Gaming Deaths

[Lord Mancow]

I'm doing an assignment for school on video game violence and any issues that it raises.

One of the issues which came up was whether it was moral to kill other characters in game. And whether it was moral to enjoy such a thing.

I've been unable to find anything on the interwebz and so I now turn to the playground for your opinions.

I for one am entirely unsure. On one hand you have the fact that its all 'just a game'. On the other is that it could be considered a little sadistic because when you get enjoyment from killing an opponent you are essentially getting enjoyment from causing harm to something else, even if it doesn't exist.

Please help me.

Thank you all in advance.

[PersonMan]

Sadists get pleasure from pain/suffering/humilitation. I'm pretty sure that most people who play video games know that those lumps of pixels don't have families, loved ones, children, friends, etc. and aren't "hurt" by your "killing" them.

[jlvm4]

The morality of killing game characters (for me at least) has often been tied to the morality of it in actuality. For example, a war game requires that you kill the enemy. In the 'real world' (a debate I'm not trying to get into), it is generally considered morally acceptable to kill an enemy that is trying to kill you. However, killing innocent civilians (say wiping out a village of women and children) would be a criminal order and something that was morally wrong both in game and in reality. As such, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it as a player.

I believe if you play a moral character, even if it's played in a violent game, you shouldn't be concerned about the 'killing' aspect of it. Your morality, or soul if you will, is kept intact by the fact that your morals are consistant. Probably why I don't like games where evil acts are required for you to succeed/win.

That said, games are rated M for a reason. I would not allow a child to play these games because their reasoning and ability to judge right and wrong are still developing. An adult will be able to separate real from pretend and right from wrong even when it is not clearly defined. A child cannot, and so I think it can corrupt sensibilities and desensitize them, especially if they play frequently enough that it outweighs their 'real world' time.

Not sure that helps, but good luck with your assignment anyway.

[druid91]

Killing in video games is about as morally questionable as eating a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich.

If you called it "Fligertling" the "Floogenspigle" Instead of "killing" the "Enemy" would it make much of a difference? All that is destroyed is, well in most games nothing really because you can always hit the reset button. So at most your opponent is disabled.

[ForzaFiori]

Killing in video games is about as morally questionable as eating a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich.

If you called it "Fligertling" the "Floogenspigle" Instead of "killing" the "Enemy" would it make much of a difference? All that is destroyed is, well in most games nothing really because you can always hit the reset button. So at most your opponent is disabled.

Kinda like how in Mortal Kombat and several other games, you get a "Knock Out" instead of a kill, even if you disintegrate the enemy. Just cause you call it something doesn't mean that is what it is.

In the same manner, just cause you claim that "killing" pixels on a screen is the same as actually killing someone in real life, doesn't mean it is. Even the actions describe by jlvm4 are no where near the same as doing it in real life. As long as one remembers that it truly is just a game, not acceptable in real life, and pixels on a screen, your fine.

[golentan]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: No. Come back with this when computers start getting to the point where we have to seriously consider giving them voting rights.

Further Questions for Extra Credit: Is it immoral to swat a mosquito? Most people I've observed doing so have derived some serious, vengeance driven satisfaction from the pain and death of a living creature. Why is it different (worse) if the thing dying happens to be humanoid? It still has less autonomy and intelligence than the mosquito, even if it is geared to use sound bites and visual cues to tug at players heartstrings. If a plant appeared like a baby, complete with wailing, as a defense measure, would it be immoral to cut it down? Why is it better if the creature isn't humanoid? I never see people complaining about gunning down bug aliens in Sci Fi games, for example, and they are supposedly representations of sapient creatures. Is it more or less moral to derive pleasure from the apparent but false death of another (fictional) human than it is to eat a roast beef sandwich (deriving pleasure from the actual death of an actual organism with a relatively developed nervous system) while doing the same? Is it more moral to "kill" a human being in a video game, watch it in a movie, play it in a pen and paper game, or read it in a book, and where does each fall on a scale of moral questionability? Food for thought.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

