), David Zendle (University of York, Director, Digital Observatory, & Catherine Flick (Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University)

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

I have a new paper out, published in the new ACM Games journal! It's about in-app purchases in mobile games so it might be of some interest to people who play or make these sorts of games.

Our paper, “The Many Faces of Monetisation: Understanding the Diversity and Extremity of Player Spending in Mobile Games via Massive-scale Transactional Analysis” uses our world-first access to Unity Analytics' in app purchase data to understand how people spend in mobile games. We have roughly 2 years of data, $4.7B of in-game spending across 69m players of 2873 mobile games, and we look at the clusters of types of revenue distribution.

What do you find when you look at billions of dollars of in-app purchases? Certainly more nuance than “minnows” and “whales”. We found 4 clusters of types of spend profiles in games. Uniform: spending is distributed equally across players; Sub-pareto: more unequal but not at top Quasi-pareto: the most populous cluster, where all percentiles of spenders contribute but higher perc. are more monetised; and Hyper-pareto: majority of revenue is generated by a small proprotion of high spending gamers. These tend to be most profitable too.

We also found when looking at the top 1% of spenders in each game that there are significant patterns of spend of these across the clusters. Top 1% in Uniform spend $19 in their lifetimes. Sub-Pareto: $138. Quasi-Pareto, $660, and Hyper-Pareto over $1700 on average.

Unsurprisingly social casino games bring in the most revenue and have the highest concentration of high spenders; in fact the more a game relies on its top 1% for revenue generation, the more these individuals tend to spend. Also, we find some games bring in ridonkulous amounts of money, and some players spend ridonkulous amounts of cash on some games. “Ridonkulous” is a new technical term I just coined for how astonished I was at the amounts involved.

Anyway, you can read the paper here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3582927#d14190406e1 If 30 pages of stats is a bit much, you can read a shorter version with all the take home messages here: https://liedra.net/misc/The_Many_Faces_of_Monetisation_WhitePaper7.pdf

Citation: Zendle, D., Flick, C., Deterding, S., Cutting, J., Gordon-Petrovskaya, E.and Drachen, A., (2023) The Many Faces of Monetisation: Understanding the Diversity and Extremity of Player Spending in Mobile Games via Massive-scale Transactional Analysis. ACM Games: Research and Practice, 1 (1) pp. 1–28

#publication #mobilegames #gameplay #unity #futurevirtualeconomies

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

This afternoon I was interviewed by Ben Jackson at BBC Radio Leicester about the ups and downs at Twitter in the last couple of days. I love chatting with Ben because he's a great interviewer, and usually has some really interesting questions that go beyond the “explain what's happening for a lay audience” type questions I often get asked as an expert.

You can have a listen to me prattling away for a bit (and trying to avoid coughing) on the topic of where Twitter is at 3h40 min in, for a limited time only!

BBC Radio Leicester (2023). Ben Jackson, 8 March 2023. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0f47jz8 (3h40 in)

#media #radio #twitter

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

This article is about how ChatGPT is being used by grifters to flood Amazon with terrible books. It was in the paper copy of The Independent as well, featuring a picture of me, which is cool!

An image of the paper version of the news article linked below.

Generally I think this is likely to shake up the grift associated with pumping out terrible self help books as brought to light by Dan Olson in his great video about this particular grift. I feel bad for publishers :(

Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) ChatGPT-generated books are flooding Amazon, and experts warn they could drown out books written by humans. The Independent, 24 February 2023. Also available online at https://inews.co.uk/news/chatgpt-books-amazon-drown-out-written-humans-2168855

#media #newspaper #ai

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk

Another article by the most hard working tech journalist in town, Chris Stokel-Walker (@stokel@infosec.exchange), in which I rubbish greeting card messages (I mean really who reads those, apart from my husband, because he doesn't like to write his own?). Sorry greeting card writers, really :( Seriously though, I suspect the use of AI will not matter so much for these sorts of generic type messages – this and things like website copy – and we'll come to appreciate real human effort going into things more. And humans won't be stuck writing horribly boring and/or repetitive copy.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) ChatGPT will write your Valentine’s Day cards, but we are not ready for the AI advancement. i news, 31 Jan 2023. https://inews.co.uk/news/science/chatgpt-moonpig-trials-ai-cards-experts-warn-not-ready-2118814

#media #newspaper #ai

Follow this blog on the Fediverse: @cflick@blog.liedra.net Want to comment? Copy me in: @CatherineFlick@mastodon.me.uk