Tag: Gaming

Dungeons & Dragons: From tabletop to desktop

Abstract

Tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons have made the shift in recent years from a purely offline gaming system to functioning online, albeit with minor adjustments to format. As a game system that relies upon the players investing themselves in a fictional world that they will flesh out with their own created identities aka player characters, this paper will aim to explore the relationship between the identity of the player and the player character. The performance and shifting of these identities will be a central focus as well as the unique problems that will need to be addressed when playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

Keywords:

Gaming, Tabletop, Role-Playing, Dungeons & Dragons, Identity, Performance

 

Identity within Dungeons & Dragons

 

This paper will discuss the importance and function of identity, specifically the creation and performance aspects, with regards to tabletop role-playing games in an online space. Dungeons & Dragons, as perhaps the most well-known of all role-playing games, will be used as a case study for discussion in this paper. Firstly, a brief introduction of Dungeons & Dragons will be given as well as an explanation of how it functions as a game and what the shift to a digital format has changed for the system. Secondly will be an exploration of the creation of identities within the game system followed by the performance of these identities, as well as how players differentiate between the player and the character. This paper will also briefly explore the relationship between the identities of the player and character. This will be followed by an exploration of why performative identities within this system differ from other online spaces and unique problems involving meta-gaming that relate to identity. Lastly a brief exploration of online role-playing games as communities will be discussed. This paper will aim to argue that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

 

History and taking the offline online

 

Dungeons & Dragons, much like other tabletop role-playing games, is essentially a group storytelling experience with structure and rules to guide it. This is done through a dungeon master guiding the group through the narrative of the adventure and reacting to the actions the players wish their characters to take. Gary Gygax, one of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons, described it as a “Group cooperative experience…There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in” (Schiesel, 2008). As Dungeons & Dragons has existed since the 1970s it was not initially created to be played online (WoTC, 2018). While Dungeons & Dragons is still primarily played offline its transition to online has allowed many new people to take up the hobby who were previously unable to play. When players begin a game, they create a character that they wish to play within the world, this is known as a player character. This differs from other online spaces, where creating an avatar is a common aspect, in that the player will be asked to flesh out this identity beyond the simple choice of a representative image and name. This greater depth to the identity allows the player more flexibility in the identity that they wish to create and can make them feel more involved in the game as aspects of their characters backstory can be injected in the adventure. Pearson (2009) states that “online, users can claim to be whoever they wish”. This statement applies directly to online role-playing games as they are a system that allows for extensive creative freedom. This player character can be given a backstory, personality or wants and needs separate to those of the player. The player would then perform this identity within the context of the game world, making choices from the perspective of the character that they have created.

An important characteristic of offline play is the ability to see the other players, which provides players the ability to visually identify the other players. Identifying other players with whom you are going to undertake a group storytelling experience is important to understanding and evaluating an interaction (Kollock & Smith, 1996). When playing in an online space players are often limited to text or voice chat as the primary form of communication which can remove a visual factor from play, namely the fact that the players may not be aware what everyone they are playing with look like. This can benefit some players by providing them a level of anonymity within play which could in turn provide an extra level of confidence. Offline players may be more hesitant to try and roleplay a certain type of character or accent for fear of embarrassment due to the other players being in the same room as them while online this fear can be lessened or removed completely.

 

 

 

 

Getting into character

 

As Dungeons & Dragons is a storytelling experience, a core aspect of the game is being able to understand and perform the identity that players have created within their characters. Creating a new identity to be performed is not a concept applied solely to role playing games. Performing as a created character within a role-playing game is essentially a form of acting, albeit with a heavier focus on improvisation. There is no script within a game of Dungeons and Dragons for the players to follow and so a large portion of the game must be created on the spot or as a reaction to whatever is happening, this allows for a form of fluid storytelling unique to tabletop role-playing games. As players grow more comfortable with their characters, whether through further play with that particular character or experience with the game, it becomes easier for them to perform that specific identity. Performative identities are discussed by Goffman, as cited in Pearson (2009), who discusses identity-as-performance from a theatre perspective with regards to a frontstage, which is the observable space when the character is in the spotlight, and the backstage where players are able to ‘step back’ from their performed identities and discuss the game as a meta level commentary. People use different methods to inform the other players whether they are speaking as a player or a player character. This can be done through the ‘frontstage’ implementations such as the use of accents or speech patterns or a ‘backstage approach’ by referring to the character in the third person such as saying, “my character would know this”.