It really depends on how you define moral and what makes something moral. If moral is just "right" or "wrong", why is what's "right" right? And unfortunatly, it's hard to go into that without violating the forum's bans on religious or political discussion.
When you shoot an enemy in the game, you do not destroy what causes that enemy to act how it does, only how that thing interacts with its world. Killing a person in the real world does destroy the brain. Even if you called AI a living thing (reacts to stimuli, changes its environment, ect) it is not killed when you shoot a mook. It's like in star trek with the borg, where the individual drones are not individuals but limbs of a hive mind. Killing a borg drone annoys the Collective, but doesn't kill it.
As for if its moral to enjoy, or not be disturbed by killing a game character(character, not mook, think party members in RPGs as opposed to nameless waves of enemies), it really depends on what set of morals you're going by. And the character is not really a person, it's an anthropomorphism. It'd be like freaking out over "killing" someone in a painting by damaging the painting. Or naming a pair of glasses and turing yourself in as a murderer when you break them.
As for someone deriving enjoyment from causing (simulated) harm to a "person" in a game, that's more of living out a fantasy of doing that to a person, in which case it's abnormal but not necessarily immoral (due to the whole "moral relativity" thing).

So, by going with the common set of morals in western culture, it can be immoral to kill or like killing things in video games, but it depends on why they're killing the things.

Edit: Golentan, I think the main reason why people act differently towards slaughtering giant talking bugs and baby-plant-things is the baby-things look more like people so the person playing the game is disensitised to humaniod cries of pain.

[toasty]

My general answer:

Video Games are fantasy. The characters are fake. Much of our media (movies, music, art, books) display acts of violence. Many of these acts are not meant to be reenacted. In fact, if any video game or other such media seems to be actively encouraging others to enact acts of violence upon others then they should not be used or enjoyed.

If a person honestly believes, that Doom, for instance, is encouraging him to buy a shotgun and shoot people, then that person requires serious help. if a person believes that that Gangsta life of GTA is supposed to be followed as closely as possible, then that person should STOP PLAYING GTA. I can play GTA without being effected by the "evilness" of the gangsta life-style (or whatever it is, I actually don't really like GTA and don't play it that much), but maybe someone else can't: its Rated M for a reason. You don't let your little kids watch, Saving Private Ryan, do you? With that in mind you shouldn't let your kids play any video game.

I "kill" people in video games all the time. I play DotA and League of Legends a LOT with my friends. We kill each other a LOT in these games. Am I more violent as a result? No. In fact, playing dota has introduced me to some really cool, and really nice people. None of them are violent haters waiting to crack, they're normal young adults.

[Superglucose]

One of the issues which came up was whether it was moral to kill other characters in game. And whether it was moral to enjoy such a thing.

Kill implies life. I submit to you that it is impossible to kill other characters in a video game. Any time you "kill" someone in a game it has about as much moral consideration as ripping a drawing of a person in half or breaking a stick against a tree.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Kill implies life. I submit to you that it is impossible to kill other characters in a video game. Any time you "kill" someone in a game it has about as much moral consideration as ripping a drawing of a person in half or breaking a stick against a tree.

It depends on how close the thing is to life.
A fly gathers information with its senses of touch, sight, ect. It then interprets this and acts on the info, creating a situation where it gathers new info then acts on that.
If someone programmed a computer program to recieve information fed to it in the form of and to react to that info the same way a fly might (ie, they created an artificial fly) is it not living? Video game characters react to info they recieve from the player, are they not "living" to a degree?

[Superglucose]

You are wrong. Characters in video games aren't even remotely close to living.

[Mr. Scaly]

I answer the question "is killing in video games immoral" with a question of my own: is knocking the croquet ball through a wicket in a game of croquet immoral?

[Zevox]

Sadists get pleasure from pain/suffering/humilitation. I'm pretty sure that most people who play video games know that those lumps of pixels don't have families, loved ones, children, friends, etc. and aren't "hurt" by your "killing" them.

Pretty much this sort of thing.

