Crippled World: Off the Grid - Living Blind Without the Internet book review

*the review copy provided by the author free of charge

So I had my Easter break with the family and now it's time to get back to my sweet blogging business. Today I'm introducing something a little bit different. Every once in a while I have an urge to venture away from the world of gaming and pitch in on topics I'm even more clueless about. This is why Crippled Gaming is proud to introduce a spin-off miscellaneous series Crippled World. Don't ask me how often I will write something like this for I truly have no idea. For now we're reviewing a disability-themed book about the societal as well as the personal impact of the internet. Will Crippled World always be tech-related? Maybe, maybe not. For now, it's nothing more than a fun experiment on the side.

Robert Kingett's "Off the Grid" is a book that documents a social experiment that would definitely prove to be too jarring for most millennials. While dramatically quitting Facebook and other attention-seeking boycotts are quite common among our generation, the very idea of disconnecting from the internet completely is in many ways beyond comprehension. In the fall of 2014 Mr. Kingett decided to do just that in order to, at least initially, boycott the US internet carriers trying to hijack net neutrality. What makes it truly brave and remarkable is the fact that the author happens to be legally blind and relies on the internet assisting him in pretty much every aspect of his life. As a result, "Off the Grid" is a fascinating journey into the modern world's dependence on the World Wide Web and how this relates to a young author's personal life.

Let me begin by saying that Mr. Kingett is a stylistically impressive writer. In a world where sentences have become overly long and clunky ,even in many respectable outlets, "Off the Grid" and its style is a breath of fresh air. The prose is delivered in a very clear and concise way , making the book a true joy to follow. The author consistently succeeds at conveying to the reader the inner workings of his unique mind. The writing style reveals to us a passionate young man driven by endless curiosity. In short, "Off the Grid" is simply a very enjoyable and fun read.

So how about the subject matter? The book is an account of Robert's month without the internet. The challenge exposes quite a few hidden truths about the web that not many even consider. The internet has become a ubiquitous utility we all take for granted. Not being online is something beyond people's wildest dreams, at least in the Western world. The first thing that is described by the author upon going offline is not being able to satiate that "itch" for more information.  It is in a way reminiscent of a chain smoker quitting cigarettes cold turkey. Throughout the first part of the book we get to witness the restlessness that a young person feels without internet access. There's a great scene early on where Robert interrupts a conversation to pretend to check his phone just because it's too awkward not to. "Off the Grid" is ultimately a journey filled with these "Aha!" moments that make the reader reconsider their preconceptions about the internet culture at large. This is why I feel that Kingett's message in some ways goes beyond the appeal to people with disabilities.

Independence can certainly be considered the second main theme of the book. The author succeeds at presenting the internet as the great equalizer for disenfranchised groups such as the disabled. Despite the negatives, the internet is still presented as the greatest gift any disabled person could ever ask for. This certainly makes a strong case for universal access to the internet and it being a human right above all. At the end of the experiment, Robert certainly comes to appreciate his time offline but, at the same time, he is giddy to return to the tool that gives him independence. What impressed me the most on the personal level was the author's passionate case for accepting external help when you're disabled  and why this is not at odds with one's personal journey towards independence. A part of me wishes I could make piece with this notion.

This is not to say that "Off the Grid" is a perfect book. One or two chapters are way too informative and don't really inform the narrative in any major way. While reading about the NFB Newsline or the cloud revolution was interesting, I still couldn't help but wonder if some of this fat should've been trimmed when editing the original journal. I also had a similar problem with the gaming chapter. While the existence of online-only games is an interesting problem, talking about it here didn't really fit the tone. Lastly, the cynic in me wonders whether some of the events in the book were a bit embellished. For instance, the beautiful  love story interwoven into the book is almost too perfect for driving the plot. I find it hard to believe that such a wonderful love story coincided perfectly with the experiment. I sense that the timelines might have been adjusted a bit. Overall though, these are all minor gripes that do not take away from my enjoyment of the book.

To conclude, Kingett's "Off the Grid" is a great read that can be recommended to all. While it has some problems, the book ends up being a fascinating deliberation on the impact of the internet on people with and without disabilities. It is also a very interesting personal story with a rather likable protagonist. If you are looking for a well-written treatise on the many problems faced by today's youth, "Off the Grid" is something you should definitely consider.

