Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the gaming industry and culture continue to shift and mold toward consumers, developers and companies are in a constant race to learn to adapt and remain relevant. With masterful crafting of marketing strategies, increasing capital investment in game development, and even closer attention towards consumer relationships, Riot Games, a prominent company within the gaming industry, boasts to be a strong case study of the complex intersectional, material, and cultural dynamics of play as situated practices. Boasting a robust gaming culture with almost unrivaled business success, Riot is quickly becoming a multibillion-dollar business (Jarrett 2021). With its perceived success within the gaming community, it is important unpack the logic of success that construe Riot as a model to learn from despite the world of compliant raised against it. In doing so, we can use these logics of success and the world of complaint to complicate the façade of success that is fabricated through uneven relations of power establishing the hegemony of play.
 Since the advent of video games, scholars have long studied the hegemony of play, diving deep into the exploration of the social impact of technology, positioning of video games in society, and the power structures that video game industries uphold (Fron et al. 2007; Gray 2020). The tendrils of hegemony of play extend far and wide, finding its traces in racial capitalism, alienating minority groups, exploitative game production, and so much more. By delving deeper into the logic of success in conjunction with the hegemony of play, one can acquire the tools to critically analyze and critique the criteria by which Riot’s success is measured among different communities. The two main criteria of interest explored in this piece include financial success and success in crafting reputation. Juxtaposed against these two criteria of success, this paper will then dive deep into the world of complaint expressed against Riot. Building on Sara Ahmed’s theorization of complaint that explores how complaints are often made behind closed doors and how people who raise complaints frequently have their doors shut on them (Ahmed 2021), this paper proceeds to offer a systematic analysis on the power structures embedded in the logic of success that perpetuate the hegemony of play.
 One may ask, why is it important to raise questions and critique the logic of success holding up Riot Games’ status? We must pull away focus on surface-level success and attend to complaint to understand how this hegemony of play is upheld—if one wants to disrupt the hegemony, we must care for complaints. Engaging in a series of textual analysis, this paper will draw from trade journals, news articles, and discussion forums in the contexts of not only financial and reputational success, but also the world of complaint as Riot is no stranger to controversy, being subject to gender-based discrimination lawsuits and culture of sexism (Liao 2022).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».