Games are mere simulations - the things you do in them do not actually occur, the beings shown within them do not actually exist. From where I'm sitting, morality is utterly irrelevant to them. Until we reach a point where our technology can create true sapient AIs and someone starts putting those into video games and allowing you to destroy them, there's simply nothing to consider in my opinion.

Zevox

[Tricksy Hobbits]

You are wrong. Characters in video games aren't even remotely close to living.

How do you define living? What's the difference between whooping when you kill someone over the internet in CoD and whooping when you kill an AI in singleplayer mode?
If it reacts to outside stimuli and changes its environment we can call it living, yes? Then AI in video games are living. They don't exist in the phisical world but they do in the world created by the software.

[golentan]

Edit: Golentan, I think the main reason why people act differently towards slaughtering giant talking bugs and baby-plant-things is the baby-things look more like people so the person playing the game is disensitised to humaniod cries of pain.

Bah. Touchy-feely categorizations of what's right and wrong to do irritate the hell out of me when they boil down to "But it's okay to kill it because it's UGLY!" Starting at the humanoid end of the spectrum (It's an orc? Shoot on sight) and moving all the way to disembodied computer programs (it has no face, it's okay to wipe the AI's drive, and if it struggles for survival then it's really crossed the line).

It seems so wrongheaded to me. The sort of thing that leads to truly nightmarish projects. They're different -> they're impure -> they're inferior -> they're evil -> Rid the world of the Evil (group not speaking here) so that the Master (group speaking here) may prosper and usher in a perfect society with the pretty people who look and think just like us. Until we narrow the parameters on "us" and widen for "them" just a little bit more next time...

I have nightmares about you people, have I mentioned that? Wake screaming and sweaty in the middle of the night nightmares. It's not helped by the fact that I have actually seen you people do things worse than I ever feared in my most terrible fever dreams to each other.

[thubby]

is cops and robbers immoral?
how about enjoying shakespeare? characters get killed in those, and people enjoy performing and watching it.

the reality is, not only is videogame violence not immoral, those who argue it is are hypocritical.
i would go a step farther and say that the entire idea is simply a symptom of the bias against new media that all modern media have gone through.

there was actually a study done on this very subject, it found that violence was not a factor in the enjoyment of the game. they changed the weapons to more cartoon-y tazers and instead of kills players were teleported in a flash of light.
there's even an old nerf fps that is immensely popular

edit: for another example we have paintball and airsoft. you don't even simulate killing things!
i would speculate it satisfies some hunting instinct in people.

[Strawberries]

I'm doing an assignment for school on video game violence and any issues that it raises.

One of the issues which came up was whether it was moral to kill other characters in game. And whether it was moral to enjoy such a thing.

What has morality got do do with killing characters in video games? We aren't advanced to the point where computers are sentient AIs. If I was doing the assignment, I won't argue that it's moral - I'd point out the issue doesn't apply.

On the other is that it could be considered a little sadistic because when you get enjoyment from killing an opponent you are essentially getting enjoyment from causing harm to something else, even if it doesn't exist.

This instead can be argued. I think you are making a rushed assumption here. When you kill an opponent you may get enjoyment from a number of different things

-The fact that s/he's an ass who deserves it (it's no different that cheering when the bad guy is defeated in a book or a movie)

-The fact that you managed to kill it even if the fight was difficult (It's less a case of getting enjoyment from causing harm and more a case of getting enjoyment for having devised a good strategy - not different than chess: should you feel sadistic when you tip the other player's king?)

-If you're playing an evil charachter, the fact that you killed them, full stop. This can be assimilated to the pleasure an actor gets for playing a "villain" in a consistent matter. No morality issues needed.

Long story short: video games are just that, games. If they manage to influence someone in real life, you may be certain that there where pre-existent psychological issues with this person, and the same effect could be obtained by reading a book, watching a movie or even the news on television. I'd like to think we as humans have a pretty good grasp of what's real and what isn't.

[Zevox]

How do you define living?

I believe you're looking for this.

life
  –noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

What's the difference between whooping when you kill someone over the internet in CoD and whooping when you kill an AI in singleplayer mode?