Final Verdict: Recommended 

Consumer narcissism and game review score inflation - Are we (partly) at fault here?

So yeah, this week I'm going to criticize patterns of behavior I myself engage in. I'm fully aware of the underlying hypocrisy of the following argument. I'm not even sure if I wholeheartedly support the following argument. However, this is something I had that nagging feeling about. At any rate, It is something we as gamers should certainly be talking about. So here goes my crazy theory: The ridiculous degree of review score inflation in the gaming industry is in large part a shortcoming of our own making.

Review score inflation is a fact of life in today's gaming journalism. I could provide you with hundreds outrageous examples but the one that shocked me recently was Mass Effect 3.  I never really played the space fantasy RPG before today. While I was aware of the controversy surrounding the ending, it was quite surprising to realize how many problems that game had. The combat mechanics are woefully archaic, especially when compared to ME3's peers such as Gears of War 3 or Uncharted 3. Furthermore, player customization and the RPG-specific systems are clearly inferior to the standards set  by Mass Effect 2, the game's predecessor. Finally, exploration is as mechanically broken as ever. While the awkward sprinting mechanic was kind of cute in ME1, it's rather embarrasing that Bioware had not fixed it with the third installment of the amazing series. And while it is still a very good game in many respects, it is mired in some significant problems. Yet, the Metacritic average review score for Mass Effect 3 stands at 93, suggesting that it was one of the best video games ever made...

The example above is far from the most outrageous instances of the trend. Every seasoned gamer can name at least a few underwhelming titles that really didn't match up to what was being said about them in the press. When considering this trend, one has to mention the sometimes dubious relationship between the biggest gaming outlets and game publishers. The fact that gamer publishers end up buying the vast majority of ad space on these websites is certainly something to keep in mind. The promotional "merch" that  game journalists are flooded with is also something many journalism professors would frown at. Although all of the above concerns are all legitimate factors, it would be a bit paranoid to blame it all on collusion. As the recent controversy surrounding the Division reviews shows, the underlying reason for review score inflation might be a lot more mundane than we think.

The Division came out to mostly positive critical acclaim. The game was lauded for the mesmerizing depiction of the post-endemic New York City.  And even though the Metacritic score currently stands at around 80 across all platforms, the game garnered several middling reviews. Two most vivid examples of the criticism were Vince Ingenito's IGN US review as well as Jim Sterling's review for the Jimquisition website.  Both gentlemen decided to give the game a seemingly decent score of 6.5. The controversy that followed was mind-blowing. The amount of various insults hurled at Ingenito and Sterling was comparable to the infamous DMC backlash of 2013. And why? Because the journalists posed that the Division was a decent game that did not really excel at anything, while delivering a solid experience nonetheless.

We as a community have a tendency to passionately criticize game journalists for inflating review scores. Seemingly, though, scoring below the general critical consensus is a similar offence.  While researching this piece I came across a fascinating article on the millennial generation that might shed some light on this schizophrenia of unmet expectations (link here). In this article Joel Stein states that "The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older". This, he says, is caused by a widespread epidemic of positive reinforcement parenting in the 70s and 80s . Basically, the theory goes, our parents and teachers have programmed us to believe in our own greatness while having little regard for reality. That's why, Stein says, "40% of all millennials believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance."

What does that have to do with gaming? Possibly, quite a lot. Gaming has slowly become a passion that people can be proud of. Our community is capable of great things and the games we play can often be considered interactive art. Similarly, we often feel the need to strrongly identify with the games we play. Since we play them a lot, we consider them to be means of our individual expression. Since we are all special and the games we play mean a lot to us, we need them to be great. It's very difficult for many gamers to accept that their favorite game is just decent, or maybe even slightly below average in some ways. Moreover, a game we dislike scoring above our personal judgment also invalidates our uniqueness. This may well be an interesting way of looking at why most games fall into the infinitely spacious scoring bracket between 7.5 and 9.0. In a way, it's a consensus that makes most of us happy.

