The problem with this comparison is that (as far as I am aware) MGS didn't transmit this data anywhere. It was just a programming trick that used information at hand on the memory card for that moment of gameplay, then discarded it once the Mantis segment was done. In that way, it's not different from if Catherine asks these questions to personalise the experience of that game alone, versus sending the information to a central server somewhere to be used later outside the confines of the game.To illustrate this difficulty: imagine if there was a rule that games had to get the player's notice and consent before they collected and used player data for any purpose. Now think about the famous fourth-wall breaking moment in Metal Gear Solid when Psycho Mantis "reads your mind" (or more accurately, read the contents of your memory card) and commented on your gameplay habits. Had Metal Gear Solid announced it intended to scan the player's data and asked for permission to do so, the surprise of Psycho Mantis's "psychic demonstration" - an enjoyable and ultimately privacy-benign moment - would have been ruined.
When will this be, approximately? I'm interested in reading the full article.JoeNewman said:This article is adapted from a larger piece with Joseph Jerome on video games and privacy entitled "Press Start To Track: Privacy And The New Questions Posed By Modern Videogame Technology." The full version of the paper will be published by the American Intellectual Property Law Association's Quarterly Journal later this year.
No, it really isn't. As the article points out, one of the big drivers for data collection is advertising. And one of the big trends in advertising is to be as personalised and intrusive as possible.BigTuk said:Probably not as big a deal as most think. For the most part this data is simply used to gauge how well the game performs.
Sure, they absolutely don't care what you do in game. That's pretty much the whole point - they're far more interested in all the data they can collect about what you do outside the game. As the article notes, that can include things right up to your height, weight, address, and the contents of your living room. No-one gathers that kind of information because they think it will be useful for analysing their game.The Gentleman said:No company who has access to this data cares what you, as a specific individual, does in a game. You are a data point in a sea of data points, as useful for overarching analysis and pattern spotting as any other random gamer out there.
At which point many modern games will simply not work. Like it or not, the trend to have games more and more online is not going to go away. If you want to prevent games accessing the internet you're already somewhat limited in your choice, and that's only going to increase in the future.Push come to shove you can simply tell your firewall not to allow the game online communication.
Information is power and even though they don't care about the individual's data. They are looking for trends and patterns that can be used for all kinds of manipulative purposes. The fact of the matter is that you are paying to provide them with this data as part of an entertainment experience. They are using it to be more targeted in ads and marketing which at it's core, does not benefit the customer.The Gentleman said:Is this really a problem? Like, seriously, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Any game with an online-multiplayer component pretty much passes all the multiplayer data to the company who use it for analysis, and only idiots think otherwise. How much else they pass on is going to be dependent on what the programmers want to learn. No company who has access to this data cares what you, as a specific individual, does in a game. You are a data point in a sea of data points, as useful for overarching analysis and pattern spotting as any other random gamer out there.
Now, what you probably should be more worried about is your gamertag/account info. That's much more sensitive information that is much more harmful.