 

As Dungeons and Dragons is a group experience there are potential difficulties that arise from players abusing the backstage approach to performative identity, hiding behind a common excuse of “That is what my character would do” whenever they do something that is considered ‘evil’ within the alignment structure of the game. There are countless threads that exist on the internet regarding players having difficulties with a player within their game who is hiding behind their characters identity as an excuse for their actions. RPG Stack Exchange is a website dedicated to solving problems with game systems and has a forum that allows users to ask questions of the greater role-playing community, within this forum there is a discussion about how to handle a difficult player whose character is killing innocent civilians while traveling in a group with the fantasy equivalent of an ex-police officer (Stack Exchange, 2018). The first player is quoted as saying “It’s how his character is played” while the second player is saying that as his character is good aligned, he now has enough reason to kill the offending character. This type of interaction can have ramifications across two identity levels, the first being the death of players characters which can end the game for one player. The second is the potential issue it could within the group of players as the killing of another players character could upset that player. This kind of cross level emotional identity issue may not be unique to Dungeons and Dragons but does differ from other online spaces where the user may not be occupying different identity-spaces.

 

 

 

Meta-gaming

 

Being able to differentiate between the identity that a player is performing, as a character, and the players’ actual identity can be an important aspect of the game as meta-gaming is often frowned upon by both players and the dungeon master running the game. Meta-gaming can be described as attempting to game the game, using knowledge that the player has but the character would not necessarily have within the context of the game (Huvila, 2013). To manage the problem of meta-gaming it is important for players to be able to separate their real-world identity from that of the character they are playing. There is always going to some element of meta-gaming when playing Dungeons & Dragons as it is impossible to completely separate the identity of the player and player character. This meta-knowledge can lead to a player making a suboptimal choice for their character, knowing it is not the best choice simply because that is what they imagine their character would do. That kind of choice would be classified as good role-playing and applauded by the other players at the virtual table. Making choices as both a player and a character can be described as actor stance, making decisions based solely upon the characters knowledge, and author stance, making a decision based upon the knowledge of the player (Edwards, 2001). Although it is important for players to be able to differentiate between their character and themselves, there is an inherent link between the two. As mentioned earlier when a player makes a suboptimal choice knowing that it is what the character would do it can be difficult for the player to make the choice as they are intrinsically linked to their character and the potential for the choice to put the character in physical danger can be an emotional choice. This sort of relationship can be linked to the fact that because the player has created this character they are “imaginatively connected to the character” (Whitlock, 2012). As discussed above meta-gaming is a problem involving identities that can be applied specifically to Dungeons and Dragons as well as other online role-playing games while not necessarily affecting other online communities even within the gaming community.

 

Big virtual table

 

Due to the social nature of games such as Dungeons and Dragons, communities have long been formed around it. The shift to online has increased the number of players drastically (Hall, 2015). Popular online Dungeons and Dragons series ‘Critical Role’, a game hosted and played by actors and voice actors has contributed to the rise in popularity so much that it crossed into the offline space by having a billboard in Los Angeles. Dungeons and Dragons is a game that has in the past and continues to transition between the online and offline space. There currently exists no one central location for people who wish to play Dungeons and Dragons but there are multiple options depending upon the style of play people wish for with the most popular being Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 (Hall, 2017). Online role-playing games could be said to create multiple smaller communities simply due to the format. A group of players is its own small community, that group would also be a part of the greater community of the game that they choose to play which is itself a part of the even larger community that is online role-playing games. Individuals may exist within each of these communities to the extent that they wish however there must be input in the initial community in order for the game to function. Due to the multiple layers of communities it becomes a necessity for players to portray multiple identities (Koivisto, 2003). Players who wish to participate in the greater community will be unable to use the identities they have created at the table due to the lack of knowledge the community has regarding individual game stories.

