Interesting conversation on my Facebook wall about the phenomenon of many young men seemingly dropping out of the work force and real life to live in virtual worlds/games, to the point where their withdrawal is visible on an economic level. Richard Bartle, who's basically one of the godfathers of virtual worlds, had this response:
"If you don't want people to live in a virtual world, make the real world better. Virtual worlds were invented precisely because the real world sucks. It sucked back then and it still sucks today. Roy Trubshaw and I had this view when we were creating MUD nearly 40 years ago. We discussed it with our friends. It's not something that has only come to us by reflecting upon it years later. If these young men weren't playing games, what would they be doing instead? I don't mean what The Economist would like them to be doing instead, I mean what they'd actually be doing instead. The games-playing is a symptom; remove the symptom and the cause is still there - it'll just manifest with different symptoms."
I don't quite agree so I put a question to Richard:
"I doubt we'd devote our careers to developing virtual worlds unless we thought they were incredibly compelling and immersive for most people, whatever their specific circumstances. And since it'll take years to address bad economic conditions (if they can be substantially improved) and may not even be reversible for some, shouldn't we be more proactive rather than just saying 'not our problem'?"
Bartle's reply: