Reading 03: Game Hackers

 

Early hackers viewed programming as a point of pride, something to perfect and show friends like a trophy of your abilities. However, as computers finally became more accessible to everyday people outside of college campuses, a new marketplace was created for the world of software. A third generation named “Game Hackers” saw monetary value in computing and changed the focus of hacking from progress to profit.

“Game Hackers” valued ability and rewarded it better than their predecessors ever could, but their idea of perfection was wildly different. “Game Hackers” preferred “less polished programs that shipped on schedule” (Hackers p. 334, Steve Levy) to a program that was the fastest or most resource-efficient. Marketing the product instead of perfecting it was the real focus, since that is what sold the most games. Ken Williams sums up this shift best in Steve Levy’s book, saying “"We'll lose our dependence on programmers. It's silly to think programmers are creative. Instead of waiting for the mail to come, for guys like John Harris to design something, we're going to get some damn good implementers who aren't creative, but good” (Hackers p. 335, Steve Levy).

I see this shift in mindset to be unfortunate, inevitable, and also beneficial. As the potential for computing to be profitable rose, it was inevitable that corporations and venture capitalists would influence programmers in that direction. Creatives might ultimately be stifled by this shift, but having capital in programming also drives great innovation. For instance, modern companies like NVIDIA create amazing chips that push the limit of computing every year.

Steve Levy discusses some great questions about the shift of hackers towards the marketplace. By the 80’s, it seems like just about anyone could benefit from a computer. He describes shopping for programs like records, writing “you'd go to the software store, choose the latest releases, and spin away” (Hackers p. 243, Steve Levy). I believe that even if you lacked the knowledge behind it, programming finally evolved to be accessible for anyone.

This “accessibility” became limited by legal ownership and usually payment, however. While a company could protect users from fake software or scams, their ownership also prevents people from improving on software like before. Nothing is free, which goes against a core tenet of the Hacker Ethic in accessibility.

In an ideal world, the spirit of the Hacker Ethic could definitely survive. If money did not encourage things like trade secrets, people could infinitely improve on works around the world and benefit everyone. However, I believe that the Hacker Ethic is always going to be eroded in some manner in a world of commercial and proprietary software. Access will always be withheld and corners will always be cut. A “professional programmer” will always be more successful, but a programmer with a “love for computing in your heart” will always be more ideal.