 

Conclusion

 

This paper aimed to explore the concept of identity, primarily its creation and performance, within the context of online role-playing games. A history of Dungeons and Dragons was given as well as the impact shifting to an online platform has had on both how the game is played and its player base. The importance of identity and the differing ways in which it can be performed was also discussed. Concepts of identity-as-performance and frontstage/backstage play were also introduced and explored. The problem of meta-gaming and how it affects identity driven systems such as role-playing games was explained and discussed. Lastly the community and social factors were explored with regards to the online space as opposed to the traditional format of offline play. While there have been discussions online regarding the importance of a ‘true’ identity and the value of anonymity, it could be said that certain platforms such as online role-playing games should be viewed outside of this argument as one of the core aspects of the game is to create a fictional identity (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Through exploration and discussion of the various topics introduced this paper argued that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

 

References

 

Edwards, R. (2001). GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. Retrieved from                                http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

 

Hall, C. (2015). Dungeons & Dragons is booming online, but not in the way that you think.            Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/20/9172559/dungeons-dragons-dnd      -4th-edition-one-year-later-twitch-youtube

 

Hall, C. (2017). More people are playing D&D online than ever before. Retrieved  from                             https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/20/16005982/dungeons-and-dragons-online-roll20-data

 

Huvila, I. (2013). Meta-Games in Information Work. Information Research: An International                       Electronic Journal, 18 (3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044641.pdf

 

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing                        Games by Game Design. Retrieved from                                                                                        http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/05150.48442.pdf

 

Kollock, P & Smith, M. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved            from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online                     social networks. First Monday, 14 (3). Retrieved from                                                   http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

 

RPG Stack Exchange. (2018). Best way to kill a problematic fellow players character. Retrieved                from https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/68688/best-way-to-kill-a-problematic-                fellow-player-character

 

Schiesel, S. (2008). Gary Gygax, Game Pioneer, Dies at 69. Retrieved from                                            https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html

 

Van der Nagel, E & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online                          identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20 (3).                      Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

 

Whitlock, K. (2012). Traumatic Origins: Memory, Crisis, and Identity in Digital RPG’s. In                            Whitlock, K & Voorhees, A., G (Eds) Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens: The                  Digital Role-Playing Game (1st ed., pp. 135-152). New York, NY: Continuum                              International Publishing Group.

 

WoTC. (2018). History: Forty Years of Adventure. Retrieved from                        http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/history/history-forty                 -years-adventure

 

In Our Control: Games and Online Communities

In Our Control: Online Games and Communities
Sebastian Powell
Abstract
This paper sets out to discuss how online games fit in to the community mix, and also how much of an important role the Internet plays in facilitating the majority of communities. All the Internet has done is provided a place for all of the communities to come together from all over the world, sharing common experiences, talking to each other and expanding the potential reach of the community tenfold. Through the analysis of several different online games and how they directly relate to formation of online communities.

Introduction
Ever since the arrival of the Internet one argument has filled the airspace over the years. Has our generation- the millennials forgotten how to communicate with each other because of this highly digitized world we have grown up in? Many academics and parents alike believe that our generation is worse off because of our so-called obsession with the Web. But I will in fact argue that online millennials have had a positive effect on many facets of the Internet, and have only strengthened ties of existing communities. The Internet acts as a facilitator for many online happenings, particularly online games and the plethora of communities and sub communities that arise in these games. The most important thing, in the existence of a community is communication (Koivisto, 2003), with this I argue that many games, even including some major AAA single-player games have avenues in which communities can flourish on the Internet. I will also put forward how certain game mechanics in specific games encourage communication between strangers and friends alike, creating the argument that if the most important thing about a community truly is communication, then online games have communities in spades.

How WoW built strong online communities
Think of a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) and it’s likely the first game that comes to mind is the famous — or infamous — World of Warcraft (WoW). With a player base of around 5.5 million in 2016 (Statista, 2016), it has created numerous communities and networks. Particularly I will be discussing what has made WoW such a popular MMORPG for so many years, and why it is so culturally entwined the gaming world. As Preece (cited in Koivisto, 2003) states, another key feature of a community is that it consists of likeminded people, interacting with each other while aiming to complete their own individual role. This is key in understanding why WoW is particularly popular and has maintained a strong community player base over many years. The mechanics of the game allows players inside the community to truly flourish with their own unique role that is assigned to them either naturally or assigned to them by the leader of the specific community.