Morally? None whatsoever if you ask me.

If it reacts to outside stimuli and changes its environment we can call it living, yes?

Not by the existing definition of the term. See above link/quote.

-The fact that you managed to kill it even if the fight was difficult (It's less a case of getting enjoyment from causing harm and more a case of getting enjoyment for having devised a good strategy - not different than chess: should you feel sadistic when you tip the other player's king?)

I do believe it would be more accurate to say that the enjoyment in that case comes from overcoming a challenge. Whether the fight involved strategy or not can vary, after all.

Zevox

[MonkeyBusiness]

I think this is a really fantastic question. And I feel that as long as gamers ask this question of themselves and really try to answer it thoughtfully and honestly, then as a culture we're doing okay. That doesn't mean every gamer is going to be "perfect", however we define that.

For myself, I find violence in computer games, RPG's, and in movies very satisifying if it makes sense in the context of the story. For me, it is a way to release some stress. I don't actually play computer games at all unless I am feeling particularly angry over unfair treatment. That's a really specific set of circumstances, I know, but for me computer games are a chance to release my hurt and anger in a harmless way. And that's probably why I find it most satisfying to be the "good guy" in-game: in real life goodness is not always rewarded, and life simply isn't fair. That's also probably why context is important.

I'll tell you something else: in "real life" I am a petite woman. I put people at ease, and I come across as very gentle. I am in fact quite tough, and while I don't fight back I also don't back down. But most people don't realize the second part until they try to bully me. Most of that bullying washes right over me, because I don't respond the way people expect: I don't cry, nor do I yell back. I just keep being as polite as possible without giving ground until the aggressor gets tired and goes away.

But frankly non-violent negotiation in the face of (threatened) violence is exhausting. And it doesn't do away with the fact that what I'd really like to do is apply my boot to the bully's nether regions ... repeatedly.

To offset this urge, I play computer games where I can do some "butt-kickin' for goodness" and not worry about the consequences.

I see it as a cultural adaptation of the fight-or-flight instinct. When adrenaline is coursing through a person's body, you have to get rid of it somehow. Bashing a person on the head isn't accepable (or prudent, or legal, or typically ethical), and flight is often not a safe option in everyday circumstances. (Just to be clear: I'm talking about everyday workplace/domestic/neighborhood altercations, not fleeing from tigers, or a psychopath who's escaped Shutter Island and broken into your house, or an invading army, or an abusive family member.) Standing your ground and patiently trying to work things out without being snide, angry, concilatory, sarcastic, passive aggressive, etc is the most efficient (let alone ethical) way to try to resolve "issues". But try telling that to your adrenal glands! They don't care ... they're adapted to producing energy for the body when it's under stress. So that needs to get siphoned off somehow, or it gets chanelled elsewhere.

The ancient Greeks understood this ... that's why theater was such an important part of their society: theater was an acceptable way for grown men to emote in public. A truly great play allowed you to feel deep emotion - angry, sorrow, joy, whatever - and by expressing it, be free of it. They called it catharsis. And yes, grown men would weep in public during tragedies like Oedipus Rex or Medea.

I suspect that the gladiatorial games served the people of the Roman Empire in a similar way. The difference is that in Greek theater the blood and death was fake. (I also suspect it was more effective as a release, because the audience likely had an empathy with the actors that was deeper than the connection bewtween audience and gladiators. Ironically, the characters in the plays seemed "more real" than the real people being slaughtered in the arena.) I perceive games as being closer to drama than the gladiatorial circus.

I therefore also see computer games (as well as role-playing games and movies) as providing a contemporary method of acchieving catharsis. And as a means of expelling violent or sad feelings in a safe way, I see them as an essential part of our culture.

The one caveat I include in this is: if a person has only one method of catharsis and uses it constantly, it ceases to be effective. So a person who plays computer games every day is not working off more anger or unhappiness than someone who plays intermittantly. I have no evidence to back up this hypothesis, but I do know that a person will become habituated to what once gave release if it is used constantly.

