Category: Communities and Online Gaming

The focus of this stream is on online games and the role of community within those games.

The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory.

The Mass Multiplayer Online Game MapleStory Uses Rewards to Motivate Players to Collaborate and Form Communities. 

Abstract
The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory. Positive rewards are used by the game designers to motivate desirable behaviour and negative stimulus are used to reduces undesirable behaviours. MapleStory uses positive reward systems to incentives collaboration and the formation of communities.

Keywords
Behaviour, online gaming, MapleStory, communities, collaboration, reward systems, motivation, rules, game designs, play, development, MMOG

The purpose of this essay is to explore why people play games and how the Mass Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG’s) MapleStory motivates desirable behaviours, such as collaboration and forming communities. In this paper, I argue that rewards are used motivate desirable behaviours  The following essay will begin by introducing why people engage in play. Then explore the essential motivational drivers behind collaboration and communities in MapleStory.

The reason behind why people engage play is due to the significance of free play for the human brain development according to Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys, who discovered the play circuit in mammals by examining neurobiological behaviours in rats, which strongly suggests the areas intralaminar nuclei and thalamus make up part of the play circuit. Their research begins by explaining how the human brain contains seven primary emotional processing systems, shared by mammals, which helps anticipate and respond to situations. [r/o] These shared areas are responsible for driving play, especially in children. Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys describe the importance of free play, as it is essential for the development of neural connections which have a critical role in regulating emotions planning and solving problems and helps to navigate complex social interactions. Panksepp findings suggest out of 1200 genes one-third were significantly changed by a half-hour of play (Panksepp, 1998). The significance of this is it proves play is not a social construction and the importance of play for the human development is an essential requirement. Without understanding the importance and its necessity of play to the human development, it is difficult to understand why so many people engage in games.

What constitutes a game is that it is governed by a set of rules. The Oxford dictionary defines games as “A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules” (Oxford, n.d.). Thus the primary dividing point between play and games are rules. Once rules are applied to play, a game appears. For instance, a ball with actively engaging participants becomes a match of tennis, basketball etc. Hands can form the game of rock, paper and scissors.

Jesper Juul’s (2010) research paper “The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness” explains how games provide a new context for action and meaning, and without a set of rules, participants could not win at chess or make checkmate, however within the rules, there are various options to play (Juul, 2010). In Roger Cailloise’s (2001,1961) paper “Man, Play and Games” noted that the process of play has a beginning middle and end. He suggests when one decides to play a game, it means they are prepared to play within the rules and be governed by them. He used the example of a boxing match to illustrate how it is a part of the restrictiveness which makes the game playable and the goal is not only winning but to enjoy the obstacles set up by the rules (Caillois, 2001,1961). Rules are the essential aspect which makes up a game. The rules provide a context which restricts all player similarly and rewards the players who play well within the rules. Due to the similarity each player experience throughout the game, rules provide a sense of common goal and interest this common interest fosters a sense of community. The Oxford dictionary defines Community as “The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common”(Oxford, nd). 

Furthermore, Games and play both require voluntary participation, but games also require active acceptance of the rules. Liebe (2016) uses an illustration of a magical circle to explain games and suggests the space within the magic circle is where the game occurs and the formation of a magic circle is dependent on the players’ participation (Liebe, 2016). The ungoverned space outside the circle may be everything else outside of the game but within the game by engaging the player is voluntary making an agreement to play by the rules. For example, playing the mass multiplayer online game Maple Story automatically requires the player to actively accept the rules by the action of participating. This Therefore suggests the game cannot force the individual to participate in the game or play by its rules, but once the individual has engaged in playing, the rules will govern the player’s actions. 

By examining Maple Story’s rules the game indicates its complexity and sophistication. In simple games such as noughts and crosses the rules can be easily described however as Maple Story is an established MMOG, players are submerged in a highly regulated space where most users would not know or need to know all the rules. The players only need to follow the game and it will show the players the rules once it is necessary. It is difficult for players to do otherwise as the game does not allow for the player to do so (action rage is limited to the design of the game). Thus the game can be seen as a guide and the player as tourists learning what they can and cannot do as they progress through the game(Caillois, 2001,1961). The gamer only knows how to play within the rules because within rules are in a sense the only action rage. Whatever is possible within a game has already been predetermined before the game has begun. This restrictive and confined space leads the player where the game wants the player to progress to, allowing the game designer to pre-determine results, set up obstacles and manipulate/motivate behaviour. Behaviour such as building communities and collaboration is desirable to any MMOG as it is thought to keep players gaming for social factors, such as online friends and help the game build relationship ties between its players and strengthen the player’s relationship with the game (Brox, 2011).  

The method Maple Story uses to promote these desirable behaviours is through a reward system. The gammers are rewarded when performing tasks the game deems desirable. In Maple Story these reward systems are can be seen when gamers are rewarded more when gaming together than alone.  MapleStory is also designed to be played by collaborating this is shown in group quests, which are quests that rewards significantly more than personal quests (rewards in the game are in the form of experience, equipment, weapons, and other things with monetary value) Group quest can only be accessed after a group is forms. 

Characters in maple story have different abilities depending on their job occupation, the strength of these abilities depend on the level of the character. This is important because when in the midst of solving a complex problem; such as solving a maze and hunting monsters, different skills are required. It becomes compulsory to find other players with those skills to form a team with to accomplish group quests. Collaboration within MapleStory’ becomes compulsory at certain points of the game because the game is designed so no character has all of the skills required to solve certain problems. By having these communal restrictions, motivations and rewards for working collaboratively and forming communities, the players are more likely to act in a manner which allows them to achieve the most from the game. By gaming in a manner to maximise rewards and minimise the risks the player will move forward within the game faster. The game is carefully calibrated to keep players on the edge of exploration and requires gamers to use problem-solving skills. MapleStory puts enthuses on learning to cooperate with other gamers this is thought to be good for creating communal ties which bond the player to each other and even deeper into the game. The obstacles set up within the game are complex to solve and require multiplayer collaboration to solve.  Its the constant stimulus from different reward systems that encourage certain characteristics of player behaviour such as forming guilds. 

A clear indication of the game developers desire to see communities within the game flourish is the infrastructure of the guild systems. Guild’s are a design within MapleStory which allows for hundreds of people to belong to one single guild. Guild system within MapleStory is seen as small communities within the big maple community.. They are thought to provide a sense of belonging and status within the group. Facilitating communication tools are designed to enhance the efficiency and speed of communication, functions such as one to one chat, one to many are accessible within the guild. This allows gamers to easily post notifications and ask for help. Some of the benefits of belonging/joining a guild is newbies (new players) can receive consultation from more experienced players. They often receive equipment and training from experienced players. Maple Story is designed to allow experienced players to train inexperienced players and give them experience (experience is the essential requirement to level up within the game and can be collected when monsters are defeated). This design which allows the experienced player to train inexperienced player is a clear indication of the game developers desire to see gamers collaborating. 

By using Abraham Maslow’s “A Theory of Human Motivation” (1943) explains some of the motivations for the individual’s active participation in collaboration. The following is a brief outline of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The first level and most basic is the physiological need for food, water and clothing. This is shown in MapleStory when newbies join communities such as guilds to receive benefits such as equipment, weapons and basic training. Maslow’s Second level safety needs such as a housing, savings. This is shown in the game as the game provides better monetary rewards for players when they accomplish group quests in comparison to individual quests. The third level affection needs such as family and friends are shown in MapleStory though online friendship/relationships, these are players who meet through the game and form a meaningful relationship. The fourth level self-esteem needs such as recognition and social status are shown through MapleStory when players commit a lot of time to achieve status in positions such as a Guild leader, a high-level player or use limited edition clothing/armour to express their status. The Fifth level self-actualisation needs such as goals and exploring interests. This level of need is shown in the game when players move from casual gaming to a competitive gaming state. Maslow theory suggests human behaviours is usually motivated by one or more of the following five levels of needs, by using Maslow’s Hierarchy of need with examples from Maples story, it shows how MapleStory motivates certain behaviours (Maslow, 1943).

Melis and Tomasello (2013) research paper “Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task” demonstrates how the correct motivation does not only drive humans to collaborate but also mammals. The author’s findings suggest animal cooperation is more motivational than cognitive. The research was conducted by giving Chimpanzee roles and tools which were not interchangeable by measuring the willingness to transfer a tool to see levels of collaboration to reach reward (food). Their findings demonstrated most subjects worked collaboratively and not only coordinated different roles but also understood which actions their partner needs to perform (Melis & Tomasello, 2013). In other words, Reward systems and motivations can incentivise great levels of participation. MapleStory was able to use the method of rewarding desirable behaviour with positivity stimulus and undesired behaviour with negative stimulus to craft an active collaborative environment which benefits the participants. Some of the negative stimulus used within MapleStory is when gamers attempt to tackle certain monsters without collaborating with other they die within the game. Death within the game has signification connotations, it reduces the players hard earned experience. This is a sign of the heavy hand the Maple Story game designer have regarding collaboration. This also shows how much they desire collaboration within the game. The traits Maple Story deems most desirable are thought to be collaboration, participation, communal efforts and daily active play. 

In conclusion, the free Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game MapleStory has created an alternative world with meaning, social connections, community, monetary value and social status.
Why people play is due to the biological necessity of play, games provide a governed space to play within. When individuals actively engage by playing the online game MapleStory they are surrendering to its rules and participating within the parameters of the game’s design. The design of MapleStory encourages collaboration and the formation of communities. This is shown by group quests and guild’s. MapleStory uses reward systems such as experience, monetary items, obstacles and constraints to guide players to behave accordingly. The game makes it difficult to achieve the ultimate goal (reaching a high level) without the use of collaboration and the formation of communities. Maslow’s (1943) Theory of Human Motivation explains some of the motivation for certain behaviours within MapleStory. The use of positive stimulus to reward and negative stimulus to discourage what MapleStory deems desirable or undesirable behaviour, motivates players to willingly embrace the desirable behaviour. MapleStory pays significant attention to the facilitating tools necessary for collaboration which is communication. Various forms of communication tools are accessible to its gamers. This allows Maple Story’s gamers to easily communicate with each other to form communities and find other gamers to collaborate with. MapleStory is designed to have various options of play, but its also designed when players choose to collaborate and form communities it provides them with best results and fastest route to the ultimate goal of the game which is reaching the highest level.

                        References 

Collaboration. (n.d.). Retrieved April 01, 2018, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ collaboration?s=t

Caillois, R. (2001/1961). Man, Play and Games, (translated by Meyer Barash). Urbana: University 

of Illinois Press 

Game | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game

Juul, J. (2010). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*. ^^The Game, 

the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*, 248-270. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/plurais/article/viewFile/880/624

Khambatti, M. S., Ryu, K. D., & Dasgupta, P. (2002). Efficient discovery of implicitly formed peer-to-peer communities. International Journal of Parallel and Distributed Systems and Networks, 5(4), 155-164.

Liebe, M. (2016). There is no magic circle: On the difference between computer games and tradi tional games. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference Proceedings, 1-4. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=168vCw AAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Tara Brabazon play up play around&source=bl&ots=EQ7- x8xrN7&sig=7Do5SlDHuwaPy95jXN9p b4N2IO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQpbKO38zKAhVP02MKHXP2CZc Q6AEIKzAF#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-396.

McIntyre, J., Palmer, D., & Franks, J. (2009). A Framework for Thinking about Collaboration within the Intelligence Community. Person Associates. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http: www.pherson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/09.-A-Framework-for-   Thinking-about-Collaboration-within-the-Intelligence-Community_FINAL.pdf

Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task. Biology Letters, 9(2), 20130009-20130009. doi:10.1098/rsbl. 2013.0009

Nuys, D. V. (2013). The Emotional Foundation of Mind- Dr Jaak Panksepp. The Neuropsychotherapist, 90-104. doi:10.12744/tnpt(2)090-104

Panksepp, J., Knutson, B., & Pruitt, D. L. (1998). Toward a Neuroscience of Emotion. What Develops in Emotional Development?, 53-84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1939-7_3

Play | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play

Reeves, B. & Read, J.L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Harvard Business Press: Boston.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Williams, D. (2013). A Brief Social History of Game Play. A Brief Social History of Game Play. Re trieved March 20, 2018, from https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2013/IM082/um/ WilliamsSocHist.pdf .

We’re going on a Pokéhunt: The community behind Pokémon Go

 

ABSTRACT: With the advent of Internet-related technology and computer-mediated communication, the way that communities come together and interact with each other has changed radically. We now have infinite online mediums, used to chat, find support or make friends. The community surrounding the casual mobile game Pokémon Go is a great example of a community that comes together both online and offline. This paper will examine the ways in which the Pokémon Go community form a ‘third space’, both on and offline, and look at the civic, social and health opportunities that can arise from such a community.

KEYWORDS: Pokémon Go, casual mobile games, third space, computer-mediated communication, online community, online games, weak ties

Pokémon, of Nintendo fame, is a hugely influential franchise. With over 20 years of history including numerous video games on Nintendo’s many platforms, anime shows and movies, a popular trading card game and more, Pokémon is set in a modern fantasy world, filled with creatures that players can capture and train as they travel about the world. The Pokémon franchise has remained successful with the July 2016 release of Pokémon Go, a ‘location-based augmented reality game where players explore their actual surroundings to capture and evolve creatures in the real world (Niantic, Inc., 2016). Pokémon has always been designed with a community spirit in mind, be it through trading creatures or battling against another player. These elements of the original Pokémon games are present in Pokémon Go. Players can gather at areas frequented by Pokémon, battle gyms or complete raids together. Communication between players is mediated by platforms such as Facebook groups or Discord channels, and, as players become closer to each other, personal online chats and messaging. As Mims (2016) points out, the game is a ‘stealth social’ game – while not explicitly for bringing people together, it does so anyway as those playing it share ideas, tips and progress. This paper will argue that the Pokémon Go is a great example of both a virtual and physical ‘third place’, and that the game has the ability to move a virtual and online communities offline and into a physical setting. It will examine the definition of a third place and how it relates to both the community and the vehicle of the game itself, and how the game can help bring community together and provide civic, social and health opportunities. The game has the possibility to provide great community support and strength.