Challenging stereotypes through casual gaming
Previously in academia talks it would be easy to dismiss online games as mere time wasting offering no real benefits to the various groups who play. However now due to the explosion of online gaming applications on their smart phone it is no longer relevant to stereotype gamers as old men who live in their Mum’s garage, because according to studies conducted in South Korea (Soo-Hyun, Hyun, Ji-Won, Jo-Eun, & Dai-Jin, 2017) thanks to the inclusion of the online games on the smart phone it is reported that 67.9% of the population aged 10 to 65 played online games of some description. In light of this, it is clear to see how individuals in a community environment such as WoW can really find a sense of belonging and achievement seldom seen in their life previously. So, while yes, it is true that “the dark side of excessive gaming is evident” (Soo-Hyun et al., 2015) it is undoubtedly clear that relationships not only form in these online communities but existing relationships between people can flourish and form into something truly meaningful for the individuals, which has been facilitated by online gaming platforms.

Communication within online games
When gaming online, communication can take place in a number of ways. These include chat systems, emotes as well as many more obscure ways to communicate. However, many people still play solo, yet the sense of community is omnipresent as certain aspects of the game heavily encourage player to player interaction, be it trading with another player, or activating certain emotes such as a wave or a dance. There is always communication going on between players even if it is non- verbal (Koivisto, 2003). So therefore, the game mechanisms always give players a chance to have some form of communication, and thus always facilitates the building of communities. A key concept in the idea of community is that of social capital. This refers to the idea of pre-existing weak social bonds in which some people involved feel inspired by others in the community (Trepte, Reinecke, & Juechems, 2012). This is highly relevant when discussing not only WoW but many other MMORPG’s also. The idea of games being able to both bridge and broaden social capital is influential and possibly telling as to why communities seem to flourish so well on platforms such as WoW. According to Trepte et al. (2012) bridging social capital refers to weaker existing relationships that enhance a members’ perspective, and is regardless of race, age or ethnicity. A younger person for example could be playing WoW and fall into one of these groups completely by accident, and thanks to the global village we live in, it could have members from all around the world, all with different backgrounds, beliefs and most importantly (for some) advanced levels of in game skill. All these elements that a young person could be exposed to benefits them in both the long and short term in terms of social skills and also enhancing their gaming ability.

The power of online games to be able to bring seemingly unrelated people around a common goal is truly powerful. It is also evident not only in MMORPG’s but in the single player game communities as well. Firstly, Koivisto (2003, p. 4) makes the emphatic statement that “limiting communication always hurts the community,” if this is indeed the case then what about the AAA single-player games that feature a huge player base? When the original Xbox was released side-by-side with a curious science fiction first person shooter (FPS) named Halo: Combat Evolved, no one could’ve truly predicted how well the two were going to be received, and with around 5 million copies sold to date it is clear to see how the game has become a cultural icon for many throughout their childhood and indeed into adulthood, also (Leeson, 2011). This game offered an immensely powerful and thoughtful single player campaign, as well as an ever-presently fun multiplayer department. In today’s gaming industry, it is a rarity for console players to find big budget games that satisfy both their story telling needs in the campaign, and their competitive needs in multiplayer. EA’s Star Wars Battlefront 2 and the plethora of criticism it faced upon release, particularly in terms of its half-finished single player campaign that the developers originally planned to finish later and add as downloadable content (DLC), is an example of this.

Communities surrounding online games
When gamers find a modern, high quality, single-player game, such as Wolfenstein: The New Order by Bethesda Studios (where players take control of an American soldier in an alternate reality narrative in which the Nazi’s have won World War 2 and are now culturally oppressive and technologically advanced), where do they go to satisfy their need to share their experience with other players? Social Networking Sites (SNS) such as Reddit, Facebook and IGN to name a few. The communities created on these platforms allow technically ‘offline players’ to go online and share screenshots, ask questions and share hints and tips. The point is, just because the game itself doesn’t necessarily offer avenues of communication, the Internet and its different features alone allow communities to form and flourish, with the game Wolfenstein: The New Order simply acting as the catalyst for the community to form.

Modding communities
Secondly, particular games allow players in their single player community to create their own content and share it for other people to play. This is particularly relevant in Sid Meiers’ Civilisation VI, in this particular case I will discuss the main PC version of the game, and not the iOS version offered on the Apple App Store. This game is launched through the facilitating platform named Steam. As the title alludes, in Civilisation VI players take the helm of a historic civilisation on a random map and build the civilisation up through the ages, facing other civilisations along the way either going to war with them or finding diplomatic peace. Assuming that because an online game takes on average 5-8 hours according to Reddit user Camomilk, we will say that to best experience a match is to play against the built-in A.I, which would then categorise this game as a preferably single-player game. Steam offers a “workshop” section in which players such as myself who desire fun modifications that would otherwise never be seen to be released by developers, can go and download modifications made by other players in the Civilisation community. One notable example is a mod that allows players to take control of the Third Reich as Adolf Hitler, while it sounds admittedly grim the realism and enjoyment that players find in these mods enhance the game to another level. This ultimately links back to my original point, just because the players are technically playing solo, they are still communicating with each other and encouraging the user created content even further. As Koivisto (2003) states there are many other ways that players can communicate with each other, such as in-game emotes, character proximity or even certain actions can communicate a message. Therefore, the act of playing on a map or a game type that another user has created directly forms avenues for communities to be created. User created content is by no means unique to Civilisation VI, in fact another game named Far Cry 5 by Ubisoft studios employs the idea of user-created content on a massive scale. In their Arcade mode which is where the players go to escape the single player and jump into competitive multiplayer. It is particularly unique in the way that every single map that is offered to play has been created on the map creator by other players in the community. And while it has its shortcomings such as some very average and wacky maps, in general the maps are good enough to play. Which means the community on the Far Cry 5’s arcade is completely self-sufficient; the players create the maps and game types; the players then play and either like or dislike the map. Through user-created content it is clear to see how it is not just the standard form of communication that forms communities, there are a plethora of ways that players can talk either in game or on the Web through facilitating platforms.

Conclusion
As opposed to viewing the Internet as something that hinders our ability to communicate with each other, it should be seen as a tool for all kinds of communities to expand their existing notions of what a community is. The Internet gives everyone the rudimentary ability to communicate with each other, it doesn’t take it away. One needs only to look at the amount of Reddit users to see that the Internet is a communication platform, so to say that today’s generation is worse off because of how digitized we have become is simply plain wrong. And nowhere is this more evident than in the world of online gaming, there are always ways to communicate with people from literal conversations to more ambiguous signs and emotes. It is clear to see how if anything, community ties are stronger than they’ve ever been.

Camomilk. (2016, December 5). How long do multiplayer games take? [Blog      comment]. Retrieved from https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-long-do-multiplayer-games-take.606766/.

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.

Leeson, D. M. (2011). Northrop frye and the story structure of the single-player shooter. English Studies in Canada, 37(2), 137-152. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1024140325?accountid=10382

Soo-Hyun Paik, Cho, H., Ji-Won, C., Jo-Eun, J., & Dai-Jin, K. (2017). Gaming device usage patterns predict internet gaming disorder: Comparison across different gaming device usage patterns. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1512. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.3390/ijerph14121512 Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1988593120?accountid=10382.

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. DOI: 10.1016/jchb.2011.12.003.

 

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

 

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.

Competitive FPS communities; An analysis of the types of communication that occurs in the third place and the emergence of esports in mainstream society

Abstract

Communities play an important role in acknowledging different groups of people who have similar interests. Within these communities, candidates facilitate different methods of communication with applications, evident through the progression in new emergent technologies. This paper first explores the concept of ‘third place’. It then reviews the concept of online games, delving into the specific First-Person Shooter (FPS) community. From here, a precedence for online games is established. The paper then caters towards discussing how online games become competitive through the realm of ‘esports’. Various contemporary examples of ‘esports’ competitions will be looked upon from game titles such as Overwatch and Call of Duty. Each game provides various types of communication, aiding gamers within a competitive environment. Finally, I will transition to the importance of communication in offline events whilst looking at the proliferation of ‘esports’ becoming more evident in contemporary society for viewers as well as players who participate.