Assuming my first hypothesis has some accuracy, I can further speculate that the link between games and violence, while correlative, is not necessarily causitive. In other words: games and violent behavior may be related, but it's not therefore proof that games cause the violence.

For example, if "Jane" plays violent games as a form of catharsis but has no other outlet, and if she uses games constantly and exclusively to relieve stress, over time it's possible that she might not get the same sense of release, and she'll need to find another outlet. Maybe she'll take up racketball, swimming, or horseback riding. Maybe she'll express her feelings through art. Maybe she'll use sex as an outlet. Maybe she'll suddenly watch scary or violent movies.

... Or maybe she'll take her feelings out on another person. That is one way of acchieving catharsis. But if she resorts to the latter, it will probably be very petty things (cattiness at the office, nagging a spouse, being impatient with her kids, being less-than-courteous while driving), rather than mass murder. But the results still are not fun for Jane. Unless she straightens up she'll alienate her kids and co-workers, and maybe get sacked from her job or divorced from a fed-up spouse, or wind up in a car wreck. Pull your head out of your butt, Jane!

Another thing that might happen to Jane is that she might take out her feelings on herself. Alcoholism, cutting, suicide ...

Most of the time, however, loss of catharsis is not going to lead to violent murder. A person has to be very damaged emotionally and socially before that can come to pass. And with a person who is that damaged, playing games won't be an effective outlet ... or a cause.

So to sum up: I think games are important as a means of releasing feelings that need an outlet, thereby restoring the adrenal surge to a state of equilibrium. Overuse of games, in my observation, does not cause violence. It might, however, result in less cathartic effect over time; and if a new method of catharsis is not found, that violence will find another outlet. For most people using games is fun and healthy, because games help release violence. They cannot cause it.


MBiz

[Serpentine]

How do you define living? What's the difference between whooping when you kill someone over the internet in CoD and whooping when you kill an AI in singleplayer mode?
If it reacts to outside stimuli and changes its environment we can call it living, yes? Then AI in video games are living. They don't exist in the phisical world but they do in the world created by the software.

Somewhat covered above, but more specifically, from Wikipedia:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. You might say the machinery of the computer does, but I don't believe you can say the same about individual "people" in a game.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. Again, I can't rule out the possibility that the hardware of a computer might be argued to be made of cell analogues, but it's pushing it.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Unless you count the requirement of electricity, I doubt it.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. I don't believe so. Maybe a custom-made program could accomplish this, sort of. But that's unlikely to be relevant to the discussion of videogame "baddies".
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Arguably, but not in the context of video game characters.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis. Alright, yes.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. Possibly, to an extent, in some games.

You could, conceivably, perhaps, create a program that meets all the requirements of life. Video game characters (at least at present...), do not.

Here's the thing, though: Video game characters are information. Information is not life, and cannot be "killed". You could, maybe, argue that all life is information, when it gets down to genetics, but you'd be seriously pushing it.

[Dogmantra]

This really sums it up for me:

Spoiler

Show

The "killing people" part of violent video games is just a design choice. You could quite easily replace it with anything, like throwing cookies at really high speeds towards your "enemies" so they eat them and get fat. The controls would be exactly the same, and to win, you'd have to do exactly the same thing, but instead of "killing" people, you'd be making them obese.

[Capt Spanner]

I don't believe it to be immoral, nor sociopathic.

That said, sometimes I do have twinges of guilt if my video-game character inflicts a particularly nasty death, were it done in real life (i.e. CoD2: throwing a grenade to clear a guy out from behind cover, and accidentally shooting in him the leg as he ran, instead of getting a clean shot. I felt really bad watching try to crawl futilely away from the live grenade, unable to put him out of his misery due to the lack of rounds for my rifle...)

As long as someone is able to draw the line between real life and games, there isn't a problem.

I answer the question "is killing in video games immoral" with a question of my own: is knocking the croquet ball through a wicket in a game of croquet immoral?

The answer to your question is yes. Croquet is the Game of Satan, and has done more for (real-life) humans wanting to take a (real-life) mallet to the skull of a (real-life, living, breathing) person than any other "civilised" activity.