I know it might be a wild goose chase but awareness that the problem exists is often the first step towards positive change. Maybe it's time to open ourselves to some unsettling radical ideas. From time to time, it's really OK to enjoy a game that's considered mediocre by the press. A true expression of how special you are may well be your ability to appreciate a misunderstood game in all its glory. As for game journalists: Guys, most of us are just being dramatic while coming up with the conspiracy theories. We know you aren't really corrupt. However, It wouldn't hurt to be a little bit bolder. Your audience will only benefit if they are provided with a bitter pill every now and again. Gaming has never been as expansive as it is now. We need you more than ever to be brutally honest with us. We will bitch at you for insulting our favorite franchise the first time around, maybe even the second time around. In the end, however, we will learn to truly appreciate defending our consumer rights, most of us anyway.

2016 is poised to be the year that just might turn us all into FPS players

First person shooters are arguably the most popular type of games ever created. The mixture of engaging combat and exciting spatial exploration is what modern games excel at. And starting with the success of Id Software in the 1990s FPS games have been closely tied to the growth of gaming in terms of market share but also cultural significance. Characters such as Doomguy, Gordon Freeman or ,more recently, Master Chief have become integral parts of the popular culture at large. Franchises like Counter Strike or Call of Duty have dominated global sales charts for more than a decade. In short, there is no gaming concept more Western than the FPS. While the Japanese were mastering their unique RPG aesthetic, the US has given the world the thrills of twitch shooting,

Despite the astounding success of the genre, mainstream FPS title have largely been a market segment designed for the "bro" demographic. Every single element of a game like Call of Duty is designed to appeal to white guys aged 16-35. This unfortunately means that these games remain impenetrable for a large portion of the gaming community. For me personally, the emphasis on pure twitch shooting skills is a huge deal-breaker for most online components of realistic shooters. In short, my shooting reflexes are terrible. This has kept me from being immersed in CoD and Battlefield. I spent years thinking that I was part of a very small minority because my disability renders me incapable of twitch reactions. Funnily enough, a new wave of game devs all over the world have seemingly acknowledged  that my niche concern is a legitimate barrier to entry for quite a few people. Things are changing and I couldn't be more excited.

The game that really made me reconsider my attitude towards shooters was Rainbow Six Siege.  At first glance game looks pretty by-the-numbers, it is essentially set up in the same way as Counter Stroke with some interwoven MOBA-light elements. Because of this exact impression and the online-only aspect the game has received mixed reviews across the board. Contrary to the popular belief, what makes the game truly special is the way the game allows you to contribute to your team's success by being smart rather than just shooting.

Obviously, proficient shooters in Rainbow Six Siege will still end up being the better players, at least in terms of high-level play. However, the game also allows you to contribute to the team effort by mastering your specific ability as well as taking advantage of the environment. Placing a trap in the exact right spot can be as viable as racking up a bunch of headshots. It is essentially the thinking man's shooter that gives you at least 3 distinct methods of expression within the game. You can specialize at: A) Shooting B) Special skill execution or C) Taking advantage of the environment. This is the trinity of good shooter design that is in stark contrast to the shooting-only emphasis of titles like CoD. As a person that never really had this feeling of being essential to your team's success, Rainbow Six Siege is truly a godsend. It is a very inclusive game that only appears to be a regular shooter.

The new unique approach to the FPS genre is also what I loved about the Polish indie gem Superhot. The game's central conceit revolves around a fascinating bullet time mechanic. In Superhot time moves only when you move. You can always take your sweet time to plan out a poetic way to down multiple enemies. It is wonderfully dynamic and very strategic at the same time. It gives you the thrill of being a game action hero without demanding any kind of twitch shooting skills. I feel like the phrase "poetry in motion" was invented specifically to describe my experience in Superhot. And don't trust the let's plays, the game looks kinda boring when you're watching it. Both Rainbow 6 Siege and Superhot might look a bit intimidating, but they both deserve to be played.

On top of that, we have Overwatch and Battleborn, two games that will add to the genre's inclusivity in ,ore interesting ways. I haven't had the pleasure to participate in the Overwatch or Battleborn betas but what I heard about both games is truly promising. In addition to the heavy use of the aforementioned trinity of inclusive FPS design, both games are aesthetically innovative. The character design teams of Blizzard and Gearbox made a point of creating diverse casts of characters that will appeal to gamers from all walks of life. At the moment, Overwatch is really trying to invite new players to learn high-level teamplay. Battleborn will probably make more sense for people looking to engage in more of a casual experience. Whatever ends up happening with both games, the real winners are the previously excluded gamers. Who could've anticipated that two major AAA studios would be putting their money on convincing gaming minorities, such as women, to feel at home playing their FPS titles?