Introduction

Over the years, online games have provided an avenue for a variety of people to escape realism and pressures of the ‘real world’. These spaces are often considered as separate to those experienced in real life, donned as a ‘third place’. Soukup (2006) explores the research of sociologist Ray Oldenburg to which identifies the Third Place as “public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace”. Oldenburg specifies the characteristics of these spaces which are a good starting point in identifying and providing a discussion around this community. From Soukup (2006), he argues that third places:

  • Are on neutral ground;
  • Are a leveller;
  • Conversation is the main activity;
  • Are accessible;
  • [Are a] home away from home, they have ‘regulars’; and
  • [Have a playful mood]

‘Third place’ is situated and considered as an extension of ordinary life. In this paper, I’ll be identifying online games within this space, specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS’). The online gaming community is far too big to identify; therefore, the main scope of this paper will primarily cater towards this specific niche in the gaming community. For those that are unaware, the competitive environment is currently on the rise and is referred to nowadays as ‘esports’. Seo and Jung (2014) explore this as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies”. Expanding media platforms have promoted this ever-changing phenomenon with it becoming more than just an activity but rather a more inclusive participative activity through spectatorship. With its rapid increase in popularity, “online computer gaming leagues and locally networked events have offered players a place to engage in serious or career competition” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.636). With ‘esports’ occurring both online and in offline settings, communication between players is vital to achieve success. This paper will investigate the FPS community and how it creates a competitive environment and promotes a larger level of communication within the third place. Examples such as Overwatch and Call of Duty will be discussed regarding online and offline settings to further explore the notion of a competitive environment. Finally, I will look at communication at ‘LAN’ events and its importance in an offline environment whilst pursuing the ideal of ‘esports’ and its relevance in contemporary society through its growth through viewership and participation of ‘esport’ ‘athletes’.

Third Place and its relationship with Online Games

As previously mentioned, scholars such as Oldenburg have defined ‘third place’ as a “public space[s] used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace” (Soukup, 2006, p. 421). Contrasting from what’s usually considered as ‘normal life’, video games offers further social interaction and a platform whereby consumers can escape from reality. According to Wadley et al. (2003) companies such as Sony and Microsoft were the first of many to pioneer this. It is said that “Sony and Microsoft appear to have similar visions for online console gaming: a global network connecting millions of users, who not only play videogames with each other, but also socialise online” (Wadley et al., 2003, p.238).

Online games come in many different forms, whether it’s through multiplayer against other individuals, or cooperative play whereby players team up with others to perform a certain set of tasks. ‘Third places’ are often regarded to be on ‘neutral ground’ and are ‘accessible’. However, in some cases this is not always possible. With a gap in technology, not all people have access to platforms whereby third places occur, in this case, online games. Scholar Papacarissi argues that “the fact that online technologies are only accessible to and used by, a small fraction of the population contributes to an electronic public sphere that is exclusive, elitist and far from the ideal” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). The ‘leveler’ and ‘accessibility’ arguments that are initially enforced by Oldenburg are under scrutiny, conflicting with the ideal of being available to all.

While this seems to be the case, ‘social capital’ helps to support Oldenburg’s views. Robert Putnam defines social capital to be the “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness arise from them” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). Moreover, while “connectedness might foster equality, it is not necessarily ‘distributed’ evenly…not all people are equally connected with other members of their communities” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). In the case of online games, it provides members a platform to communicate and to meet others, but in some cases, not evenly. The significance of the third place and online games offer and “provide greater opportuni[ties] for diverse people to acquire social capital” (Soukup, 2006, pp. 430-431) as an extension from daily life.

How do Online Games become Competitive? The concept of ‘Esports’ and its rise within contemporary society

An aspect of online games that has become profoundly more popular over the years is the concept of ‘esports’ or more commonly referred to as ‘competitive video games’. Seo and Jung (2014) explain its concept with the ideal being based around “the emergence of professional and semi-professional tournaments, where consumers have been able to celebrate organised and competitive gaming practices”. It’s progression has seen the creation of “leagues and locally networked events [which] have offered players a place to engage in serious or career competition” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.636). Industry body Electronic Sports League (ESL) reported that in 2012 there were “3.6 million registered users in Europe” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.642). South Korea has been regarded as the hub of ‘esports’ for many years. In its early stages there were “more than 430 professional ‘athletes’ in South Korea who make a living from playing computer games, and the 2013 WCG – an ‘eSports’ tournament comparable to the Olympic Games for traditional sports – saw 400 computer game players attend from 40 different countries” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.642). The scalability of this phenomenon is quite remarkable. Team-based titles such as Overwatch and Call of Duty are that of which are subject to current competitions produced on global level with the Overwatch League as well as the Call of Duty World League. At the highest level, and even in online matches, communication is an important aspect that can influence the sequence and result of events in-game. Next, it’ll be critical to analyse the types of communication each title makes use of, showing its relevance and how it helps gamers in a competing environment.