As a group that engages via computer-mediated communication (CMC), as well as offline and in ‘real life’, the Pokémon Go community can be seen as inhabiting a virtual ‘third space’. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg introduced the concept of the third space in 1999 as a way “to describe the public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace” (Soukup, 2006, p421). These include cafés, churches, parks, hair salons, libraries and clubs.

Oldenburg (1999) describes some key features of third places, which are as follows:

  1. They are on neutral ground;
  2. They are a leveler;
  3. Conversation is the main activity;
  4. They are accessible;
  5. They have ‘regulars’;
  6. They have a low profile;
  7. They are a home away from home; and
  8. The mood is playful.

It can be seen that most of these characteristics are represented within the CMC of the Pokémon Go community, as well as within the gameplay itself.

  1. Neutral ground
    Steinkuehler and Williams (2006, p890) identify games as being “neutral grounds in the sense that there is no default obligation to play”. Unless a player enters into a legal, financial or otherwise agreement (such as in e-sports, an activity not typically linked to casual games such as Pokémon Go) they can start up and quit the game, or leave the community space, as they please.
  2. Leveler
    As is the case in the vast majority of games, all players of Pokémon Go, regardless of social or financial status, previous Pokémon playing experience, start the game on an equal level. An initial player has no Pokémon, no in-game currency and they begin at level 1.
  3. Conversation
    Players talk to each other through such mediums as online grassroots network The Silph Road (Geraghty, 2017) as well as other platforms such as Facebook, Discord and Reddit. The entire purpose of these platforms is to share conversation with other users.
  4. Accessibility
    Virtual communities such as those mediated by Discord, Facebook or Reddit are perpetually accessible, given their online nature. They are accessible directly via one’s home, or on the go via a mobile device or laptop and Internet. The game itself is also playable at any time, and players can go geographically almost anywhere with it.
  5. Regulars
    Whilst the game was very popular when it initially came out, and has gained over 750 million downloads (Carter, 2017) in its first year, users began to report a lack of game content and buggy servers. Despite this, nearly two years later as Geraghty (2017) says, it has retained a ‘surprisingly loyal fanbase’ of about 60 million players. A lot of these players participate in forums such as The Silph Road, Reddit or local Facebook groups, and no doubt form a core group of ‘regulars’ that frequently enjoy playing the game with each other. 
  6. Low profile
    While Pokémon Go might have a bright, colourful and sometimes intense game design, and not fit the low profile criterion visually, the social function of its environment does. The social atmospheres are informal and without pretension, and are not mediated by any kind of official Pokémon organisation.
  7. Home away from home
    Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) report finding “online gaming may result in strong social ties, if gamers engage in online activities that continue beyond the game and extend these with offline activities”. This is definitely true of a game such as Pokémon Go, with its offline activities (such as hunting for Pokémon or battling gyms together) extending from the interactions that happen online (for example, planning such activities).
  8. Playful mood
    In his seminal text Homo Ludens, the Dutch theorist Huizinga (1955) defines play as “a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly”. Pokémon Go and its communities fit neatly into this definition, with players discussing strategies, ideas and other relevant information within groups, whilst maintaining an understanding of friendliness and lightheartedness.

As demonstrated above, it can be seen that the Pokémon Go community’s computer-mediated communication can be classified as a third space. But what about its offline communication, and the way players come together when there is nothing virtual except the game itself, played on mobile devices? Sessions (2010, p376) defines a ‘meetup’ as “local, face-to-face gatherings of online community members”. This definition fits Pokémon Go communities well, as they are indeed local due to the geographic element of the game (and players in different suburbs or cities might organize their own personal meetups based on the geographic placement of its community members). Her study shed light on the social implications of virtual community meetups. She notes, “It should not be assumed that meetups are beneficial to the community … in these cases, such communities may lose the benefit of weak ties, and the exchange of resources with weak social ties may be sacrificed” (Sessions, 2010, p376). These weak ties are essential to such a community because they provide diversity to the players. In addition, Constant, Sproull & Kiesler (1996) found that weak ties are essential because information providers gave advice and solved the problems of information seekers, “despite their lack of a personal connection with the seekers”. This technical advice is reflective of the way that players most often interact in forums and groups online, seeking advice and ideas from other players such as where there is an abundance of a certain Pokémon, or if anyone else is experiencing a specific glitch in the game. However, Sessions (2010) goes on to suggest that ‘multiplex’ relationships – which are relationships that are maintained both online and offline – make attendees of such meetups engage more with the online community as a whole, and contributes to creating social capital. Additionally, Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) suggest “beneficial effects of online gaming on online social capital and offline social support are particularly likely the more users interact both in online and offline settings”. So, whilst not with abandon, players should (and do) continue to ‘meetup’ in offline settings, hunting for Pokémon and battling gyms together.

Pokémon Go also has an effect on the wider community. As Perry (2016) wrote for Business Insider, “The other night, I put down a lure module on a PokéStop (which lures more Pokémon to the stop) in the park across from my apartment. At 10 p.m., with a slight drizzle coming down, several people showed up within minutes.” This is representative of the type of community engagement and spirit that people were playing the game with. Kagi (2017) reported that a visitation to King’s Park, a popular park in Perth, Western Australia, improved 12.5% on the previous year and was the highest visitation on record. This was largely due to the Pokémon Go craze, and players flocked to concentrated areas after rare Pokémon became available in the area. This ‘offline’ use of a digital game reflects the strength of the in-game community.

It can also bring isolated people together, and bring them into the community. One such health phenomenon that Pokémon Go could address is that of the condition hikikomori, of Japan – a severe social withdrawal documented amongst teenagers and adults who experience fear, anxiety and a sense of refusal (Tateno, Park, Kato, Umene-Nakano & Saito, 2012). Individuals who experience hikikomori become recluses in their own homes or rooms. This is almost directly correlated with the availability of the Internet and a growing incidence of Internet addiction. However, with the release of Pokémon Go, there are reports of gamers becoming less sedentary and having improvements in depression and anxiety through physical activity (McCartney, 2016). Tateno et al. (2016) indicate that for some cases of hikikomori, Pokémon Go could provide a rehabilitation opportunity, and suggest placing PokéStops at hikikomori support centres to serve as an adjunct to other psychiatric interventions. This is just one example of how gamification of a community resource could provide advances in care.

There is an ever-increasing amount of discourse about whether or not video games have a positive or negative impact on people’s social lives. Pokémon Go is absolutely beneficial to players for health reasons, due to them getting outside and moving about while playing the game, but it is also beneficial for their social experience as well. As Kaczmarek et al. (2017) found in their study, “Pokémon Go also provides an opportunity for players to interact face-to-face with each other and socialize, which has emerged as a social factor that has been related to greater engagement in games”. The successful gamification of activity brought on by Pokémon Go has allowed people to join strong and welcoming communities they would not otherwise have known existed. Within the community everyone has at least one shared interest – their interest in Pokémon Go – and because of this their social capital is increased. Once social capital has been established amongst the virtual community, it then spills over into offline social capital, as members begin to meet up and play the game together. Gross, Katz and Rice (2003) state that the attributes of a virtual gaming community “have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities.” Players talk to each other from across the world as well as locally, creating communities virtually and then taking them offline. As Soukup (2006) states, “the virtual third place should feel like a place that is integrated seamlessly into the existing textures and details of our lived communal experiences.” The communication that occurs in the community spaces takes place in oft-used digital spaces such as social media, further cementing the game and its community as a third space.

References

Carter, C. (2017). Pokémon Go has made $1.2 billion to date, surpasses 750 million downloads. Retrieved from https://www.destructoid.com/pokemon-go-has-made-1-2-billion-to-date-surpasses-750-million-downloads-446609.phtml

Constant, D., Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

Geraghty, L. (2017). Pokémon Go no longer has the hype of 2016, but a loyal fanbase remains. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/pokemon-go-no-longer-has-the-hype-of-2016-but-a-loyal-fanbase-remains-80438

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens; a study of the play-element in culture. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.

Kagi, J. (2017). Pokémon Go craze drives extra 790,000 visitors to Kings Park in Perth. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-16/spike-in-kings-park-visitor-numbers-after-pokemon-go-craze/8950482

Kaczmarek, L. D., Misiak, M., Behnke, M., Dziekan, M. & Guzik, P. (2017). The Pikachu effect: Social and health gaming motivations lead to greater benefits of Pokémon Go use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.031

McCartney, M. (2016). Margaret McCartney: Game on for Pokémon Go. BMJ, 354, 4306. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4306

Niantic, Inc. (2016). Explore! | Pokémon Go. Retrieved from http://www.pokemongo.com/en-au/explore/

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Cambridge, USA: Da Capo Press.

Perry, A. (2016). The 3 best things about ‘Pokémon GO’. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-3-best-things-about-pokemon-go-2016-7

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokémon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the World Wide Web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Steinkuehler, C. A. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as ‘‘Third Places’’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Tateno, M., Park, T.W., Kato, T.A., Umene-Nakano, W., Saito, T. (2012). Hikikomori as a possible clinical term in psychiatry: a questionnaire survey. BMC Psychiatry, 12, 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-169

Tateno, M., Skokauskas, N., Kato, T. A., Teo, A. R., Guererro, A. P. S. (2016). New game software (Pokémon Go) may help youth with severe social withdrawal, hikikomori. Psychiatry Research, 246, 848-849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.10.038

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. & Juechems, K. (2011). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Online gaming is becoming more popular than real life sports because of the effects of globalization such as online gaming communities, communication, Web 2.0 and technology.

 

 

Abstract

This conference paper will analyze how the effects of globalization has benefited online gaming and thus the reason why online gaming is gaining in popularity compared to real life sports. Effects such as the increase in global market value with online gaming products vs sports products, how globalization has brought about thousands of online gaming communities and why people are becoming more involved with online games due to these communities. Finally, the conference paper will explore how the technological advancements brought about by globalization such as Web 2.0 have facilitated the popularity of online gaming and consequently why real-life sports is declining in attractiveness and participation.

 

This conference paper will argue that online gaming is becoming more popular than sports due to globalisation and possibly online gaming events are growing larger than events such as the Olympics, FIFA world cup and other major sporting events. Globalisation has affected every type of industry including sports with broadcasting rights for television dictating at what time athletes will actually compete so that maximum viewers are attained as this was the case for the Rio Olympic Games. Although lately, in the last decade, the gaming industry has grown exceptionally fast with the U.S and Japanese being the two major participators with many smaller nations rapidly climbing up the ladder, studies indicate that the gaming industry will be the largest industry in front of music and filmography in the coming years. Therefore, this puts the gaming industry in the forefront of globalization. (Charles Sterin & Winston, 2017).

One may argue that these two aspects of gaming do not fall into the same context. However, they are actually both very similar. It is important to establish what is meant by real-life games and online games. Real-life games can be anything played by 1 or more people such as chess, which can be played by one person as well as two people; Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Motor GP, Formula One racing and even gambling are all by definition, games. The definition of a game is “a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators” (“The definition of games”, 2018). There is in fact no official definition for “online gaming”, thus, for this argument’s sake, online gaming will be used in the context of any game that is played on a computer/mobile phone, (such as PlayStation or Xbox), and basically any type of electronic technology that has access to the Internet. Furthermore, most online games are direct representations of real-life games such as sports games found online, racing games and gambling games, but of course online games also go beyond the realm of reality and into fiction.

The globalisation of online gaming is more profitable than the globalization of real-life gaming sports. Expert historians in sport conclude that the globalization of sports began with the British Imperial Colonisation in the 1870s, but even today, sports globalisation still continues across the world with countries adopting new types of sports. Globalisation in sports today is through broadcasting large events such as the Olympic Games for example. Research has revealed that the Athens 2004 Olympic games had a total audience of 40 billion for the whole duration of the 17 days the Games took place (Giulianotti & Robertson, 2007). For the 2008 Beijing Olympics 3 billion dollars in revenue had been projected during the time of the Games but overall cost China approximately $41.1 billion to host them (Crookall, 2010). Besides major events, the global sports market revenue for 2017 reached a total of 90 billion US dollars (“Global sports market revenue 2005-2017 | Statistic”, 2018). The globalization period of online gaming compared to the latter has occurred over a much shorter period of time considering that the first game played on separate computer screens came out in 1970s (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). Online gaming has only recently taken major strides socioeconomically in recent years due to major improvements in technology. The demand for games in the marketing environment is becoming more present because businesses are investing more into games now to attract customers to their products. For example, Ikea Furniture Mobile Game App allows people to decorate their home with Ikea furniture. Accordingly, the global market share predicts that the gaming industry will grow to approx. +6.6% CAGR between 2015 and 2019. In figures, the gaming market was estimated at 91.8 billion US dollars by the year 2019 and the market value would have increased to 118.6 billion US dollars (Warman, 2016). These figures reveal that globalization is making online gaming more profitable than real life gaming and sports.

Online gaming is building successful online communities due to globalization, which has made the world so interconnected due to the ease for people to communicate today through the internet. People can experience a range of diverse cultures and experiences; globalization has created a global community which is subdivided into smaller communities whereby people interact with similar interests to work together to build a bigger more attractive community.

There is no singular definition for online communities; with reference to Preece, “online community consists of people who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs to perform special roles. They also have a shared purpose, an interest or need, information exchange, or service that provides a reason for community.” (Preece, 2000). Just like any community member, an online game player also strives to satisfy their needs and have some kind of special role to help in accomplishing a task. Additionally, games seek to exchange information, share objectives as well as is a kind of entertainment service to spectators and an in-depth social motivation between other players (M.I. Koivisto, 2003). For example, research has demonstrated that online gamers believe that the social aspect within a game is an important element to them because it encourages motivation between players (Williams et al., 2006). Previous research conducted on social participation and the formation of friendships states that there are two types of real-life social ties, which may contribute to an understanding of social interactions that occur within a game. These are: bridging and bonding (Castiglione, Van Deth & Wolleb, 2008). Bridging Social Capital occurs when weaker social ties make people feel informed or inspired by each other whereas Bonding Social Capital occurs when strong social ties create emotional support and understanding (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). In terms of gaming, there is more evidence indicating that an increase in Bridging Social Capital is occurring amongst players and online gaming communities. However, there is also evidence to indicate otherwise, especially in game genres such as Massively Multiplayer Open World Role Playing Games (MMORPG), (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).  Globalisation has allowed for online gaming communities to be formed almost instantaneously within multiplayer games such as Call of Duty, where match cycles can bring in new players every time, forming more of a bridging type social capital amongst players. Although, some games, especially in longer playing games where time and grinding for gear and experience points to level up, have a tendency to have much stronger community ties and seem to be creating more of a bonding type of social capital (M.I. Koivisto, 2003). These communities within some MMORPG games like World of Warcraft or Destiny 2 are called guilds. These guilds provide players with an interactive collaboration between users, and this collaboration can be in the form of voice chat, video chat or simply messaging. Furthermore, guilds offer further support to new members of the game by giving them advice or teaching them little tricks in the game to get a head start or even in some cases give them gear or some kind of useful character item to help them. Within these guilds, there are sub-communities where players have formed closer groups of friends that can get together and go on their own missions and help each other progress faster in the early stages of the game. This is evidence that supports more of a bonding type of social capital (M.I. Koivisto, 2003). Online gaming communities almost seem to have more meaningful interactions between players than simply playing the game, a quote from Burns states that “engagement with the game does not finish when the game session ends, and the computer or console is switched off. Players continue to think about, imagine, even dream about, the events, landscapes and characters of the game.” (Burn 2006)

This quote from Burns suggests that online gaming experiences including online communities is not an isolated singular experience nor is it just one type of social capital, but rather mix of both, depending on the genre of the game (Crawford, 2014). On the other hand, real-life sporting communities are restricted to a particular environment where exchanges can be made such as a football field. Once the time has passed and the game is over, the experience is over, and no further exchanges are made. This has proven not to be the case for online gaming communities. Hence, it is possible that globalisation has given technological means for online gaming communities to be more successful around the world by helping, assisting and building lasting communities where globalisation for real-life sporting communities is limited to its local surroundings.

Although globalisation may be responsible for shaping the world of today, Web 2.0 is probably the true driver behind the success of online gaming communities and relationships. Online communities have come into existence thanks to the creation of the Internet, in particular Web 2.0, which has allowed people to connect with other people; now, more than ever before. Web 2.0 is not just simply a means of staying connected but has also allowed users to participate with other users in an in-depth experience through user-generated content. This user-generated content has impacted the social lives of all users (Wolf, 2018). In other words, Web 2.0 is a major key factor in the reason why online communities have achieved so many social possibilities.

Web 2.0 has enabled communication facilities, which have been integrated into the game mechanics. This does get more technical at some point and will not be discussed here, but this free flow of communication between players within a gaming environment or community is crucial towards the support of the argument that online gaming communities can be as involved and as real as sporting gaming communities. Thus, now it is important to discuss what are the types of communications that are conducted between gamers which will hopefully support the point that online gaming communities can be as involved through the communication possibilities between players because of Web 20. In order for online game players to cooperate with each other in an online gaming environment it must have a broad range of possible ways for players to communicate. The more often players can communicate to each other; the more likely players are to positively contribute to the games social framework (M.I. Koivisto, 2003). Most games require a player to create a virtual avatar whereby interactions are mediated through their virtual avatars of the gamers who inhabit them. Other forms of communication in MMORPGs are character victory emotes; spray tags, clothing or skins that the avatar characters are wearing. These are all forms of communication and status amongst players (M.I. Koivisto, 2003). These similar traits can be found in real-life sporting games too. Many people will wear the football shirt of their favourite international team to communicate that to the players around them, and people who also support that team will notice thus forming a mutual connection. Another example of real-life simulacra is Usain Bolt’s winning pose. Many people will replicate or simulate his victory pose to communicate to others that they have achieved some kind of victory that is meaningful to them. Thus, this proves that Web 2.0 has achieved the same level of meaningful communication and involvement amongst players in online gaming communities.

In this conference paper it has been established that online games and real-life games share the same definition of the meaning, for both types are conducted within the realms of clearly defined rules and objectives furthermore both real life sports, games and online gaming have been affected by globalization advantages and draw backs. Real life sports games might still receive more recognition world-wide in terms of broadcasting views but online gaming in terms of global popularity, participation and market share is benefiting a lot more from globalisation due to the fact that online games can be played at anytime and anywhere. It will only be a matter of time until online gaming events become as anticipated as the Olympics games or football world cup especially with the advancements in virtual reality and Web 2.0, people will become more involved with each through games because they will be more electronically connected than ever before which will only increase the demand for more realistic games and even competitive events. This means between real-life sports games and online gaming, globalization is definitely increasing the popularity of online games a lot more than real life sports games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference list

Burn, A. (2006) ‘Reworking the Text: online fandom’, in D. Carr, D. Buckingham, A. Burn and G. Schott (eds) Computer Games: text, narrative and play, Cambridge, Polity.

Crawford, G. (2014). Video Gamers (1st ed.). Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=743941

Castiglione, D., Van Deth, J., & Wolleb, G. (2008). Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford University Press, UK.

Charles Sterin, J., & Winston, T. (2017). Mass Media Revolution (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=5209906&query=effects+of+globalization+on+online+gaming

Crookall, D. (2010). Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784

GIULIANOTTI, R., & ROBERTSON, R. (2007). Sport and globalization: transnational dimensions. Global Networks, 7(2), 107-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00159.x

Global sports market revenue 2005-2017 | Statistic. (2018). Statista. Retrieved 25 April 2018, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/370560/worldwide-sports-market-revenue/

M.I. Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. DiGRA Conference. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4f17/ee84f741c023f8c040e2cfd4a771dd1b9bfb.pdf?_ga=2.144524405.1182549581.1520146345-985881193.1520146345

Inclusivity of the Modern Gaming Community and the Reinvention of Online Gaming Identity through Streaming Platforms

 Abstract

This paper explores the online gaming community and the facilitation of this community in the modern era through the growth of the Twitch video streaming platform. Also examined within this paper is the new way in which self-identity is formed within these gaming communities without taking into account the skill factor of the players themselves, but rather their presentation of self. This identity is not only redefined in a modern online context, but also brings about emphasis on generating social capital through identity. This paper presents a focus on the research conducted by Goffman (1959) on defining identity and presentation of self through its overarching, social based context. Whilst seemingly outdated research from a technological context, this paper will be applying this research to the modern technological world we live in today from a gaming perspective. Further research on this area from Pearson (2009) reports of how peoples online identities are shaped through worded exchanges however this paper demonstrates that nowadays, construction of online gaming identity goes beyond this. Gruzd, Wellman and Takhteyev (2011) discuss the topic of imagined communities which is heavily incorporated in this paper with the worldwide gaming community continuously growing, albeit in an “imagined” space whereby players interact digitally and not physically. This paper will illustrate how this interaction is becoming closer through live streaming platforms.

 

Introduction

As a worldwide community, it is without a doubt that the gaming scene has met with dramatic change in the demographic and number of members throughout the last decade. Through the rapid expansion of technology, gamers have been met with a wealth of ways to reinvent themselves with an online identity and create a cult-like social community following. Online platforms such as Twitch present any gamer with the opportunity to grow an audience and community through a smooth live streaming experience. It is through platforms like Twitch that gamer personalities can ultimately reinvent their own identity in an online version and form a presentation of self that is uniquely attractive to a large worldwide audience. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that through the evolution of technology, online imagined communities within the gaming sphere have been conjured and facilitated through astronomical social capital development. As a result of this social capital, the overarching identity modern game streamers has been reshaped and is no longer so heavily associated with the game itself, but the way in which they visually portray themselves.

 

Gaming Community facilitation through Social Capital

Through the growth of the gaming community in the twenty first century, the social presence of prominent gaming personalities and their own community that support them have brought gamers to all new heights within the social hierarchy. In terms of the online gaming community, social interaction is what allows it to flourish through constant multiplatform engagement between members and personalities. Social Capital is a term that incorporates relationships within online communities that continue to allow the community to flourish as one such as cooperative behavior and the reliance on one another (Jiang, 2012). Because this community is entirely virtual through the actual games themselves, social capital as discussed by Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2012) has accumulated incredibly through different social networking opportunities besides playing the games alone. Although physical distance may remain large from player to player within this community, specific online gaming communities represent a reachable digital distance which is unmatched and the opportunity for social capital acquisition grows through the gamers connection to a game and its players (Trepte et al 2012).

With technology playing such a significant role in the lives we live today, the ways in which these online gaming communities are facilitated is evident in many cases throughout the modern day. Platforms including YouTube as well as Twitch, whereby gamers can share their gameplay content in a live or compiled manner attract hundreds of thousands of viewers from within the widespread gaming community. Modern games of juggernaut popularity such as ‘Fortnite Battle Royale’ and ‘PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds’ have accumulated incredible viewership of game content on different creator channels. With an amassed average total of over 250,000 viewers of these games on Twitch at any one time (“The Most Watched Games on Twitch, May 2018”, 2018), the growth of this online gaming sub community has propelled streamers like Tyler ‘Ninja’ Belvins to celebrity status. Not only has social capital been generated through viewing gaming content, but also through interacting with the community members on multiple social networking platforms. Through prominent social media programs including Twitter, Facebook and again YouTube we see gamers generate a sense of belonging and grow social capital within the community as a whole through commenting and posting. Meanwhile as I write this paper, we see 420 tweets under the hashtag #fortnite in the past hour from around the world!

 

The Inclusion Factor of the Twitch Community

In the online world we live in today, the notion of a community has taken dramatic twists and turns. Not only are we seeing the word “community” becoming a more talked about topic, but also through the work of Gruzd et al. (2011), we see the idea of “imagined community” coming to life as technology becomes more prominent in our own lives. They discuss how through the internet, we are now able to interact in numerous ways, without actually meeting physically in person (Gruzd et al. 2011). This in essence has spurred the notion of “imagined community” to come about. In the context of the gaming community, this is ever-present in the ability for people to join online sessions without knowing the people physically in person, and then simply cut the online ties by disconnecting from this session. In the modern day, the gaming community expands further than simply games however. Through the growth of platforms discussed previously including Twitch, we see the gaming community interact in multiple new ways. Labeled as the “rapidly growing live-streaming multimedia phenomenon” (Hilvert-Bruce, Neill, Sjöblom & Hamari, 2018), Twitch has risen to become a go-to platform for gamers to share their live gameplay content to a wide audience. In fact, the live streaming genre of gaming has become so popular in recent years, that sometimes we see more people viewing someone play games as an audience, than the number of people actually playing the games themselves (Kaytoue, Silva, Cerf, Meira Jr & Raïssi, 2012). This communal growth is highlighted by the doubling of audience figures annually, with viewers in 2014 reaching heights of over one hundred million unique monthly users (Ewalt, 2014).

Twitch’s broad community is formed through the ability to comment live through a text-based chat room function and have an audience interact with the streamer in real time. This feature allows the streamer to answer questions from their audience or comment on messages sent to them whilst they publicly broadcast their gaming stream (Hamilton, Garretson & Kerne, 2014), which in turn generates a complex, more engaged online community. When compared to platforms such as YouTube for example, Twitch caters heavily towards this closer community integration to the creators, and hence is used extensively by todays streamers to entertain their viewer base. Ultimately, the consistent interaction with other members of the online gaming community via the Twitch platform results in a sense of belonging for people within this community (Blight, 2016).

 

Identity through a Gaming Perspective

The topic of identity is extremely broad and can contain differing definitions depending on the context. Identity as a general term as discussed by Goffman “is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their milieu” (Goffman, 1959). In the current day, identity takes shape in differing formats with arguably the most recent form being an “online identity”. In an online setting, identity tends to be controllable and of disembodiment (Boyd, 2006), meaning people on social networks can filter content in ways that best represent them. It is through technological innovation that a shift in the coming about of one’s online identity has been seen. Originally, online identity was conjured through simple worded exchanges, however nowadays it is formed by characters and their actions throughout a digitally constructed and competitive environment (Pearson, 2009). Pearson’s referral of this is to games and their ability to generate a player’s identity by the degree of difficulty of their actions within the digital environment. In the modern environment, it could be assumed that this remains, with many players’ online identities being characterised through the difficulty in which they play their games. Through rising audiences in the live stream genre however, we are seeing streamers attempting to differentiate themselves from the herd and their identity being formed from a fictional portrayal by the player. In a bid to entertain on a gaming platform, modern streamers have been seen use their reimagined, fictionally constructed self-identity as a huge marketing tool to generate a community on their channel. This is compared to previously, simply presenting high difficulty content and with the characters within the game generating much of the identity for the player (Pearson, 2009).

 

Constructing an Identity separate from “High Tier” Gameplay

Modern gaming has a dense and widespread player base. With a booming market and an incredible amount of games to choose from, today’s players are spoilt with a plethora of different skill-based games in which they can play for hundreds of hours per year. From the hardcore players of war games such as the ‘Call of Duty’ franchise, to strategy games like ‘League of Legends’, these many hours of experience can forcibly generate gamers who build up an identity of being highly skilled. Research demonstrates that it is simply through consistent and intense practice by which these players generate this skill (Huang, Yan, Cheung, Nagappan & Zimmermann, 2017). These players tend to become interlocked in the ever-growing competitive world of electronic sports, or more prominently known as e-sports. Within this extremely competitive arena, players belong to specific franchises and compete in teams across different leagues as well as tournaments throughout a season in their game of preference (Hamari & Sjjblom, 2017). Constructing an identity as the best player of a game is significantly challenging however when taking into account the incredible skill and hours of playing it takes to achieve this high tier gameplay. It is for this reason that members within the gaming and streaming community have found alternative ways to reinvent themselves online. This reinvention, whilst attempting to attract a viewership, allows for the creation of a fun, fictional identity pioneered by the use of the Twitch service alongside the widely known market leader in YouTube (Sjjblom & Hamari, 2017). This allows gamers to both play the games they love and also build a fictional online identity to entertain their inclusive community of viewers, regardless of their playing ability.

Participatory online media has generated some incredible characters, who from a gaming standpoint have transformed the identity of the everyday gamer. Much of this change has been spearheaded by the astronomical rise of YouTube personalities such as ‘PewDiePie’, whose identity has been shaped by the ability to deliver humorous content himself to his online community whilst almost unskillfully playing games. Nowadays we see streamers and creators alike going beyond this and forging a fictional online identity separate to that of their own personal identity. Prominent twitch streamer Guy Beahm, who goes by his alias of ‘Dr. Disrespect’, facilitates what Gruzd et al. (2011) calls his online ‘imagined community’ through his ability to entertain and create a presentation of self as a dense fictional character. With a previous world record of 388,000 concurrent viewers on a live stream video of his at one time, Beahm has attracted an extremely broad community following of his Twitch channel (Alexander, 2018). Beahm fictionally presents himself as a macho posturing and hyper aggressive character whilst wearing a humorous mullet wig, glasses and thick moustache. This character in which Beahm has created in order to prioritse the entertainment aspect before the gameplay heavily falls back on research from Pearson (2009). This research is regarding identity being formed online through simply the actions the person behind the screen makes (Pearson, 2009). In this case, it is the actions that the gamer player makes within the game on a competitive level. However, we see through examples such as Beahm that this visual aspect of someone in character whilst streaming games moves beyond this possibly outdated research in the context of gaming. This shift is seen through identity originally being constructed by worded exchanges in its simplest online form (Pearson, 2009), to now a more densely constructed visual identity by the player, that is different to their own.

 

Conclusion

The online gaming community has seen astronomical change both in size and social stature in the past decade. This paper has demonstrated that through modern digitalisation and social networking platforms, the gaming community has generated a wealth of social capital associated with its existence. Whilst considered an “imagined community” as it is entirely online, gamers have found many platforms and routes to generate further communication to grow the community. Platforms including Twitch and YouTube have facilitated this social capital, allowing for constant inclusivity and interaction with community members through the viewing of gameplay videos from fellow members, essentially creating a close digital distance between one another. Not only this, but it is also clear that the fundamental identity traits that were previously associated with gamers such as the difficulty of their gameplay are no longer so existent. Amazingly, we see that through live streaming platforms, gamers are able to generate an entire new identity separate to that of their gameplay. This in turn contributes heavily to the entertainment aspect of watching gaming and heavily benefits the social capital within the community. Gamers such as Guy Beahm demonstrate just how the community is producing aliases such as ‘Dr. Disrespect’ to provide a fresh avenue of content creation, sharing and entertainment within the gaming community.

 

References

Alexander, J. (2018). Dr. DisRespect sets huge new Twitch streaming record, beating Tyler1. Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/6/16979394/dr-disrespect-tyler-1-twitch-viewers-record-holder

Blight, M. (2016). Relationships to video game streamers: Examining gratifications, parasocial relationships, fandom, and community affiliation online (Ph.D). The University of Wisconsin.

Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12), 1-3.

Ewalt, D. (2014). How Big Is Twitch’s Audience? Huge. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2014/01/16/twitch-streaming-video-audience-growth/#370494fe797d

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409378

Hamari, J., & Sjjblom, M. (2017). What Is eSports and Why Do People Watch It?. SSRN Electronic Journal, 27(2), 211-232. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2686182

Hamilton, W., Garretson, O., & Kerne, A. (2014). Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media (pp. 1315-1324). Toronto: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Hilvert-Bruce, Z., Neill, J., Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2018). Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers In Human Behavior, 84, 58-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.013

Huang, J., Yan, E., Cheung, G., Nagappan, N., & Zimmermann, T. (2017). Master Maker: Understanding Gaming Skill Through Practice and Habit From Gameplay Behavior. Topics In Cognitive Science, 9(2), 437-466. doi: 10.1111/tops.12251

Jiang, H. (2012). Social identity, social ties and social capital a study in gaming context (Ph.D). Pennsylvania State University.

Kaytoue, M., Silva, A., Cerf, L., Meira Jr, W., & Raïssi, C. (2012). Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. In Watch me playing, i am a professional: a first study on video game live streaming (pp. 1181-1188). Lyon: WWW ’12 Companion.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3).

Sjjblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2017). Why Do People Watch Others Play Video Games? An Empirical Study on the Motivations of Twitch Users. SSRN Electronic Journal, 75, 985-996. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2779543

The Most Watched Games on Twitch, May 2018. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.twitchmetrics.net/games/viewership

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(3), 832-839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances

Abstract

In the past decades, online gaming has instilled itself in a prime spot in the entertainment industry. With millions of gamers all around the world, the focus is on the numerous online gaming communities growing exponentially and the social capital they bring along. This study aims to deconstruct the online gaming experience by using First-Person Shooter games (FPSGs) and Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games (MMORPGs). These two distinct gameplays have huge fan followings and the online game spaces have allowed interactive and long-lasting bonds amongst the players. Further research is done to understand the online gaming communities as “third places”, how virtual identities have a positive impact on one’s sense of self and also how virtual communities promote social engagement by blurring geographical, physical, religious, ethnical, cultural, and temporal boundaries amongst others. There is no denying that online gaming has brought about a revolutionary means of developing virtual communities and promoting digital identities and these communities are here to stay.

 

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances (Click for PDF)

  

New media including the Internet and video games have become one of the topics widely discussed and researched, in the past decades, by scholars and academics. Online gaming platforms have provided alternate spaces for communication, cooperation, social interaction and forming relationships which overcome mere physical and cultural boundaries. Some of the underlying studies have focused on the accumulation of social capital derived from online gaming and the communities formed within the realm of gamers. A fascinating side of the digital gaming culture, namely, the motivation of the gamers to stay loyal or committed to certain guilds (Hsiao & Chiou, 2012, p. 75) – online gaming communities – is also looked at to better understand social gaming experiences.  This paper digs deeper into the theories put forward by previous research on how online gaming communities are presently referred to as “third places” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006, p. 889) that aim to promote connectivity, social engagement, collaboration and integration whilst influencing the concept of identity on a personal level, and in terms of group identity. These types of mediated communication and communities have increased the social capital among gamers without disrupting society or alienating non-gamers.

Based on Baudrillard’s frame of work (1995, p. 6) and with the backing of Frostling-Henningsson (2009, p. 557), it is reiterated that virtual communities, part of the computer-generated virtual worlds, are but extensions to reality itself: hyperrealities. The paper will firstly focus on deconstructing First-Person Shooter games (FPSGs) and Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games (MMORPGs) in order to showcase how online gaming has instilled meaningful communication and long-lasting virtual communities without catering for prejudices, stereotypes and discriminations. Next, the various motivational factors which attract gamers and keep them coming back for more will be looked at while underlining “the relationship between the psychological needs of the user and the social gaming situations provided by the virtual environment…” (Di Loreto & Gouaïch, 2010, p. 1). Thirdly, this exposé will address the perception of self and others as virtual identities through the online gaming communities. Needless to say, that the social capital gained through playing online games and integrating gaming communities allows for a growth in a player’s network and develops a sense of loyalty amongst gamers. Online communities have persevered throughout temporal and spacial dimensions given their intangible and unrestrictive characteristics. Digital gaming platforms have but reinforced and strengthened the lifespan of these virtual communities whilst enabling gamers to identify themselves freely and assert their virtual self with conviction.

 

Digital Gameplay Experiences

Understanding FPSGs and MMORPGs

As mentioned at the beginning, “the desire to play is triggered by the interaction between personal and environmental factors” (Di Loreto & Gouaïch, 2010, p. 1); in this case, FPSGs and MMORPGs are the environment and more specifically, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft respectively. The online gaming platforms mentioned are two of the most popular games in the world and ranked amongst the best in their respective genre. Millions of players log in daily and as pointed out by Koivisto (2003, para 5), the interaction between players is the turning point that impacts on the gaming experience of the gamer. This interaction can be both verbal and non-verbal communication, without exiting the realm of the gameplay; some of FPSGs’ and MMORPGs’ non-verbal communication would include character’s clothing and accessories, the actions undertaken, the in-game guilds chosen, and the way players’ chosen characters move in a given scene. On the other hand, the online aspect of gaming allows for an optimum use of technology and the Internet in terms of verbal communication. The latter can be either synchronous or asynchronous and one-to-one or one-to-many communications.  Gamers constantly maintain contact and follow each other’s progress in the game through private messages, group chats, in-game chats and conversations, system broadcasts, discussion forums.  

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG taking place on a fictional and fantasy world called Azeroth whereby the Alliance (heroes) and the Horde (villains) are fighting the ultimate battle. The appealing features of World of Warcraft include attractive graphics and audio, action sequences, narratives, and character customisations – such as name, gender, race, class, faction, and so on. World of Warcraft’s storyline highlights how “players create an avatar that evolves and interacts with other avatars in a persistent virtual world” (Billieux et al., 2013, p. 1). World of Warcraft can be played in three different dimensions, namely, “player versus player (PvP), player versus environment (PvE), and role-playing (RP)” (Williams et al., 2006, p. 342).  Role-playing allows gamers to follow their chosen and customised characters, alongside other members of the same guild, throughout quests and adventures as they defeat enemies, acquire new skills and gain new levels. Williams et al. (2006, p. 340) explains how World of Warcraft is equivalent to “a vibrant third place”, housing and inspiring social bonds no matter how impersonal or meaningful they can become. The in-game experience amounts to life-like experiences that allow for “social interaction and relationships” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006, p. 889).

Moving on to the example illustrating FPSGs, Call of Duty, this game franchise allow players to live through a series of missions and challenges by enacting a character. And as the genre of the game suggests it, the main objective of the chosen character is to shoot other characters. Frostling-Henningsson (2009, p. 557) explains how the virtual world of Call of Duty transports the gamers to a fantasy world which aims to make “the impossible possible”, that is shoot and kill people. FSPGs offer a more intensive gameplay as gamers could play synchronously in cyberspace. Shooters usually play in teams or groups of the same online community (guild) competing against each other. The game design and the narrative of the FSPGs are constructed far from the reality and its occurrences; a motivating point for gamers to take out their frustration (unleash their wrath) in the virtual world whilst knowing that such behaviour is condemned in real life. From Frostling-Henningsson’s (2009, p. 562) point of view, playing FSPGs “can be interpreted as a way of connecting to people, connecting as ‘brothers in blood’”.

Online Gaming Communities: An Insight

With millions of gamers around the world, the focus is on the numerous online gaming communities growing exponentially and the social capital they bring along. In retrospective, it is very clear that “online gaming was first and foremost about communication” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009, 558) and the Internet greatly facilitated this worldwide connectivity. The two distinct online games mentioned above have huge fan followings with online game spaces which have allowed interactive and long-lasting bonds amongst players. Online communities create bridges to overcome physical distance and time disparities for gamers to mingle, share and interact with each other. This continuous increase in social engagement is the foundation of strong and long-lasting online gaming communities. Trepte et al. (2012, p. 832) highlight the fact that socialising is the strongest pull for gamers to start engaging in a particular online game. Following the same line of thought, online gaming communities regroup players in in-game guilds and teams; and studies show that “social online gaming could accordingly strengthen existing friendship ties and create new ones by providing a shared focus of activity” (Domahidi et al., 2014, p. 109). Meng et al. (2015, p. 19) address the “multimodal connectedness” that exists amongst players given the numerous communication channels available to them via the gaming platforms. The study about “multimodal connectedness” brings forth the use of various in-game communication channels to increase trust amongst gamers and therein encourage community-building.

In-Game Friendships

When it comes to socialising on online gaming platforms, Kowert and Oldmeadow (2015, p. 556) point out that gamers acquire “a sense of closeness, belonging, and security” from the attachments from other members in the online communities. The popularity and accessibility of online video games have been associated to the increase of a player’s social circle. Engaging in social gaming undeniably facilitates interactions between a player and his entourage that gradually lead to friendships. As explained by Kowert et al. (2014, p. 385), gaming community members are not just online acquaintances, the relationships are meaningful and as real as ever:

“One’s co-players are often more than just individuals who help achieve in-game instrumental goals. Co-players often become close, trusted friends and valued sources of online advice”.

Furthermore, Trepte et al. (2012, p. 838) reveal how online gaming proves to be “a valuable social resource” that offers potential for offline friendships from the social capital gained by gamers online. Another important aspect of forming attachments, specifically friendships in gaming communities, is how “socially phobic players may employ online games to satisfy social relational needs while avoiding stress experienced in offline social environments” (Sioni et al., 2017, 12). This clearly depicts the positive impacts that online gaming communities have on players and their self-perception. As friendships and bonds are formed in the digital world, people grow closer emotionally and allow for the perseverance of online social support.
Social Virtual Identities

Digital self-production is the primary asset for someone to belong in an online community. In order to be properly represented and recognised online, a player ought to build an image of himself or herself through their characters in a game and the roles they carry out, which is referred to as an avatar. In some cases, this simulated version of a gamer becomes as real as life itself. MMORPGs give players the chance to overcome any sort of boundaries, socially and culturally, and also enhance their self-esteem (Sioni et al, 2017, p. 11). Developing a virtual identity is subjective yet gamers also have a group identity when they form part of a particular community. Fraser et al. (2014, p. 523) similarly advocates that “an individual’s differentiation and integration within a group structure shape the individual’s identity development as it relates to and influences their group identity”.

In some instances though, worried parents, teachers, and the media amongst others have brought up a lot of concerning issues about whether or not online gaming could be addictive and harmful when it came to young adults and teenagers. The media primarily associated the violence in games to teenagers’ aggressivity and unwillingness to follow societal rules. The information gathered from the study about Internet gaming disorder carried out by King et al. (2016, p. 493) explain that understanding the profound gaming behaviour and how withdrawal symptoms from online gaming could be summed to the simple fact that the players would feel bored, miss their online friends and even lack mental stimulation. No serious case of addiction to gaming has been reported and researchers still find themselves uncertain to characterise online gaming using addiction or violence concepts. On the opposite hand, some studies mention how “virtual worlds hold great potential for the psychological growth of its users” (Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2015, p. 557).

The above argument all but reaffirms the notion that social virtual identities are growing exponentially and they undeniably hold quite an importance in online communities. Williams et al. (2006, p. 358) demonstrate in their research the lengths gamers, specifically in MMORPGs, would go to maintain their virtual identities, acknowledge the other online personas around them in the digital world and thus creating the adequate platform for emotional and social support. The latter further show how online gaming communities empower gamers to construct their own identity virtually and reap the benefits in terms of “psychological growth” (Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2015, p. 557). The online communities also bring forth Belk’s (2013, p. 477) concept of “extended self”; whereby gamers are presented with an opportunity to re-invent or embody a virtual identity. Individuals hold their online avatars vigorously close to their hearts. In the case of MMORPGs, “the player is the character. You’re not role-playing a being, you are that being; you are not assuming an identity, you are that identity; you are not protecting a self, you are that self” (Bartle, 2004, p. 155). Gamers get so immersed in their virtual identities that everything in the digital world becomes as real as reality itself be it the gameplay or the relationships and the communities they belong to therein, the assertion of a group identity.

Conclusion and Discussion

In this study, a deeper analysis of the function and dynamics of online gaming communities has been carried out. It is crucial to point out the qualifying features of these virtual environments: first and foremost, online communities ease interaction and communication without any time or space constraints and secondly, they give members a sense of belonging that transcends any social awkwardness or any phobias gamers undergo in real life on a daily basis. Steinkuelher and Williams (2006, p. 903) note that online communities’ “relationships can broaden social horizons or world-views, providing access to information and new resources”. Additionally, there has been numerous research conducted on how online gaming and the virtual identity have positively impacted on a gamer’s personal opinion of himself (Sioni et al., 2017, p. 15). Player-to-player interactions have encouraged collaboration, participation, teamwork and even friendships in both FPSGs and MMORPGs; this clearly shows that the social aspect of online gaming platforms and online communities motivates gamers while allowing a continuance to the gameplay. Personalised avatars and screen names are the stepping stones into the aesthetically pleasing virtual world that is online gaming. A player’s expertise increases accordingly with his time spent in the game and on the online communities. The learning curve for a gamer happens alongside other players and no one is left out. Gaming communities provide both online and offline support as research has shown. A recurring point in several studies is that newbies start playing an online game – whether out of curiosity or boredom or on someone’s recommendations – but ultimately stick around on the virtual platforms because of the interactive guilds and gaming communities. There is no denying that online gaming has brought about a revolutionary means of creating and maintaining virtual communities along with long-lasting ties amongst gamers; and these communities are here to stay.

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances – Click for PDF

 

References

 

Bartle, R.A. (2004). Designing Virtual Worlds. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/JLKgTK

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from  https://goo.gl/GffKh9

Belk, R.W. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671052

Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., Achab, S., Khazaal, Y., Paraskevopoulos, L., Zullino, D., & Thorens, G. (2013). Why do you play World of Warcraft? An in-depth exploration of self-reported motivations to play online and in-game behaviours in the virtual world of Azeroth. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 103-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.021

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaïch, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual. Research Report #RR – 10017, 1-11. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/fj6WgK

Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers : Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023

Fraser,J., Shane-Simpson, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2014). Youth science identity, science learning, and gaming experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 523-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.048

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to People: “Brothers in Blood”. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 557-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0345

Hsiao, C.C., & Chio, J.S. (2012). The effects of a player’s network centrality on resource accessibility, game enjoyment, and continuance intention: A study on online gaming communities. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 75-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.001

King, D.L., Kaptsis, D., Delfabbro, P.H., & Gradisar, M. (2016). Craving for internet games? Withdrawal symptoms from an 84-h abstinence from Massively Multiplayer Online gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 488-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.020

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf

Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Social gaming, lonely life? The impact of digital gameplay on adolescents’ social circles. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 385-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.003

Kowert, R., & Oldmeadow, J.A. (2015). Playing for social comfort: Online video game play as a social accommodator for the insecurely attached. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 556-566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.004

Meng, J., Williams, D., & Shen, C. (2015). Channels matter: Multimodal connectedness, types of co-players and social capital for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena gamers. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 190-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.007

Sioni, S.R., Burleson, M.H., & Bekerian, D.A. (2017). Internet gaming disorder: Social phobia and identifying with your virtual self. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 11-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.044

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909. http:// dx.doi.org /10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1, 338-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412006292616

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Why we play online games and how it effects our communication with others online and offline

Abstract

               This paper discusses the realm of online communication and how games such as massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG’s) are effecting our communication with others. Works such as Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga and the telling’s of Herodotus are discussed with relevance to current and historical applications of the essence and importance of play. Drawing on relevance to discuss elements of the magic circle and a third space, Pokémon Go has been used as a recent example of how these concepts are prevalent in all types of games, as well as providing brief relation to World of Warcraft and The Sims in terms of synthetic worlds and breaking the magic circle.

Keywords: magic circle, synthetic worlds, third space, online games, MMORPG’s, online communication, relationships, communities.

PDF available here

 

Gaming and Communication

Games and play can create new circles of communication that exist outside of normal social circles, known as the third place. Online games and traditional games are influenced by a magic circle, that defines what rules are relevant in the real world, and in the game world. The proceeding text is an explanation of synthetic worlds, and how it is different from the “real world” explained within a current online context of MMORPG’s and with reference to traditional games and play, directly providing examples from the recent Pokémon Go and also the 2,500 year old story of how the Lydians saved their civilisation with games.

Discussion of the concept of play and the introduction of the magic circle was first conversed by Dutch anthropologist Johan Huizinga in 1938, in his book Homo Ludens. Huizinga states that “we find play present everywhere as a well-defined quality of action which is different from “ordinary” life.” (Huizinga, 1949, p 4). Over centuries play has been adapted to the technologies of the current time, for example there are statements recovered from the Greek historian Herodotus describing the famine in Lydia over 2,500 years ago. He states: “These games they invented as a resource against the famine, and thus they used to do:–on one of the days they would play games all the time in order that they might not feel the want of food, and on the next they ceased from their games and had food: and thus they went on for eighteen years.” (“Herodotus on Lydia”, 2012). This later led to the civilisation being divided in half, with half leaving Lydia in search of new lands, later becoming the Etruscans, later known for the Roman Empire, and therein saving their civilisation. As mankind make technological advancements, online games become a more prevalent pastime or career path and the essence of play and the magic circle evolves from the case described in Lydia to what we have now online. With current technology allowing communities to connect over online games from all over the world, developers are able to create games that impact the world and encourage people to be more active members of their community. Whether it be for their own benefit, such as Pokemon Go encouraging people to go out, walk around and explore. Or be it something on a larger scale such as RUFopoly, an interactive game designed to make people think about the challenges faced in the rural-urban fringe development (“RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University”, 2011).

There are those that argue that there is no magic circle, such as (Liebe, 2018). The Magic Circle is described as a scenario where the rules of the real world are suspended, and new normative rules are created in the game space. I believe that this is relevant in terms of online games such as World of Warcraft or The Sims, as there would be some rules that are relevant in the real world and in the game world, such as a character or person needs to eat to survive. But there are also those that would not apply, and other rules would take place, and in circumstances where the magic circle is broken, or the unspoken rules of the game is broken, the laws or rules of that world do not apply, and the person is no longer playing the game, they are playing their own modified version of the game where new rules apply. For example, when a player uses cheat codes in the Sims to change a Sims mood, age or needs, they are operating outside of the magic circle, as they are no longer playing the game the way that it was intended. With the example of The Sims, because it is not an online game played with other people, it is not so controversial that people break the magic circle, however in online synthetic worlds such as World of Warcraft, if someone was to use cheat codes to increase their character wealth or in game experience in this synthetic world, it can break the trust between players and become an unpleasant environment.

Edward Castronova is a Professor of Telecommunications and Game Design and works with the economics of synthetic worlds. He discusses online games such as MMORPG’s in the context that “the synthetic worlds now emerging from the computer game industry, these playgrounds of the imagination, are becoming an important host of ordinary human affairs.” (Castronova, 2007, p. 2). This is relevant in terms of games such as World of Warcraft or EVE Online where people spend most of their day or it is even their full-time job, to play the game and earn in game currency, which can in turn generate real world profits. One of the main aspects of these online games, is the social interaction that they facilitate between people that they never would have met had it not been for this “third space”. It gives people the ability to communicate with people that they otherwise wouldn’t know and gain an understanding of other perspectives that they would not have known about from closer niche communities or their direct offline communities. Online communication can also often provide non-biased opinions as they do not directly know the person that they are talking to, close relationships can often hinder the response that the person may give because they are unsure of the response they will get especially if it is a personal topic or controversial topic that they fear they may be judged on. Whereas online if you are communicating with people that you don’t personally know, you are less likely to hold back opinions because there is fewer consequences if the people you are talking to do not agree with your response, they will likely not have to interact with those people again if they choose nor will they be likely to see them in person, so there are fewer consequences. This can be a negative thing as it often promotes the “keyboard warriors” mentality of people saying whatever they want and having no fear of repercussions, although that is often the realm of social media, and gaming chats are generally more focussed on the task at hand. These synthetic spaces have allowed for the creation of a specific third space where people create new circles of communication, specific to that particular context, such as World of Warcraft, the communication or chats within that synthetic world are based around talking about the game, which enables the distinction of a third space. There have been reports by Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Jansz & Martens, 2005; Jansz & Tanis, 2007 cited in (Trepte, Reinecke & Juechems, 2012) that “Gamers report that the social side of gaming is important to them and one of the strongest motivators to engage in gaming.”

The Internet, and online games in particular can also facilitate communication about topics and interests that are not available elsewhere, particularly in small offline networks where people of similar interest may be difficult to find. The internet has enabled communication about topics and interests, that in small direct communities for example in small towns or isolated neighbourhoods, people may not have the opportunity to express their interest in these topics or issues with others of the same interest. Communities such as World of Warcraft facilitate communication between people all around the world, that they would not have had the opportunity to communicate with. This opens an avenue for people that struggle with social interactions face to face as well, as it allows them to talk to people of similar interest in a way that they are comfortable with and can express their opinions more confidently. It gives people the skills and understanding on how to communicate with people that they are not familiar with online and therefore give them an insight into a community or subject that they would not have been knowledgeable in, given their close offline relationships. Relationships and communities developed via games can often be stronger than others because to play a game, you have to trust that the people you are playing with will follow the rules of the game and you are connecting over a similar interest in the game. Take an example of Pokémon Go. Although players need an internet connection to play the game, it is an augmented reality game which encourages players to go out into the world and explore and interact with other players, which can form new friendships and community circles.

To gain a clearer understanding of these topics, lets look at an example of Pokémon Go more deeply. The game became widely successful around the world being released July 6, 2016 by developer Niantic, and at June of 2017 there had been an estimated 752 million downloads of the application (Smith, 2018). However, popular the game may have been when it came out, users quickly left the game, with users peaking at 28.5 million and dropping to under 5 million in the US after 6 months (Siegal, 2017) due to lack of game content and buggy servers. Nearly two years later and the game has lost quite a lot of its player base, and those left would be classed as the “hardcore” or “dedicated” players. A lot of these players would have established groups of players that they frequently play with and enjoy spending the time playing the game with. This is evidence of a third space, whereby there may be some overlap with work and social circles and the Pokémon Go community, but it is also a separate circle of people, that the player has met while playing the game. The synthetic world being the augmented overlay that the game has created of the world.

Although it utilises real world landmarks, the game itself is played within a virtual overlay of the real world. Megan Farokhmanesh recounts the events of the 2017 Pokémon Go Fest in Chicago, which was widely regarded as a failure for the players and Niantic. 20,000 tickets were sold for the event with some participants flying in from other states and countries to participate in the first official event hosted by Niantic (Farokhmanesh, 2017). Although it was widely unsuccessful as reported by the players having network issues and generally not being able to play the game, the event created a magic circle. The designated area within Chicago was that magic circle where new game rules applied to those that attended the event, which were different to those outside of the event space, and did not purchase a ticket, those players experienced the game as it normally is, beside from the mobile network issues experienced in the area, due to the sheer number of players attempting to connect to the servers.

As games have evolved over the centuries, they have been saving civilisation in more ways than one. They saved the Lydians by allowing them to pass time through a famine, and an increasing amount of games such as RUFopoly have been created to help change the world, and help people gain an understanding of how they can help the world through playing games. Communities have also thrived through the creation of online multiplayer games such as World of Warcraft, which has brought together millions of players since its release, all working together striving for the same goal; winning. There has been an increasing amount of discussion over whether online games have been helping or hindering human social development, while there are studies showing that games hinder social capital, it becomes dependent on the context in which the research is done, and what games are being analysed. Games such as Pokémon Go have allowed people that don’t go outside and interact with people and live unhealthy lives, to go out and explore and meet new people and interact with people all playing the same game, even if those people have nothing in common except that they play the same game. This has been highly beneficial in allowing people to become more open minded and social with people that they would not have known otherwise and increases peoples motivation to go out and socialise more, with the help of a video game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Castronova, E. (2007). Synthetic worlds (p. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farokhmanesh, M. (2017). I went to Pokémon Go Fest, and it was a disaster. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16019404/pokemon-go-fest-refunds-disaster-review

Herodotus, . (2012, January 18). Herodotus on Lydia. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/81/

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Huynh, K., Lim, S., & Skoric, M. (2013). Stepping out of the Magic Circle: Regulation of Play/Life Boundary in MMO-Mediated Romantic Relationship. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 251-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12011

Liebe, M. (2018). There is no magic circle: on the difference between computer games and traditional games. Potsdam, Germany: Universität Potsdam. Retrieved from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/year/2008/docId/2558

RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society/projects/relu/rufopoly

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Smith, C. (2018). 80 Amazing Pokemon Go Statistics. DMR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/pokemon-go-statistics/

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokemon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(3), 832-839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

 

 


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming Communities PDF

Madison Matta

 

Abstract

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact with one another and its instant nature, allows people to interact and also escape in a way they could never do offline. Although online gaming has been questioned over whether it’s a legitimate community, we see that it has many similar attributes of a physical community and also many advantages, such as no geographical boundaries. Gaming communities can be seen as a ‘third place’ in which people interact in a way that they are unable to in their first place (home) and second place (work). All these concepts will then be explored in the Massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft, a game which has substantial communities within the game and uses other mediums. It will also explore how gaming capital can directly translate to social capital and what it means to have ‘gaming capital’.

 

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact online and its instant nature for people globally allows people to interact and ‘escape’ in a way they could never do offline. There have been many arguments against the legitimacy of gaming communities and whether they should be classified as ‘real communities’. Critics of online communities write that “life on the net can never be meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in person contact. Or, conceding half the debate, they worry that people will get so engulfed in a simulacrum virtual reality, that they will lose contact with “real life’ (Wellman & Gulia,1997). This paper will argue that gaming communities are genuine communities which allow gamers to engage with each other in ways that offline communities never could, creating an ‘escape’ for those who struggle with being a part of offline communities.

 

Gaming as a community

For a long time, there was questions over the legitimacy of online communities and their realness from scholars, “while all this razzle-dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us “interfacing” more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings’ (Fox, 1995, p. 12). This is simply untrue, and just like in a real life community we see different types of virtual communities are emerging and at the forefront of these is the gaming community. There are many elements that make up a gaming community, A community is a group of people who come together to share similarities and interests. Preece defines online communities as “people who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs to perform special roles. They also have a shared purpose, an interest or need, information exchange, or service that provides a reason for community. A community has policies, rituals, protocols and laws that guide people’s interactions. Computer systems support and mediate the online communities.” (Preece, 2000). All of these elements Preece associates with online communities, particularly the shared purpose and interest, are integral parts of the gaming community. People who are part of online gaming communities all have the shared interest of the game and the games proved a reason for community. These are all factors that make up the vast world that is the gaming community.

 

How gaming communities differ from offline communities

The major differences of gaming communities when compared to offline communities are what makes them such a popular alternative for people who struggle fitting into physical communities For example, being able to interact with someone from the other side of the world in a game, or being able to switch off and stop interaction whenever they want and being able to find people with shared interests because you have so much more reach. Within each game there is a community of people with at least one common interest, the game itself, and the community is only limited by a person’s access to that game. With no physical space needed to form the community gamers socialise with each other through the medium of the game, many games encouraging communication from players and teamwork to succeed. With no real restrictions on members of the gaming community they “attempt to break through some of the boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming communities are absent of any real institutional authority and emerge from technology, compared to offline communities which will often have institutional authority and have physical borders and exclude people gaming has a voluntary participation by its members (Katz et al., 2004).  This voluntary participation from members and no physical borders are the main reasons the gaming community allows people to interact in a way they could never do in a physical community. People from all different parts of the world, from all walks of life, are brought together in way they never could before, and use these new formed relationships to engage with the game by playing, chatting and connecting with other platforms created by the game.

 

Gaming as ‘Third Place’

‘Third Place’ refers to the social surrounding which is different to your two usual surroundings, those usually being home (first place) and work (second place). Ray Oldenburg’s book ‘The Great Good place’ talks about the theory of Third Place stating that “individuals may belong to several formal organizations but if they have a third place it is apt to make them feel more a part of the community than those other memberships” (Oldenburg, 1999). The gaming community provides a ‘Third Place’ for its members and allows interactions with it fellow members in a way that communities at home and work cannot. In the reading ‘Online games as ‘third places’’ they explore gaming as the ‘third place’ in Massively multiplayer online video games (MMO). They explore how “By providing spaces for social interaction and relationships beyond the workplace and home, MMOs have the capacity to function as one form of a new “third place” for informal sociability much like the pubs, coffee shops, and other hangouts of old.” (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006). All of Oldenburg (1999) criteria of the third place are met by online games, such as a neutral ground, communication, easy access and a home away from home. Although there are arguments against a game being a ‘place’ it is a space where people can come together to interact and a form a community and that’s why gaming is an example of a ‘third place’ for so many people around the world.

 

World of Warcraft

If we now look specifically at the game World of Warcraft (WoW) and how it changed the way people interact and allows people to interact in a way they could never do offline. ‘World of Warcraft (WoW) is one of the most popular massively multiplayer games (MMOs) to date, with more than 6 million subscribers worldwide’ (Ducheneaut Yee, Nickell & Moore, 2006), players can play against the environment or they can play against one another, players can also choose to role-play. The journal article ‘the social life of guilds in World of Warcraft’ explored the social dynamics of the game and its players. There studies discovered that “players were found to use the game to extend real-life relationships, meet new people, form relationships of varying strength, and also use others merely as a backdrop. The key moderator of these outcomes appears to be the game’s mechanic, which encourages some kinds of interactions while discouraging others.” (Williams et al., 2006). This shows that MMO such as WoW are so popular not just because of the gameplay but because of the relationships they can facilitate through the games mechanics. When people of shared interest are coming together to discuss create and play, they are fulfilling the elements scholars define to be what is needed for a community. Which further proves how games are radically changing the way people interact. When studying the relationships within the guilds, they found that they meant far more then the functional purposes they posses in the game (Williams et al., 2006). The studies found that “In nearly every social guild that lasted more than a month, members and leaders were aware of the need for a certain level of maturity, responsibility, and player welfare. This level of what can only be described as caring is remarkable given that the game is centred ostensibly around functional, not psychological or social goals. It is clear that social guilds go well past the game’s goals in creating and maintaining communities.” (Williams et al., 2006). All their findings found the MMO of WoW to be a game where the games format encouraged interaction and successfully developed relationships and attributes of a community.  Concluding that “WoW is in fact a vibrant third place, populated with a range of social experiences ranging from ephemeral impersonal groups to sustained and deep relationships that extend offline.” (Williams et al., 2006).

 

Online gaming and Social Capital

 Social capital is a form of cultural capital where social networks and groups are central to your influence. Social capital, is an integral part of analysing relationships and personal interactions and can be seen in gaming communities like World of Warcraft. The gaming mechanics for MMO affects how important it is for the players to co-operate and compete with others and how useful it is to form different kinds of sub-communities with people of greater ability establishing a higher social capital in the gaming communities. This bridging of social capital into the online gaming communities can be have positive affects on an individuals overall social capital. The journal article “Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games” looks at gaming social capital and “Theorizes that gamers who develop ties and work together with a community of fellow gamers build gaming social capital, one’s sense of belonging to and participating in a gaming community which can be leveraged for individual benefit or collective good. In other words, the concept of social capital recognizes that there is some value inherent in one’s connections to other community members” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This further proves the value of being in a gaming community and why online gaming is a ‘third place’ for people to interact and react to others, with the study finding that “multiplayer video games are indeed associated with forming social ties within a community of gaming peers, a concept we call gaming social capital. This concept is distinct from but theoretically and empirically related to broader face-to-face social capital. Results suggest that gamers who develop gaming social capital are likely to develop face-to-face ties with others in their real-world community. Thus we observe a spill over effect from gaming social capital to social capital in the real world.” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This development of face-to-face ties and a spill over of social capital in the physical world shows how influential the interactions which take place online in video games can be.

 

Online Gaming communities have radically changed the way people can interact with one another and allows people to network in a way they could never do offline. Although there are arguments against the value of virtual communities and its ‘razzle dazzle’ from scholars such as Fox, its been proven that the attributes of a virtual gaming community have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming is a ‘third place’ for many people and it allows people to interact in a way that there first place (home) and second place (work) don’t allow. The MMO game World of Warcraft is an example of a third place and the interactions that take place. The way these gaming communities grow as a ‘third place’ then begins to establish an order of social capital within its members.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

References

Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. (2006). Building an MMO With Mass Appeal. Games And Culture, 1(4), 281-317. doi: 10.1177/1555412006292613

Fox, Robert. 1995. “Newstrack.”communications of the ACM 38 (8): 11-12.

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Molyneux, L., Vasudevan, K., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015). Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 381-399.

 Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe: Cambridge, MA : Da Capo Press.

Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. 100(9), pp.459-460.

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), article  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x/full

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1(4), 338-361.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds (Click for PDF)

Zachary Riordan

Curtin University: Bentley

Correspondence: Zachary.Riordan@student.curtin.edu.au

Abstract

This paper discusses many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, within and beyond the game world. This includes: how communities form in online games and how activities centred around gaming facilitate online communities. The paper argues that games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. More specifically, this paper analyses and explores: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”; and relates these aspects to social benefits including: bridging and bonding social capital, agency, social proximity, familiarity, and weak and strong ties.

Keywords: community, gaming, social capital, weak and strong ties.

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

The social benefits of game play and communities created within games have been extensively researched (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012). In the context of 2018, communities not only thrive within games themselves but also the secondary activities surrounding the games. This paper argues that: games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. This paper will firstly discuss how communities form within game worlds and the types of communities created. Then it will explore how these, and new, communities form and prosper via subsidiary online activities that centre around games. These subsidiary activities include, but are not limited to, social media content creation and modifying games. Throughout the paper I will also analyse the social benefits that players and participants attain because of the communities they become a part of.

In-Game Communities and Immersive Game Worlds

Online gaming has developed over multiple decades, with video games dating back over 45 years (Leaver, 2018). The realism, expansiveness and detail in video games has, obviously, increased extensively over this time. This, and the number of participants is likely to continue to increase in future years (Leaver, 2018; Kim, Lee, Thomas, and Dombrowski, 2009). Far from the likes of static games such as “Pong”, these games are detailed enough for players to express themselves within the game (Leaver, 2018). Furthermore, because of technologies such as the World Wide Web, players can interact with not only the game world but other players. This interaction, as well as communication, forms the basis for online communities to develop and grow (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). As detailed below, player interaction occurs within games and using other platforms such as social media.

Many games have enough detail that immersive worlds are created, where players are, at-least for the most part, solely focused on what is happening in the game. Frostling-Henningsson (2009), describes this state of being as “flow”. Sufficiently detailed games can take multiple forms and include multiple genres of games. However, game genres such as Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) are the most profound examples of online game worlds. These games can be described as “Third places”, which are “crucial… for civic interaction” (Williams, Ducheneaut, Zhang, Yee, and Nickell, 2006; Oldenburg, 1997). This is because of the extensiveness of the game and the actions available to the player (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). There are many roles a player can play, hence role-playing game, and no one player can be a master of everything. Therefore, to prosper in these “worlds” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) players should not only communicate but also cooperate with each other (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). This cooperation leads to communities forming within the game. Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, and David (2004) describe this type of community as a “pseudo-community”. This does not mean that the community is not real, but rather the community is based in a virtual world and has a group focus. The community type “Social Network” could also apply for some players or groups who exhibit individual centred attributes (Katz, et al., 2004). Furthermore, common goals and ongoing communication lead to partnerships, friendships and strong ties developing in the game (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014).

One well researched game is popular MMORPG “World of Warcraft”, which at its peak had twenty million monthly paid players (Leaver, 2018). This game’s popularity can largely be attributed to the communities around and in the game that were developed because of the immersive, detailed, and continuing world centred around engaging gameplay (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Game mechanics, such as an in-depth virtual economy and levelling system, lead to a “hallucination of the real” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) where new personas, personalities and lifestyles are created and/or expressed.

The state of “flow” and the “hallucination of the real” are both ways of describing the level of immersion games facilitate. This does not only occur in MMORPGs but also First-Person Shooters (FPSs). In these games, players are looking through the eyes of a soldier that they control. Online gameplay is centred around fighting against, and with, other players. Candy (2012) describes his level of extreme focus on trying to keep himself but more importantly, his teammates alive. With games such as “Counter Strike: Global Offensive” (CS: GO) a team of players work together to fight against another team. Much like a virtually violent sport (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Candy (2012) states that the level of cooperation and fast paced nature of the games lead to strong friendships being formed. This can be described as bonding social capital which develops into strong ties (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). These players turn their team into a community, one of which, the members are very close. Even so much so that once virtual friendships expand past their initial “third place” into the offline world (Candy, 2012).

As stated above, being able to communicate is obviously a key driver in forming social bonds and communities. There are many ways in which games facilitate and promote communication between players. The simplest way many games facilitate online communication, is through in-game chat. This allows players to communicate using text-based messages. However, this is crude by 2018’s standards. The time taken to create a message causes a delay between when the producer wants to communicate the message and when the viewer receives it. The, relatively, long time that the message takes to create, means that this form of communication is less often used in fast paced games and/or is often limited to use for greetings when gameplay is slower. This limits the ability for players to acquire bonding social capital or develop strong ties through using in-game, text-based messaging alone. In saying this, the messenger’s in-game name is associated with the message, meaning social proximately, familiarity, and bridging social capital is created using in-game chat (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012).

In many online FPSs, like “CS: GO”, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is a feature that allows players to speak to other players while in the game. VoIP within the game can facilitate the communication between players who are not friends. In the case of “CS: GO”, in-game VoIP is commonly used when matchmaking with-out friends. This means the players who become part of your team are not players that you personally know. VoIP allows these new teammates to strategize, give “call outs”, or simply communicate in real time. Strategizing or simply giving good call outs result in social capital and a sense of agency for the communicator and would not be possible with-out the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (Candy, 2012). Real time communication also promotes a sense of “flow”, develops the game into a “third place”, and encourages players to form communities (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Candy, 2012).

Games have also used other ways of connecting players with each other. A standard feature in any online game in 2018, the ability to create a list of friends and easily join each other’s games, should not be overlooked as the most important aspect of facilitating social gameplay. The widespread inclusion is likely due to social reasons being the main cause of gameplay (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014) and the exclusion of this feature, and therefore social gameplay, would be essentially unacceptable for many gamers.