2016 will most likely change our definition of First Person Shooters. Rethinking the very formula and  providing unique mechanics  in games like Siege or Superhot fills me with some much-needed hope for the future. The video game industry has finally acknowledged that twitch shooting skills are not universal. After years of missing out on the fun of multiplayer battles, people with sucky reflexes can finally join the ranks of the FPS crowd. 2016 might just be the year to give these games a shot. Shooters will never be games for everyone and I'm fine with that. But, at the same time, it is a historically significant genre for gaming and making it more accessible and interesting to casual players is indeed a noble endeavor and an exciting trend I can fully get behind.  It's time to give inclusive shooters a chance.

It's time we admit that justifying piracy in 2016 is pure nonsense

Today I spent quite a lot time trying to make some space on my antiquated hard drive. Browsing through all the data I've collected since 2009 turned out to be quite a sentimental journey. What was rather shocking was my realization that I still had lots of pirated software on my PC.  Yes, there was a time when I could've easily been considered an archetype of modern piracy. Like many others, I pirated because I could.  Over the last 6 years I have taken steps to get over my pirating habits and I'm proud to say that it's been almost a year since I last ran a Bittorrent game on my PC. However, even at the apex of my piracy days I was fully aware that what I was doing was a form of petty theft, akin to shoplifting a Mars bar. Trying to claim that what I was doing was morally justifiable had never even crossed my mind. Yet, to this day the internet is filled with people making ridiculous arguments both for and against piracy.

This is exactly what bugs me about the modern piracy debate. The defenders of piracy tend to claim that what they do is a form of politically justified protest in the name of the Open Source ideology. At the same time, companies keep insisting that pirates are scary criminals whose only ambition is to destroy the gaming industry. In no other debate around gaming have both sides ever been so shamefully dishonest and manipulative. I'm writing this because, above all else, we as a community need an injection of honesty into the subject matter.  People pirate because it is a very logical behavior. Piracy enables the consumer to access their favorite games for free while the odds of suffering negative consequences are very low. There's no deeper meaning to it, most modern pirates enjoy not paying for their games much more than the alternative.

Let's start with the poverty fallacy i.e. people not being able to afford games. I have to make a clear distinction here; the   have to remember that there are countries where poverty is the driving force behind piracy. Personally, being poor played a significant role in why I started using pirated software. At the turn of the century Poland wasn't exactly the best place to live in. At that time, my parents juggled a multitude of financial responsibilities related to my disability as well as general costs of living. Getting me a chipped PS2 was literally all we could afford. Because the legal market for video games was minuscule, getting a good deal on a legit game was an impossibility. I'm telling you this to give you a better picture of the game market in developing countries such as Brazil, Russia and China. If the industry does little to adjust to developing markets, I'm fine with piracy filling in the void.

What makes my blood boil is the cynical use of the poverty fallacy in the West. Bittorrent piracy is a predominantly western phenomenon. The reason why it is rather difficult for me to believe in torrent piracy being driven by poverty is the fact that it requires robust internet connection. Last month, when Jonathan Blow spoke out against people downloading the Witness illegally, many pseudo-activists condemned him and stated that this was punishment for the 40 USD price tag. Parts of the gaming community cling on to this misconception that piracy is not generating lost sales, because people wouldn't buy overpriced games in the first place. This might have been true 10 years ago, but certainly not today. The competition in the digital distribution space provides the consumers with abundance of deals and alternative pricing solutions that essentially let you decide what you are willing to pay for a particular game. The only requirement is a bit of patience. So how come did the Witness, a game marketed to English-speaking audiences, rise to the top of Bittorrent charts?

The Witness is a great example of what actually motivates people to pirate a game. One mechanism that is not widely discussed when we talk about piracy is game prioritization. Most serious pirates struggle to justify incessant piracy to themselves on the daily basis. Because of dealing with the moral ambiguities pirates are likely to periodically grant the "privilege"  of getting their money to "worthy" games. At the same time priority B titles are deemed "unworthy" and thus "deserve" to be pirated. This line of thinking has granted me absolution whenever I had my doubts about torrenting games. However, this is also why it is the medium-sized titles that can often be considered the true victims of piracy. After all, the bigger titles supported by the hype machine are best equipped to convince pirates to pay while the smallest games are simply overlooked. Being stuck in the middle of this equation is a real problem for games like the Witness.

