| dc.description.abstract | In the first quarter of 2016, the consumer version of the long-awaited head-mounted virtual reality display Oculus Rift was released. According to Mark Zuckerberg (2014), virtual reality will one day “become a part of daily life for billions of people.” However, this technology is still in its appropriation phase, so it remains to be seen whether virtual reality is truly going to break through as a widespread technology. Originally, the Oculus Rift was designed specifically for video games. But when Facebook bought Oculus, Oculus made a statement that they wanted to transform the way people learn, share, and communicate and not just the way they play (Oculus VR 2014). Furthermore, Facebook wants to expand this virtual reality platform and create many other more serious virtual reality experiences as well. In our contemporary culture, however, playfulness has become a mainstream characteristic of our daily lives (Frissen et al. 2015, 9). “Playfulness not only characterizes leisure time (…), but also those domains that used to be serious”, such as work, education, politics, and warfare (9). Thus, even if Facebook transforms the Oculus Rift into a platform for more serious experiences, play and playfulness might still be key aspects that characterize the appropriation of this novel technology.
The aim of this research is to investigate how the notion of play has manifested within various virtual reality experiences. A comparative textual analysis has been conducted on seven YouTube videos divided in three virtual reality categories: video games, communication platforms, and documentaries. Within this thesis, the four play types and two play attitudes, as defined by Caillois (1961), are used to analyse the various ways in which play occurs within these three different categories. The chosen YouTube videos both show what is happening on the screen as well as the user who is using the head-mounted display. This allows me to analyse the different levels on which affordances of play have manifested within these three categories. When there are play elements designed by the developers in the virtual environments a certain level of play on the Oculus Rift occurs and when the affordances of the Oculus Rift in the physical space elicit playful behaviour, play with the Oculus Rift occurs (de Lange 2010, 66).
Within the video game category the Oculus Rift is being used to play video games, which indicates how play on the Oculus Rift always occurs within this category (de Lange 2010, 66). However, within this category play with the Oculus Rift occurs as well. Both users and developers use the Oculus Rift as a playable material artifact by combining the affordances of various technological components in the physical space in order to create a vivid full-body experience that fosters the immersive experience. This fostering of the immersive experience goes hand in hand with the notion of mimicry and ilinx, because in both cases these affordances mimic the movements of the video game characters, while also triggering multiple senses (Caillois 1961, 19-26). As represented within the YouTube videos of the communication and documentary categories, aspects of play are also designed within these virtual environments. By playfully mimicking and remediating aspects users are familiar with, ranging from mini-games to television and the virtual selfie, developers explore the potential of the Oculus Rift as a technology that can be used for communication and informative purposes. This leads to a certain level of play on the Oculus Rift in these categories as well. Not only do these playful aspects help users “to acquire specific skills and insights” (de Mul 2015, 341), research also shows that play can help users learn many important things (Resnick 2004, 3). These playful affordances provide ways for users to familiarize and get comfortable with the Oculus Rift being used for other aspects besides video games. When users are comfortable enough with a technology they start to, “more often than not”, adapt and modify it according to their own needs and in ways often unforeseen by developers (Lauwaert 2009, 16; Dix 2007, 1). According to Dix (2007) we know at that point that “the technology has become the users’ own” (1). This form of appropriation behavior already occurred within the video game category.
It is concluded that the appropriation phase of the Oculus Rift is being heavily influenced by various aspects of play. Play is a key characteristic that occurs during the appropriation phase of the Oculus Rift, helping to facilitate the technology’s acceptance even within the categories that have a more serious purpose. Not only does it help developers and users explore the potential of this novel technology, sometimes by playfully combining it with other technologies, it also provides a certain aspect of familiarity which helps users to learn and get comfortable with the Oculus Rift as a technology suited for communication and informative purposes as well. This indicates how the notion of play has manifested during the appropriation phase of the Oculus Rift in two ways. By playing with the technology, both developers and users try to understand what this technology can do for their day-to-day lives. This indicates, just as Raessens (2014) argued, that play and digital technologies are closely linked in our contemporary media culture (104). The Oculus Rift, just as many other technologies, has enabled new forms of play (Raessens 2014, 103). During the appropriation phase of the Oculus Rift we find its source in the specifics of programming virtual environments, but also in the activities of interacting with these environments. As developers and users both seem to playfully appropriate the Oculus Rift, this novel technology is about to enter the domain of the ludification of our culture. | |