Types of Communication experienced within an Online setting

Text Communication vs. Voice Communication – and the addition of non-verbal in-game tools

Fig 1. Overwatch in-game text-based chat channels between team members (blue) and everyone in the match (orange). (Overwatch Chat, 2016).

Overwatch utilises different modes of communication, the first being text oriented. Players can communicate with their teammates using in-game tools such as ‘pinging’ which notifies their team when their abilities will be available. Following this, gamers can also initiate text-based conversations with their team. Figure 1 shows an example of the text chat in action. The players highlighted with the orange text display their disliking towards a players skill within their match. On the other hand, players are also able to communicate via the voice chat system. This is by far the more preferred way of communicating with team members being able to co-ordinate strategies and plays much more efficiently. The ‘competitive’ playlist is a place where the nature and testing of skill is created through Overwatch. Players are presented with a rank based on how they play against one another. A change in rank or ‘skill rating’ (SR) is a result of either winning or losing a match. Levels of communication are therefore required to be very efficient for teams to focus on obtaining specific objectives or eliminating the appropriate targets. Online games that offer something at stake or worth playing for creates value and frames the game as being competitive. To be successful in this environment, communication plays a pivotal role in crafting the way a team plays as well as adjusting to situations as they happen.

Types of Communication experienced through offline events – competing in a ‘LAN’ environment

Communication is not only conducted in an online setting but also through an offline environment at events or more commonly known as ‘LANs’ (Local Area Network). A LAN is a social event whereby “gamers link their PCs…in order to play together” (Jansz & Martens, 2005, p.335). This social setting is very common for those participating in ‘esports’ with major competitions hosted in this environment. The example makes mention to PCs being linked but console games, such as Call of Duty and Halo, have also been subject to LAN events over the years. LAN events commonly offer something tangible for those who win. The offline setting of LAN events creates a different essence of competitiveness. Communication plays a very important role at LAN events with so much more at stake in comparison to an online setting. Previously, I mentioned that communication was used to co-ordinate specific plays by teams to win in certain situations. Communication is much different in this environment with many gamers often subject to performance anxiety or lack of communication under a much stressful setting.

Fig 2. Call of Duty ‘esports’ stars OpTic Gaming take out the 2017 Call of Duty World Championship with a $600,000 USD prize and title of the best team ever. (Fletcher, 2018).

The tangibility of the prize money, trophy, as well as non-tangible aspects such as reputation is something often creates a competitive environment amongst gamers. Tangibility creates a drive “to win or surpass others…to accomplish levels that one’s friends cannot” (Jansz & Martens, 2005, p.337). Winning an event or any competition for that matter enables gamers to hold a reputation over others that haven’t completed the same feat; this is one of the main drivers that promotes competitiveness in an offline setting. Gamers such as those from OpTic Gaming would have been inclined to use a high level of communication between one another for processes in-game to be a lot more effective, and as a result, helped them to successfully win the tournament. Therefore, LAN events are an amalgamation of both online games as well as a social space for competitive gamers. For what was once regarded as a ‘third place’, this is one of the many concepts that are starting to blur the lines of becoming a much more evident part of the ‘real world’.

‘Esports’ viewership rivalling that of traditional sports and the future for ‘esport’ ‘athletes’

The viewership of traditional sports in comparison to that which is generated from ‘esports’ is something quite interesting. With the introduction of streaming platforms, such as Twitch and YouTube, it has lessened the barriers of entry into the realm of esports. According to Lack (2017) “Streaming platforms like Twitch (launched 2011) acted as growth catalysts for eSports”. Moreover, these platforms “provided the stage for tens of millions of viewers to watch their favourite teams and players live without traveling from their bedrooms. In doing so, they have allowed audience numbers to compete, and even outcompete, with traditional sporting competitions” (Lack, 2017).