That bring us to the biggest fallacy of them all, the corporate boycott narrative. Many pirates are filled with pride whenever they mention their supposed civil disobedience against the likes of Ubisoft or EA. The notion that installing a Bittorrent client and downloading a game is a brave political stance is sadder than the laziest form of Twitter activism. What these pseudo-activists fail to grasp is that whenever EA records a loss, regular employees are usually the people suffering the consequences. Your righteous boycott of a Ubisoft game will change nothing in the lives of the board members i.e. the corporate monsters that you actually hate. And the funniest thing is that most pirates know that. It's just that a righteous excuse is a very sexy way of disguising the fact that not paying for games is just very convenient.

So, how do we convince people to stop pirating? Instead of promoting legitimate purchases as the moral high ground, I have my own reasonable anti-piracy pitch. Approximately half of the pirated games I deleted in the last 12 months were never actually installed, I just liked the idea of having them. This is because piracy has a tendency to devolve into hoarding. When you start using torrent sites, you quickly come to a realization that you can download any game in the world for free. This is a very cool feeling that becomes a power trip for many people. However, having all this power at your fingertips often leads to downloading games for the sake of downloading. And whether this is something you can relate to or not, you will probably agree with me that all piracy diminishes our appreciation for games. Personally, this was the decisive factor in my move towards legitimacy. Games have developed to be a wonderful art form that deserves to be cherished. Having to be selective about which games to buy will make you a smarter consumer. But most of all, buying games on Steam or GoG sales will incentivise publishers to provide us with even more discounts.

Piracy is still a problem because it remains a very convenient option for many people. And that is the crucial element in understanding and counteracting the phenomenon. I strongly believe that the Gabe Newell "better service" mantra is the way to go when it comes to ending piracy. Every time Valve introduces a new feature to Steam, a group of pirates lose an excuse. Every time GoG opens up their platform even more, the pseudo-activists lose yet another pseudo-righteous argument. Every time a developer continues to improve their games post-launch, piracy loses some of its inherent convenience. Despite our best efforts to conceal it, human beings remain genetically programmed to be selfish. Pirates will continue making excuses for their behavior as long as it makes sense for them to pirate games. To win this battle, we  simply have to make piracy the irrational choice. As long as we continue walking the path towards better service, while staying away from the likes of UWP, a piracy-free future seems to be a very attainable goal

Aiming for mediocrity in the gaming industry and how to move beyond it

There's something very wrong with the Division. And the worst thing is that I keep finding myself unable to put in words what it is. It took me 2 hours to fall asleep last night only because this bugged me so much. Because, you see, when one tries to deconstruct the Division almost all of the individual elements seem to be fairly good. The gameplay loop engages you with neat shooting mechanics. The quests take you to these wonderfully atmospheric location that rally evoke all the right feelings in the player. All the systems available at launch seem to have a good level of depth and will certainly take a good long while to master. Finally, the game is hyperaware that it is a MMO Lite experience and, unlike Destiny in 2014, it actively encourages player interaction. Yet, I finished my first day with the Division feeling indifferent, uninspired and ,above all, unfulfilled.

Despite all of these elements being really fine-tuned, in the first 5 hours of gameplay none of it really come together in a cohesive way. There are two ways of looking at why that is. The first school of critique will focuses their efforts around pointing out the lack of depth in particular systems. I've already seen vocal critique of the shooting, the loot system or the ridiculously unrealistic enemy health bars. And all of the above are legitimate concerns that take away from people's enjoyment of the game. However, none of these perceived problem are cardinal offences that disqualify the game from being a good experience. After all, Borderlands 2 struggled with everything on that list and still managed to be a memorable experience for most players. In my opinion, what will ultimately deem the Division to be completely unremarkable game that will soon be forgotten is the underlying corporate fear of failure.