In some cases, game features connect existing players with their friends whom may not play the game. Social games, or games based on social networking platforms, have used this technique for many years (Di Loreto, and Gouaich, 2010). More games, and games of different genres, are starting to utilize this technique. A recent example (2017/2018) is “Fortnite” (Bedford, 2018). When a player is not in a game of “Fortnite” they are firstly prompted to invite other friends that are online. However, players are also prompted to link their game account to Facebook. This is a clear example of “Fortnite” utilising in-game features, and other digital networking technologies, to extend the gaming community for the specific player and to increase the size of “Fortnite’s” community. This results in bonding social capital being created between existing friends who were Facebook friends but can now easily game together and strengthen their bond.

Communities in Subsidiary Activities Centred Around Gaming

Being part of a gaming community can offer much more than just playing a game. As detailed above, very strong sub-communities can form within a game itself. However, arguably to benefit most from the community around a specific game, the player should participate in multiple aspects of the community. This includes many subsidiary activities that centre around a game but are beyond gameplay. The biggest activity, in terms of active participants, is being involved in social media based on the game. The social media coverage of games is very large and complex (Minguez, 2014). The communities formed on social media platforms are not necessarily the same as the ones formed within games, but any content created by, from, or about a game is still centred around that game and connects to the game itself. Social media coverage of a game and any communities that form because of this are extensions of the game and the communities it promotes.

The media created based on games is essentially infinite and impossible to analyse in its entirety. Due to the shear amount of content, social media content about games, or a specific game, should be broken down into three groups: non-professional user-generated content, professional user-generated content, and industry generated content. Furthermore, where there is a group of participants that can share commonalities, there is a community (MacQueen, et al., 2001). This means that the members of each of these groups can be classified as a community. For example, a group of social media marketers working for a company would be considered a community.

Communities also interact with each other on social media. For example, industry members often promote professional content-creators’ work. This shares some of the industry’s agency with the content creator as a gift for creating content on their game. Specifically, “Fortnite” representatives often use their institutional authority to share and promote video content made by aspiring content creators (Fortnite, 2018). Industry members also “like” or “favourite” non-professional user-generated content. This gives the player social capital and agency in several sub-communities such as their friends or other players. Both actions, and others not mentioned, create mutual benefits and provide motivation for all parties.

Another important subsidiary activity based on gaming, is “modding” or modifying games. “Mods” or modifications to a game are quite commonplace in certain single player games such as “Fallout” (Bailey, 2018). Communities around “mods” or certain “modders” (modifiers) are also quite extensive. Because of the advancement in hardware and software used to create “mods” and the large number of people interest in games, many “mods” have been made. However, the ability to create useful, or even professional, “mods” is highly respected in the gaming community. This has meant “modders”, especially the best ones, receive a large amount of agency and social capital within their sub-community, and even the gaming community in general.

“Mods” can range in size from very small, to whole new games created in a different game engine (Bailey, 2018). The small “mods” can be made by one person, however, the largest “mods” are made by a team. This team requires large amounts of cooperation and collective problem solving. Furthermore, a team of “modders” can spend many years creating a “mod” without guaranteed financial compensation. Because of this, and the passion required to undertake such a task, the group can form a strong community based on gaming. Social capital is created within the community and received from beyond the “modding” community as detailed above. Furthermore, the feeling of belonging and accomplishment, and the friendships developed are just some of the social benefits that occur because of this subsidiary activity of gaming (Koivisto, 2003).

Conclusion

The communities formed within and beyond games can provide large social benefits to the participants. This includes but is not limited to, bridging and bonding social capital, agency, and social proximity and familiarity. All, or some, of these benefits combine and allow participants of gaming communities to create and develop friendships and belong to their community(s). This can occur within the game world or outside of it, through online subsidiary activities. However, both are centred around gaming and the communities that occur because of it.

The concept of communities, even within a gaming stream, is very large. Moreover, gaming as a stream is very broad and complex. This has meant this paper cannot, and has not, explored all aspects of community within gaming. More specifically, aspects including: e-sports, cosplay, gaming events, gaming lounges, and more, have not been discussed. Also, greater depth in the aspects discussed could occur if the focus of the paper was narrower. However, this paper has discussed many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, including: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, VoIP, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”.

References

Bailey, D. (2018, January 3). This mod brings all of Fallout: New Vegas into the Fallout 4 engine. PC Games N. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamesn.com/fallout-4/fallout-4-new-vegas-mod

Bedford, J. (2018, February 2). Fortnite: Battle Royale – How to link friends on Facebook. Metabomb. Retrieved from https://www.metabomb.net/fortnite-battle-royale/gameplay-guides/fortnite-battle-royale-how-to-link-friends-on-facebook

Candy, G. (2012). In video games we trust: High-speed sociality in the 21st century. Fast Capitalism, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/9_1/candy9_1.html

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaich, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual. Research Report, University of Montplellier – CNRS. Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/69/34/PDF/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf

Domahidi, E. Festl, R. and Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 35. 107 – 115. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260947110_To_dwell_among_gamers_Investigating_the_relationship_between_social_online_game_use_and_gaming-related_friendships

Fortnite. (2018, March 31). Laugh along with @TSM_Hamlinz as he pilots his way to a win [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/980095979608268800

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to people: “Brothers in Blood” Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 12(5). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9bb6b4f6-443f-4f88-ab26-15331092aa85%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=44564372&db=bth

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Kim, J., Lee, E. Thomas, T. & Dombrowski, C.  (2009). Storytelling in new media: The case of alternate reality games, 2001-2009. First Monday, 4(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2484/2199

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Digital Games Research Association Conference. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf

Leaver, T. (2018). Web Media: Gaming Media Convergence [iLecture]. Retrieved from https://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?course_id=_80670_1&displayName=iLectures&href=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fblti%2FlaunchPlacement%3Fblti_placement_id%3D_40_1%26course_id%3D_80670_1%26mode%3Dview%26wrapped%3Dtrue

MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., and Trotter, R. T. (2001). What Is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929–1938. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446907

Minguez, K. (2014, November 7). The Merging of Social Media and Gaming. Social Media Today. Retrieved from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/merging-social-media-and-gaming

Oldenburg, Ray (1997). The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, community centres, beauty parlours, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Retrieved from http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps410/Readings/Third%20Places/Oldenburg-Vanishing%20third%20places%201997.pdf

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x/full

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28. 832 – 839. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233489327_The_social_side_of_gaming_How_playing_online_computer_games_creates_online_and_offline_social_support

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1(4), 338-361. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412006292616

 

The Symbiotic Relationship Of Online Gaming and Community Building

Written by Callum Duffy, Curtin University

 

Abstract: This paper largely focuses on the relationship between Online Gaming and the various Communities formed because of it. Specifically analysing communities found by using ‘Overwatch’ as a prime example, the main argument presented is that various communities focused on a single, core aspect unifying them all are more or less interconnected individuals with similar general interests in regards to this core aspect, and thus have the potential for collaboration and dialogue between each other.

 

The relationship between communities and online gaming is, at its very core, a relationship that is symbiotic in nature. In relevance to this, this conference paper will focus primarily on the formation of communities in regards to online gaming, the variation of interests within formed communities and how these vary and diverge into different niche communities, the formation of friendships between members existing within the same community, and how these communities still relate to one another in regards to a singular, dynamic interest. For this conference paper, we will specifically be looking at the various communities that are brought together by the popular FPS game produced by Blizzard entertainment, ’Overwatch’.

 

A community, as defined by Gusfield (1975) focuses on two primary concepts when defining community, The first of these concepts focusing on the geographical sense of community, etc. neighbourhood, town, city. The second is relational, concerned with quality of character of human relationship, without reference to location (p. xvi). In regards to online gaming, the second definition of community provided by Gusfield is an accurate definition as to what an online gaming community is, as the relationships formed through online gaming isn’t limited by the boundaries of geographical location, as the online medium allows player to connect with each other and form relationships/communities with one another. In relation to this, Overwatch allows players from all over the world to play against one another as it isn’t limited by geographical restrictions, this allowing players to connect and as a result allowing the formations of communities, regardless of geographical location. Overwatch itself particular is a game with various communities that have been formed from it’s large, generalised community of those who play the game. I will focus on 3 different communities within the generalised player community, these being the casual, competitive and e-sport based Overwatch communities. It’s important to note that these 3 chosen communities do not accurately represent the different niche groups that exist with the generalised Overwatch player base community, rather, they represent the shift in community based priorities in relevance to Overwatch as a whole, and the interests that each group prioritises.

 

There are various communities within the game Overwatch that cater to the various players that play Overwatch. The casual Overwatch community represents the approximate majority of those who play Overwatch, and those involved within this community simply play the game for relaxation and enjoyment within their leisure time, and build friendships with the players that they meet in game, or through other communication mediums that allow members of this community to collaborate and share information. With this in mind, the primary methods of communication for those in this community are either the in-game voice chat, where individual players can speak to other players on their team, or Youtube comment sections, where they can leave comments under videos that appeal to them and their interests in relation to Overwatch. The ‘competitive’ Overwatch community focus primarily on the competitive game modes that Overwatch offers, where players get ranked based on their skill level. These players seek to improve their skills in playing a particular character, or acquire better game sense through more playtime and experience. More often than not, individuals that associate themselves with this community in particular diverge into different, niche communities that focus on the fundamental principles that the members of this community share. For example, if a player involved in the competitive community plays a particular character mores than others, he/she may also be involved in a sub-community that focuses on playing that particular character, certain exploits that players can use to better play that character, or a generalised appreciation community focusing on that character. The competitive Overwatch community uses a variety of ways to communicate, including the aforementioned methods that the casual community uses to communicate with. However, a difference in the communication side to this community in particular focuses on the application of the official Overwatch forums. These forums allow players to commentate on the state of the game overall, communicate with game developers and ask/answer questions, and communicate with like-minded players on specified topics. Finally, Overwatch’s e-sports community focuses on the ‘professional’ side of play, with professional Overwatch players receiving sponsorships, business deals in the form of contracting to an e-sports team, and being a general figurehead/role model for all Overwatch players. This community represents a minority within the Overwatch community, as the majority of Overwatch players do not associate themselves with the professional side of the game.

 

E-sports in particular, is arguably the most niche of communities that Overwatch offers. E-sports in itself is defined as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies” (Wagner, 2006). Individuals can be associated with E-sports as a competitor or more often than not, simply an observer. This is where the divergence of communities within the game Overwatch begin to reassemble into an amalgamate of individuals with similar interests. Namely, the aforementioned competitive community begins to shift towards a larger involvement in the e-sports community, be it as a spectator or an actual competitor. Overwatch itself has its very own e-sports tournament labelled ‘Overwatch League’, this league hosts various international teams, and has a central presence within the game itself. Overwatch allows player to purchase cosmetic items that represent these teams in game, in a fashion similar to that of a football jersey. With this in mind, this further strengthens the idea of merging different communities within Overwatch, as casual players have access to e-sports related cosmetics, and resources allowing them to further explore the professional Overwatch league.

 

The casual community found within Overwatch however, is the broadest of these communities that the vast majority of the player base fits into. Where casual players might play the competitive modes that Overwatch offers, they still see it as just a game, and don’t necessarily focus on the same aspects the the competitive communities of Overwatch may focus on. The formation of online friendships between individuals within this community are genuine and are capable to exist in an offline setting also. As said by Domahidi, Festl and Quandt (2014), “ Players with a pronounced motive to gain social capital and to play in a team had the highest probability to transform their social relations from online to offline context. We found that social online gamers are well integrated and use the game to spend time with old friends—and to recruit new ones”. With this in mind, the idea that communities are capable of bringing likeminded individuals together  is solidified and proven. This is regardless of how niche a community may be, as for example, a casual player may be persuaded to become a part of a competitive community via friendships made online, or a simply change in opinion towards the game as a whole.

 

With the aforementioned in mind, the various communities that are found within Overwatch are capable of interacting with each other through various different means. Specifically mentioned before were the official Overwatch forums as a large medium used by those involved within the competitive Overwatch community. Youtube however, is the biggest way for the general Overwatch community members to gather information. Be it through the official PlayOverwatch account that posts official trailers, development updates and short animated films, or fan accounts that post game commentaries, professional game analysis or funny meme montages; Youtube is a medium that allows the vast majority of the generalised Overwatch community to interact with one another. Specifically, Youtube is a medium that connects well with younger audiences that have grown up in a digital era, specifically teenagers, which in itself can be considered a sub-community of Overwatch. Youtube content creators can be seen as social influencers that shape the foundation of the decision making process of their audiences, and there is no better example of this than the relationship between these social influencers and their teenage audience. As put by Chua & Banerjee (2015) “personal opinions and experiences have become one of the most valuable sources of information to assist users in their purchase decision-making process”. When the opinions of a professional Overwatch player is shared through Youtube, and reaches the screen of a fan of said influencer, there is a great chance that said fan will copy and follow the personal opinion and review of the influencer in question. Once again we see the merge between communities found within the general Overwatch community, in this case we see the casual, teenage audience form their own opinions and ideas on a particular idea based on the influence of a social influencer, more often than not in this case a competitive, celebrity figure that belongs to a niche community of Overwatch entertainers.

 

Thus, we are presented with a correlation between the various niche communities that belong to the generalised Overwatch community as a whole. This correlation is that the various niche communities influence one another, to the point where the divergence of these communities merge back together into a singular entity. This singular community is characterised and stereotyped to have specific traits shared amongst the members of this community, and with Overwatch in particular this generalised trait would be toxic gameplay that certain players bring to the table. This is recognised even by the developers of the game in question. In a video posted to the PlayOverwatch Youtube account, lead developer Jeff Kaplan addressed the audience about the increased negative social interactions that occur between player of the game, and the steps that the team are taking to rid toxicity from the game. In the video, Kaplan states, “We have taken disciplinary action against over 480,000 accounts, and 340,000 of those were a direct result of players using the reporting system. So you can see, the vast majority of actions we take are because players have said hey, there’s another player here doing something very bad and I want to see some action” (PlayOverwatch, 2017). In regards to this video, we can see that the Overwatch community are characterised by being toxic in game. However, we can also see that this is a big problem that many individuals both inside and outside of this community want to see be dealt with.

