Cited by 524Digital Games and MediaEducational Games and GamificationCultural Studies and Postmodernism

Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames

Consalvo, Mia·2007·The MIT Press eBooks

Abstract

A cultural history of digital gameplay that investigates a wide range of player behavior, including cheating, and its relationship to the game industry. The widely varying experiences of players of digital games challenge the notions that there is only one correct way to play a game. Some players routinely use cheat codes, consult strategy guides, or buy and sell in-game accounts, while others consider any or all of these practices off limits. Meanwhile, the game industry works to constrain certain readings or activities and promote certain ways of playing. In Cheating, Mia Consalvo investigates how players choose to play games, and what happens when they can't always play the way they'd like. She explores a broad range of player behavior, including cheating (alone and in groups), examines the varying ways that players and industry define cheating, describes how the game industry itself has helped systematize cheating, and studies online cheating in context in an online ethnography of Final Fantasy XI. She develops the concept of "gaming capital" as a key way to understand individuals' interaction with games, information about games, the game industry, and other players. Consalvo provides a cultural history of cheating in videogames, looking at how the packaging and selling of such cheat-enablers as cheat books, GameSharks, and mod chips created a cheat industry. She investigates how players themselves define cheating and how their playing choices can be understood, with particular attention to online cheating. Finally, she examines the growth of the peripheral game industries that produce information about games rather than actual games. Digital games are spaces for play and experimentation; the way we use and think about digital games, Consalvo argues, is crucially important and reflects ethical choices in gameplay and elsewhere.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7551/mitpress/1802.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Changing a game (e.g., via mod, cheat, or console command) can be framed as breaking the rules, because the game has been changed from its original state and the rules defined by the designer are no longer in effect.

    “Another way of framing such changing of the game is to see it as breaking the rules, since the game has been changed from the original state - the rules defined by the designer are no longer in effect (Consalvo, 2007, pp. 90-91).”

    From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Consalvo, 2007

Authors
Consalvo, M.
Corresponding author
Consalvo, Mia
Venue
The MIT Press eBooks
Publisher
The MIT Press
Published
2007-05-25
OpenAlex
W4238550973
Cited by
524
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 20
FWCI
16.71
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
Keywords
player behavior, video game industry, online cheating, cheat codes, strategy guide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review