Let's go back to 2014 for a second. Ubisoft came into the year with high expectations for the new generation of consoles. The company worked tirelessly to generate as much hype as possible for Watch Dogs and Assassin Creed Unity. Both games were presented as revolutionary products poised to take full advantage of the wonderful new hardware. We all know how this story ends. Despite respectable sales numbers the disappointment of the 2 games having a wide rang of issues resulted in a PR disaster that prompted Ubisoft to be viewed on par with the great gaming evildoers of the day,  EA and Activision. The Ubisoft boardroom was clearly shaken up by the community backlash. Measures were undoubtedly taken to do everything in their power to avoid scandals of this magnitude in the future. As much as it is good that Ubisoft put an emphasis on quality control, the fear of failure seems to permeate from every major game development decision made by the French giant.

The most compelling games in my book are the titles that early in development are able to clearly identify what makes their product unique and geared every element of the game to be informed by that dominant attribute. My favourite AAA game of all time, the Witcher 3, is a great example of that. CD Projekt RED knew that, while the game was full of great ideas, it was the narrative that made it truly stand out. In the world of the Witcher you are constantly reminded that, while you can certainly engage in a myriad of your typical open-worldy activities, getting to know the game universe and the characters is what you're there for. Now think about your favourite game, book or a movie. If I told you to give me one defining characteristic of your favourite work of art you wouldn't hesitate for a second. Greatness, especially in video games, is not something you simply stumble upon. It is often the result of applying great execution to a ground-breaking idea.

The dominant direction for all of the recent Ubisoft games seems to be making sure that the end product is solid above all else. Where great games try to innovate, Ubisoft games try to avoid blunders at all cost. And while this  means better technical quality, unfortunately it also breeds mediocrity. And while I got a similar impression from playing AC Syndicate and Far Cry Primal, the Division is where this aiming for mediocrity is at its worst. There's not a single element of the game that could be considered bold or contentious. Everything seems to be designed around a check list of what makes a solid game. The Division is a game that knows full well it is a 6. It is unapologetically proud of its mediocrity. It wants you to like it, but it knows you won't be in love with it. I seriously cannot find a single system in it that is not borrowed from something else. And that fact alone may not be outrage-inducing, but it is disappointing in this subtle yet painful way.

The more cynical among you will say that this is nothing new in AAA gaming and if I want innovation I should only play indie titles. There are  many reasons why I'm vehemently against this notion. Ubisoft is the company with a rather good record in game innovation. Assassin's Creed 2 is still the pinnacle of open-world action games. Far Cry 3 introduced a ton of systems that define today's implementation of RPG elements in FPS games. Even the controversial Watch Dogs had some great puzzle mechanics within the city hacking system. Ubisoft is more than capable of delivering innovation and I genuinely hope that the move towards risk-mitigation is just temporary and that projects like the next Assassin Creed game will do something to help me rediscover my love for their titles. 

Even if we assume that all strategic decisions at Ubisoft are dictated by greed, being a bit more daring might actually be the safer choice. Let me remind you that we live in a post-Deadpool world where the weird underdog superhero movie completely crushed the by-the-numbers Gods of Egypt. The Merc with a Mouth showed us that not all successful entertainment products have to appeal to everyone. Fervent support of a smaller group of people is often a lot more meaningful than the basic for of approval from a much larger community. I am more than certain that Rainbow Six Siege, a truly innovative gem in many respects, ends up making more money than the Division ever will. Why? Because in the consumer market, 1 passionate evangelist of your product is worth much more than 5 marketing experts.

The Division fails because it is obsessively making sure it is not a failure, and that's a shame. I hope there are people at Ubisoft realizing this now. Because, as much as it is bland and average, it can still be salvaged. I can easily imagine re-imagining in the form of a big expansion. It would really be a shame for this incredible vision of New York City to go to waste. On the other hand, the realization that there is something wrong with the game may never come. The game is what it is because the data proves that people will pay good money for games with these particular elements. Gamers punish developers for releasing bad, broken games. However, I actually think it might be time to demand more than a solid product. So whenever you a flashy trailer entices you to buy a mediocre game, remind yourself that there are probably 100 better ways to spend your gaming budget. That way, we might actually end up helping Ubisoft and others excel in the long run.     

The pitfalls of VR and why liability is Oculus' biggest problem

In a bit more than 3 weeks Oculus Rift will usher in what is widely considered a new era in gaming, the virtual reality age. 2016 has already been dubbed "the year of VR" and pretty much everyone agrees that the technology is somewhat of a quantum leap for the industry. There obviously are negative voices but the vast majority of the naysayers seem to focus their critique around the relatively high price point or the formidable hardware requirements that will bar the majority of customers from enjoying VR as intended.  While these concerns are sound, I can't help but think that we are missing a killer issue that is looming over the future of VR.