 

We can see that Youtube is the primary medium being used to address the various Overwatch communities in question. The social influencer of the video being lead developer Jeff Kaplan is a figurehead that the majority of the player base look up to, and hearing him say that reporting toxic behaviour in Overwatch is a good step to ridding the toxicity problem in Overwatch makes the communities in question listen to this, and thus form their own opinions and ideas behind this. This in turn changes the overall attitude and behaviour within the various communities found in Overwatch into an attitude that is committed to neutralising and reducing bad player behaviours within the game. This video and the reactions of the individuals within the specific Overwatch communities that this video targets is a clear cut example of how various, niche communities still relate to one another via a singular purpose, and how the power of social influence has the ability to change specific attitudes and form opinions within communities.

 

Overall, there is a distinct correlation between online gaming, and the formation of communities and the individuals that associate themselves with online games. The various opinions, thoughts and values that are shared between members of online game communities are generally shared, with a few principle outlying values creating certain niche communities within a generalised community focusing on an online game. These opinions, thoughts and values are subject to change with the input of social influencers altering these already existing opinions, thoughts and values, and thus influence which type of community an individual may choose to associate themselves with. However, the already underlying thoughts, values and opinions that represent the entire, generalised community still exist between various niche groups, and thus allow collaboration and unity between these groups whilst retaining a sense of uniqueness present in the various niche groups found within a community.

 

 

  • Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding Review Helpfulness as a Function of Reviewer Reputation, Review Rating, and Review Depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(2), 354-362.
  • Domahidi, Emese & Festl, Ruth & Quandt, Thorsten. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107–115. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023
  • Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5fb/8ece108aec36714ee413876e61b0510e7c80.pdf
  • PlayOverwatch (Official Game Development Youtube Account). (2017, September 13). Developer Update | Play Nice, Play Fair | Overwatch [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnfzzz8pIBE
  • Wagner, Michael. (2006). On the Scientific Relevance of eSports. 437-442. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220968200_On_the_Scientific_Relevance_of_eSports
  • Warmelink, H., & Siitonen, M. (2011). Player Communities in Multiplayer Online Games: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3acd/d7a7402cf8c517350f9f6041c29e4b0f34ed.pdf

 

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the power social capital holds in cross-platform online gaming communities, and argues that socially completive multiplayer games are more popular because of their development of social capital. Fortnite: Battle Royale, although a relatively new game, is a prime example of how the cross-platform communities have resulted in the viral success of a game. This paper explores the theory of communities, both online and offline, and their relationship to socially competitive multiplayer gaming.  It will discuss the different types of gaming communities and how they span across numerous different platforms. It will also discuss the social capital that is held by members of the Fortnite: Battle Royale (Fortnite) community and how the community has grown since the game’s first release.

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has led to the creation of a more collaborative and interactive Internet. Web 2.0 is about the development of communication and content that was not possible in Web 1.0 (Davis, 2009). Online multiplayer games are a development of Web 2.0 that have been able to combine console gaming systems (such as the PlayStation 4) with the Internet to create a unique online experience. This paper aims to discuss how the popularity of socially competitive online multiplayer games have impacted on the cross-platform communities surrounding the games and the social capital these communities hold. We will be examining online multiplayer games that are considered to be competitive but are also used for social interaction between players. These online multiplayer games have resulted in the formation of communities that exist outside the gaming consoles and games itself, and can be found across multiple different platforms online. These communities that are formed around a game create social capital that both individuals and the community hold. Katz defines social capital as a set of shared values and expectations that a community holds. It is about the power people hold through their social networks and the value that is placed on that power (Katz 2004). Social capital is especially important in gaming communities as it revolves around trust and cooperation. This paper will discuss how the popularity of an online socially competitive multiplayer game can result in social capital that spreads across communities that are established in different platforms across the Internet. Using the free-to-play online game ‘Fortnite: Battel Royale’ (Fortnite) as an example of a socially competitive online multiplayer game that players have formed communities in, not only, the game platform itself (PlayStation 4) but across multiple other platforms as well (Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc.). Fortnite: Battle Royale is a third-person shooter, survival game. It involves up to 100 players (who can play solo or in squads of two or four) that compete to be the last man standing (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).   The game involves a vast selection of weapons that are scattered across the map and a constantly shrinking safe zone that executes lethal damage to player’s health when caught outside it. Building aspects incorporated into the gameplay elevates this game above similar games within the genre. Players can destroy objects in the environment to collect materials that allow them to build defenses to protect themselves or to help them travel (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).

Community Theory and Practice

Community is a social system. It relies on the social interaction, common ties and psycho-cultural bonds that link people together (Katz, 2004). A community is a network of people whose social interactions have formed a group of likeminded people who support one another. Communities can exist in both the physical and virtual environments, sometimes switching between the two. Online communities can break through barriers that physical communities may have, like geographical location, gender, race, ethnicity and age (Katz & Rice, 2002). The absence of these barriers allows for the online space to create communities that thrive on the diversity of common interests and goals that create a sense of belonging for an individual. Katz discusses four types of communities: traditional communities, imaginary communities, pseudo communities and social networks (Katz, 2004).  Traditional communities are closely linked with the design of physical communities. They promote the ideas of co-dependency and commonness, achieving a collective purpose. Social networks are about the communities formed online, they are about individuals and their personal networks; what communities they choose to be a part of. This type of community provides a sense of belong for the individual who has now become the center of their own community (Katz, 2004). Imagined communities are formed online but are still linked to the physical world (Katz, 2004). These communities encompass the ideas of social networks while creating an imagined form of sentiment in the physical world (Katz, 2004). And lastly, pseudo communities have very similar characteristics to that of a traditional community but, are formed virtually rather than in a physical geo-graphical location (Katz, 2004). Fortnite: Battle Royale can be considered a social network, because the majority of the communities surrounding the game are only present online, and focuses on the individual experience within that community. However, smaller Fortnite communities could also be considered imagined communities. These imagined communities can be seen where smaller communities are formed in the physical world to play together, and discuss the game.

Virtual communities are often seen to produce what are known as ‘weak ties’. Weak ties describe distant or casual relationships (Porter, 2015). Typically formed online, weak ties link individuals to a plethora of information across social networks and communities. This information exchange within communities can be important in online gaming communities as it can help players to advance in the games and facilitates player-to-player interaction. Communication is a key part of communities and often results in weak ties converting into stronger, more personal ties. The compelling nature of online gaming communities is that a community focused around one specific game does not have to live within the confides of that gaming platform. The social aspect of gaming has allowed for communities to form outside of the parameters of an online multiplayer game. For example, the communities centered around Fortnite are not only distributed between the platforms of the gaming console such as forums and chats but appear on other online platforms. These platforms range from streaming and video content on Twitch (a live video streaming platform) and YouTube, to microblogging sites like Twitter and discussion websites like Reddit. Each of these platforms contribute to a much larger overarching community solely dedicated and invested in Fortnite. These communities allow players to form social connections and Koivisto argues that it is the reason why players continue to play a game (Koivisto, 2003). Communities allow players to express themselves, and create discussions and their own content surrounding a game. This is also closely linked with the social capital surrounding online gaming communities and the power it can hold.

Social Capital and Online Multiplayer Gaming

The popularity of online multiplayer games is based on its social aspects.  Games, such as Fortnite, can become very competitive but still facilitate sociality through head-set conversations and online multiplayer team battles. Social capital has become an import concept in the formation of social interactions and relationships online (Trepte et al., 2012). It has many effects on communities and the individual members in that community. Social capital builds support, trust, and cooperation (Trepte et al., 2012). It helps participants to solve collective problems, widens the awareness of interconnectivity between people, increases trust and aids the process of communication (Putnam, 2000). Examples of the significance of social capital is demonstrated in cross-platform communities around Fortnite, and the value the communities place in members of that community. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Twitch and numerous other platforms have facilitated the creation of these communities. To show the scale of these communities you can look at the follower size of Fortnite on Twitter and Twitch. The official Twitter account of the game has over 2.2 million followers and connects with players by providing them with updates, news and replying to the community’s queries and questions (“Fortnite (@FortniteGame)”, n.d.). On Twitch, there are over 10.4 million followers of Fortnite streams and videos.  On platforms such as Twitch, and YouTube, a video sharing platform, have created Fortnite communities around popular content creators. The number one Twitch streamer, ‘ninja’, has been claimed as a “god” in the Fortnite community (Nattrass, 2018). With an unprecedented 108 million channel views and over 4.4 million subscribers, ninja has established himself as an esteemed member of the Fortnite community. YouTubers such as ‘Ali-A’, ‘elrubiousOMG’, ‘Willyrex’ and ‘ninja’ (again) are also prominent with between 6-28 million subscribers apiece (“Top 250 YouTubers games Channels”, 2018). These gamers have built their social capital around the Fortnite community. Their popularity is not just equated to the entertainment they provide, but also the sense of belonging and support other players subscribe to. These cross-platform communities are the reason why socially competitive online multiplayer games are so virally popular.

Popularised Online Multiplayer Games

In 2018 PlayStation released statistics of their top ten downloaded games. This includes Call of Duty: WWII, Grand Theft Auto V, NBA 2K18 and Rocket League (Massongill, 2018). Each of these games involve both an offline single player and/or multiplayer mode, as well as an online peer-to-peer multiplayer mode. However, the second highest downloaded game of 2017, Horizon Zero Dawn, only supported an online-only multiplayer mode, rather than offline single player and multiplayer modes. The popularity of these games may be contributed to a multitude of factors, but it is the sociability of the online multiplayer aspects that become a highlighting factor. PlayStation consoles offer a chat system they call ‘party’. Creating a party allows for individuals to voice and text chat with their PlayStation friends, and other players, whilst in a game or using other PlayStation applications (“About parties”, n.d.). Parties are an important aspect of gaming as it allows players to socialise with their friends and the wider gaming community. Players can connect with each other, and this facilitates the manifestation of relationships outside the limitation of geographical location. This social side of gaming is one of the strongest motivators for players to continue playing a game, and forms both pseudo communities and social networks (Trepte et al., 2012).

The success of Fortnite has been swift. It’s accessibility and competitiveness has led to its rise as one of the most popular online socially competitive multiplayer games. On February 4th 2018 Fortnite’s servers crashed when the game hit a peak of 3.4 million concurrent players (Nunneley, 2018). This rapid scale of growth since the game was released in September 2017 was unimaginable for the game developers. With over 45 million players it has stood out against other popular games. It has been labelled as a “relationship building, strategic masterpiece of warfare”, as it has enabled social bonding and team building that isn’t as possible in other online multiplayer games (Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon, 2018). These statistics show that it is clear that the game is widely popular and the communities have a large span, but it is also important to acknowledge the smaller communities that form inside these larger ones. Individuals may only participate in their own personal social networks. They may only talk to people that they already know offline and do not want to socialise with players that they do not know. These smaller communities may not come in participate directly with the larger communities but by association they are contributing to the overarching community of Fortnite, and online multiplayer gaming communities as a whole. However, some scholars note that these gaming communities can result in an increase in anti-social behaviour (Trepte et al., 2012). It can form addictions, increase isolation and deteriorate offline relationships between players and their peers (Trepte et al., 2012).

Conclusion

Communities are a key part of humanity. They create networks of individuals who have come together to bond over their common interests and connect with people.  The support and security they provide were once limited to geographical location but now, with the arrival of Web 2.0, communities span across all areas of life. People can find their own space within the Internet that celebrates their interests with other like-minded individuals. Gaming communities are just one example of the vast network of communities that exist online. The pseudo communities provide support for gamers and creates relationships between players that may not have existed otherwise. Online socially competitive multiplayer games promote sociability and builds social capital between gamers. Players are able to converse not only through the game itself but across different platforms on the Internet. Through livestreams, gamers like ‘ninja’ and ‘Ali-A’ are able to showcase their abilities and provide help and insight into the games they play. The popularity of socially competitive games are tied to the online multiplayer aspect they provide. Games like Fortnite: Battle Royale have become viral because of the community that has formed around the game. The players have found something that they love to play and are sharing that with the people around them, both online and offline.

References

About parties | PlayStation®4 User’s Guide. Manuals.playstation.net. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps4/party/about_party.html

Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0 definition, usage, and self -efficacy: A study of graduate library school students and academic librarians at colleges and universities with ALA accredited degree programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304844103?accountid=10382

Epic Games’ Fortnite. Epic Games’ Fortnite. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/home

Fortnite (@FortniteGame). Twitter.com. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/with_replies?lang=en

Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon. (2018). University Wire Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2001674512?accountid=10382

Katz, J.E., & Rice, R.E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol.28(1), p.315-371. https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679039

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf

Massongill, J. (2018). PlayStation Store: The Top Downloads of 2017. PlayStation.Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/01/05/playstation-store-the-top-downloads-of-2017/

Nattrass, J. (2018). Ninja: Everything you need to know about the Fortnite God and Twitch star. Metro.co.uk. Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/16/who-is-fortnite-god-ninja-and-just-how-is-this-twitch-megastar-making-at-least-350000-from-gaming-7391914/

Nunneley, S. (2018). Fortnite hit 3.4M concurrent players last weekend and the servers couldn’t handle the pressure. VG247. Retrieved from https://www.vg247.com/2018/02/08/fortnite-3-4-million-concurrent-players-servers-crashed/

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A. Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161 – 179

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (pp. 288-289). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Top 250 YouTubers Games Channels. (2018). Socialblade.com. Retrieved from https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/category/games/mostsubscribed

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, vol.28(3), p.832-839. DOI: 10.1016/jchb.2011.12.003

Header image retrieved from: Alpha Coders

© 2018 Briana Marino. All Rights Reserved.