Fig 3. Shows the finals viewership comparing NBA and MLB finals against the finals for League of Legends on the streaming platform Twitch. (Lack, 2017)

Viewership of ‘esports’ online can also be replicated in an offline setting at live events. One of the prime examples of this was at the League of Legends World Championship Final in Seoul, South Korea. It was said that “40,000 fans crowded…where huge opening and closing ceremonies featured bands like Imagine Dragons” (Lack, 2017). The viewership of ‘esports’ has transcended from preceding years. Twitch has pioneered a movement allowing for everyday consumers to delve into the concept of ‘esports’ online. The growth rate of the industry is remarkable with “Corporate sponsorship, audiences, and prize funds start[ing] to grow at a rapid rate” (Lack, 2017). Not only this, but “tournament regularity; from the year 2000 to the year 2010, the annual frequency of tournaments increased by 2600%” (Lack, 2017). The progression of this phenomenon is something that needs to be taken seriously with games like Dota 2 which has “awarded little short of $90,000,000 in prizes, with $20,000,000 given out in one tournament alone” (Lack, 2017). Following this even “Colleges and universities are cultivating ‘eSports’ teams” (Lack, 2017). For people that show a high interest in this field, one that was considered traditionally to be a hobby, can now look at ‘esports’ in a way that blends into ‘contemporary’ life as possible job prospects.

Limitations

There are a few limitations that need to be considered regards to the contents discussed in this paper. These include:

The scalability of Online Games. The online gaming community is far too broad to explore for the sake of this paper. The research conducted is only limited to that of the First-Person Shooter community and does not make many ties to extended gaming genres.

Examples identified. The examples of Overwatch and Call of Duty only offer a small insight into the realm of ‘esports’ and shouldn’t be reflective of the whole industry.

Accuracy of statistics. The statistics regarding ‘esports’ viewership should be reviewed more closely from various sources and should not be regarded as an accurate representation unless reflected in similar cases.

Conclusion

In summary, Online Games offer a range of benefits towards consumers exposed to its many intricacies. For many, games are a part of a third place which is identified by Soukup (2006) as “public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace”. Games within a third place offer an increased level of social capital as people learn to create relationships and form friends as an extension of everyday life. However, it must be noted that not all consumers have access to such technologies, making it somewhat exclusive. There’s also an aspect whereby games become competitive. I explained the concept of ‘esports’ and how competitiveness is stemmed contrasting to casual play amongst consumers. For those seeking to succeed in such a diverse and competitive environment the use of communication is vital. From here, the methods of communication experienced in First-Person Shooter titles are referred to, ultimately aiding gamers perform their best competitively. The paper transitioned to communication at ‘LAN’ events and how it differs from its online counterpart. Finally, the concept of ‘esports’ events from a viewership perspective are explored and how it’s becoming more evident as a part of contemporary society with an increase in esports tournaments online and at live events; ultimately rivalling those of traditional sports.

 

References

Fletcher, A. (2018). Top 5 Largest Esports Games & Their Prize Pools. Retrieved from
http://www.xygaming.com/content/top-5-largest-esports-games-prize-pools/

Jansz, J., & Martens, L., (2005). Gaming at a LAN event: the social context of playing video games. New Media & Society, 7(3), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444805052280

Lack, A. (2017). A Comprehensive History of Esports. The Good, The Bad, and The Atari 1976 Space Invaders Tournament [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.adspreemedia.com/blog/comprehensive-history-esports-good-bad-and-atari-1976-space-invaders-tournament

Overwatch Chat. (2016). Chat Example. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/overwatch_chat/status/773348692640227328

Seo, Y. & Jung, S-U. (2014). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514553711

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Wadley, G., Gibbs, M., Hew, K., & Graham, C. (2003). Computer supported cooperative play, “third places” and online videogames. In S. Viller and P. Wyeth (Eds.), Proceedings 2003 Australasian Computer Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2003), Ergonomics Society of Australia, Canberra. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Gibbs3/publication/251747173_Computer_Supported_Cooperative_Play_Third_Places_and_Online_Videogames/links/5625617c08aed3d3f137129f.pdf