Before delving into my concerns let me establish my personal stance on VR. Firstly, as a disabled game I couldn't possibly be more excited for VR. I am particularly moved by the very notion of expanding people's access to experiences they couldn't possibly have in the physical realm. In my opinion, when we talk about the potential of VR we are almost always tentative in our prediction. In my mind, the evolution of the technology can have life-changing impact on great many people with  physical limitation. In my version of the virtual future, heavily paralyzed individuals are given a VR work space, where they can be as productive as anyone else. I imagine a lot of disabled and elderly people reinventing themselves thanks to VR. The entertainment aspect is really exciting as a goal for the first few years of adoption. The final frontier goes beyond anything that is being discussed at the moment.

Mundane issues like the considerable price point is really not a huge problem for technologies supported by such corporations as Facebook  or Valve. In the boardrooms of the world everyone seems to be fully aware that VR is a long-term play that will not be properly monetized for at least 3 years. All the talk about Oculus being dead in the water is nothing more than the usual consumer dissatisfaction with the prices of ground-breaking technology. My main concern can be summarized in a single word: liability.Yes, Virtual Reality will probably be the next chapter in the "games are evil" debate. What is truly mind-boggling is the fact that we aren't talking about it at all.

Let us begin with setting up clear parameters for my deliberations. We can assume that most VR users will be using the headsets in moderation. I keep coming across 2 hours as the cited limit for a VR session. Eye strain and simulation sickness will limit people yo using VR as a novelty experience on top of their usual gaming habits. This will especially be true in the early days when most devs will still be learning how to design around these issues. However, we all know that there will be another group of VR users. The true VR evangelists are already planning to organize the majority of their gaming life around Oculus or Vive. Ironically, it is this group that may put the entire virtual revolution in jeopardy, or at least slow it down in a very considerable fashion.

It is generally very hard to find solid empirical data on prolonged VR use, especially if you are not blessed with a JStor account. What I managed to find is a study from 1999 that studied the effects of the early VR head-mounted displays(HMD). According to Collins 1999, prolonged exposure to HMDs seems to rewire our brains in a distinct way and may cause "LSD-like" flashbacks in adults. We have to also remember that HMDs from the study were much less effective in terms of player immersion than the modern VR headsets. The study is inconclusive in saying whether the effects are in any way permanent. It may well be a small annoyance, but at the same time it casts a shadow on the entire hype.

Another problematic consideration is the fact that VR headsets are designed to provide a degree of sensory deprivation. In order to immerse us in the virtual world, the technology cuts off our access to the usual sources of sensory experiences. Here we have to return to the world of academia. Daniel et. al 2014 contend that even short-term sensory deprivation puts subjects at risk of "psychotic-like" experiences. Again, you can argue that VR headsets don't use sensory deprivation but a form of sensory simulation. However, we simply don't have the long-term usage data to dispel these concerns.

And here lies the core problem that the VR industry will have to face. Obviously, the problem I described will never be widespread and most people will adapt to VR the same we adapt we to any other form of technology. However, the PR aspect of potential psychological damage might be disastrous. It may well take just a few bad apples for the entire house to come crashing down. Imagine several christian kids in the US developing psychiatric symptoms that coincide with the introduction of VR. The correlation could just be spurious, but looking at the recent anti-vaccine debacle I'm really afraid that VR may be the next frontier in the (un)holy crusade against video games. Let us remember that ,for example, the spurious connection between schizophrenia and cannabis use is still used as the main argument against the drug in many countries. Pseudo-scientific myths tend to take on a life of their own and I'm really concerned that "VR makes you crazy" may well be another pseudo-scientific slogan  to dominate the political and legal discourse.