[waterpenguin43]

Kill implies life. I submit to you that it is impossible to kill other characters in a video game. Any time you "kill" someone in a game it has about as much moral consideration as ripping a drawing of a person in half or breaking a stick against a tree.

I agree. So long as you don't mimic it OUTSIDE the game, it's fine.
Also, people only PLAY the games to "kill" those lumps of pixels, and they don't get sadistic pleasure from THAT: They get pleasure from the fast-paced action and speed of the fighting.

[Umael]

The "killing people" part of violent video games is just a design choice. You could quite easily replace it with anything, like throwing cookies at really high speeds towards your "enemies" so they eat them and get fat. The controls would be exactly the same, and to win, you'd have to do exactly the same thing, but instead of "killing" people, you'd be making them obese.

Except that the storyline and the setting might make "killing" more enjoyable and more suitable than "fattening" your enemies.

There are any number of games where instead of "killing" you can "fatten" and the game play would not be affected as long as the game play is defined as removing the "enemy" from play. If game play is defined by enjoyment of playing a game, then "fattening" would not be considered satisfactory for many.

[Fan]

How do you define living? What's the difference between whooping when you kill someone over the internet in CoD and whooping when you kill an AI in singleplayer mode?
If it reacts to outside stimuli and changes its environment we can call it living, yes? Then AI in video games are living. They don't exist in the phisical world but they do in the world created by the software.

I define living as having 3 out of the 5 traits of life they teach you in High School Biology.

A conglomerate of pixels, and light that would, without our influence not even exist...

Does not fit the definition of life, and does not match even any of the traits as they are only barely physical.

[zeratul]

I would argue that violence or killing in video games can actually help diffuse violent tendencies in the real world. I know a lot of people feel that killing characters in games or playing violent video games is a great form of stress release. Me and a few friends of mine played a d&d campaign in which we played as evil characters doing unspeakabley horrible things, killing civis, breaking into the houses of villagers and taking them out in amusing ways and stuff, lots of black comedy. Now while any of this stuff in the real world would be considered reprehensible, doing it in a game is fine, and if it keeps a person from doing violent things in the real world, then that's even better.

I agree. So long as you don't mimic it OUTSIDE the game, it's fine.
Also, people only PLAY the games to "kill" those lumps of pixels, and they don't get sadistic pleasure from THAT: They get pleasure from the fast-paced action and speed of the fighting.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Most of the gamers I've seen playing shooters especially (myself included) do get a sort of macabre satisfaction out of getting a perfect head shot, or knee shot or whatever. I think the prevalence of the phrase "BOOM, HEADSHOT" is sort of a testament to this .

[Serpentine]

I define living as having 3 out of the 5 traits of life they teach you in High School Biology.

Although the definition of life is debated (see: viruses) and acknowledged to be based on our own planet (i.e. life on other planets might be completely different), all of the traits are required to be considered life.

[2xMachina]

Well, if you think 'killing' in games is immoral, you better be a vegetarian/vegan too. You're indirectly killing real living things if you're not!

Oh, and don't support pesticides, nor treated water, cause it kills bugs/germs.

In fact, turn off your immune system. It's killing bacteria. How you're gonna do that, IDK.

[Cristo Meyers]

...On the other is that it could be considered a little sadistic because when you get enjoyment from killing an opponent you are essentially getting enjoyment from causing harm to something else, even if it doesn't exist.

For that argument I usually use this counter-example: is watching an episode of Criminal Minds similarly sadistic? You are, after all, being entertained by a story that essentially requires someone or several someones be killed, sometimes brutally.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

I define living as having 3 out of the 5 traits of life they teach you in High School Biology.

A conglomerate of pixels, and light that would, without our influence not even exist...

Does not fit the definition of life, and does not match even any of the traits as they are only barely physical.

The not existing without our influence point is not really debatable on these forums from the bans on religious discussion.

If they are barely physical, then people are barely physical. Not their bodies, but the person , the thing existing within their brains that you talk to when you shout words at their ears. The computer program exists as software within hardware, very similar.