Let me finish this piece by playing devil's advocate for a while. In the 1920s, when cars were being introduced to Western societies, there was a wave of backlash and widespread protests against automobiles (Grescoe 2012). Ultimately. the protests have become but a funny anecdote from the past. Cars are as universal now as bread was to the people of the 1920s. My sincere hope is that virtual reality will also prove too beneficial a technology to disregard because of a doubtful health concern. Also, it is important to point out that some manufacturers are already addressing the problem. The outward-facing camera that the Vive is equipped with may well be the answer to most deprivation-induced problems. I really hope that the manufacturers are prepared for addressing the health concerns. However, it would really be unwise to just assume everyone has the PR aspect under full control. After all, we are talking about the industry that gave rise to the PR genius of EA or Ubisoft....

Social trends in gaming might explain Trump's rise better than any mainstream pundit

Stay with me for a moment. Yes, I think the great success of the Donald can be explained through the lens of video games and I'm being serious. Yesterday, on the so-called Super Tuesday, the world of politics saw Donald Trump practically clinch his Republican nomination. Don't get me wrong, at this pointno one is really shocked by how things are turning out. However, the ease with which Mr. Trump is crushing even the wildest predictions is baffling to say the least. Pundits are trying to outperform each other in providing increasingly ridiculous explanations for particular victories. And while my theory is simply a cog in a very complex political mechanism, it provides insight I haven't even heard mentioned in the media. In short, I believe that Donald Trump will be the next US President and gamers will contribute to his victory.

Historically, gaming has been at least in part associated with progressive thinking and liberal values. In part this is a logical consequence of assuming that gaming is the domain of the young. Social groups such as university students  are stereotypically seen as very liberal. The same group, namely male university goers, happen to be the target group for many AAA gaming companies. And this conjecture is what lies at the heart of the liberal myth about gaming. As with many other things in life, correlation doesn't equal causation. Yes, students are still more likely to be liberal than conservative. Yes, students remain a somewhat significant demographic for gaming in the West. However, the gaming community at large is much more diversified politically than most people assume. Not only that, looking at the world of gaming shows just how incorrect the spin doctors are in their outdated assumptions about the youth in countries like the US.

Let me be clear, I'm not here to judge anyone. I have my very progressive beliefs, I'm proud to call myself a feminist, and I'm generally disappointed in how many people are susceptible to the allure of modern demagoguery. This article is about something else. It is a rebuttal to a misconception I have heard in the American media almost every day.   How many times have we been told: "No one could have ever anticipated Trump's rise to prominence"? When the media try to explain the popularity of Mr. Trump, almost every interpretation can be boiled down to: "people are afraid and he's pandering to this xenophobia".  Every time I hear this incredibly simplistic line of thought, I get incredibly frustrated. As a gamer I have been witnessing complete escalation of discourse similar to Trump's rhetoric for at least the last 5 years.

The world of gaming has been embroiled in what is effectively a cultural war. With the popularisation of gaming, some mainstream developers took measures to cater the needs of minority customers. Furthermore, certain advocacy groups started to criticize some of the more popular gaming franchises for excluding minority groups or completely ignoring certain themes. This in turn led to the creation of a counter-culture that has argued for the preservation of the old ways of game development, complete depoliticization of video games and better ethics in game journalism. Whichever side you're on in this conflict, you know full well that it has caused a huge divide in the world of gaming. It's been almost 2 years since the peak of this widespread debate and many communities are still divided along these political lines.

In my opinion ,this is where Trump's political appeal has been grossly underestimated. Trump is the essence of a similar counter-culture that was created in response to the progressive tone of Obama's presidency. All of Trump's principle are geared towards being the antidote to the social changes achieved under Obama. The billionaire is an embodiment of the doubts a large portion of Americans have about the move towards minority politics and social justice. This sentiment in its core is eerily similar to the gaming counter culture we talked about. Uncertainty about social change is nothing new and we as gamers were dealing with it years before Trump was even a thing.

This is why I'm pretty sure Trump will be the next US President. Liberals arrogantly assume that the millennials will show overwhelming support for Hillary. Polling numbers that show Hillary to be in the lead are likely to be  skewed. Voting for Trump is somewhat of a shameful act in many liberal families in the US. When push comes to shove, however, a large portion of this "traditional" Democrat demographic might quietly support Donald Trump. And all that's left to us liberal gamers is a grim satisfaction in seeing the Trump presidency long before anyone else even dreamed of it.

P.S.: I'm not an American citizen and  I don't even live in the US. However, my stake in the elections is almost as big as anyone else's. We live in a globalized world and the ramifications of a Trump presidency are likely to affect me in the same way you will be affected.