New Perspectives on the Social Aspects of Digital Gaming

Multiplayer 2

Rachel Kowert, Thorsten Quandt, Rachel Kowert, Thorsten Quandt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317243625
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Computer Science
• Subtopic: Social Aspects in Computer Science
• Index: Computer Science

Expanding on the work in the volume Multiplayer, this new book explores several other areas related to social gaming in detail. The aim is to go beyond a typical "edited book" concept, and offer a very concise volume with several focal points that are most relevant for the current debate about multiplayer games, both in academia and society. As a result, the volume offers the latest research findings on online gaming, social forms of gaming, identification, gender issues and games for change, primarily applying a social-scientific approach.

1 Multiplayer and Beyond

Witnessing the Evolution of Gaming

Thorsten Quandt and Rachel Kowert

When the first Multiplayer volume was published some years ago, it was primarily looking at the social aspects of digital gaming – with a strong focus on online (computer) games, virtual worlds, and, to some extent, console games. The core message of the book was a very simple one and beyond the depth and variation of the individual articles: Modern gaming is mostly a social form of mainstream media entertainment. In that sense, the book elucidated that the stereotypical image of the solitary, reclusive, and socially inept gaming geek – in popular culture often equated with exaggerated and condescending depictions of pubescent, male ‘nerds’ – was just echoing a radically reduced caricature of computer gamers from earlier phases in the evolution of gaming.

The evolution of gaming has not stopped. In fact, even in the few years since the first Multiplayer volume, there have been many crucial developments and changes in the industry. For example, there has been a differentiation of distribution channels, with a decline in boxed products and a rise in online distribution. Mobile gaming on smartphones has also become a dynamic market, social (network) games have been on the rise (and the decline again), and virtual reality head-mounted displays have come to be touted as the ‘next big thing’ to revolutionise (not only) gaming. These are just a few of the notable developments in a very short time, and, as editors, we felt that a new Multiplayer book was necessary to fill some of the research gaps that were becoming all too obvious with the many innovations in the field.

The current book is not meant to replace the older one, but rather should be seen as complementary to the previous one, by adding new and innovative aspects. It can be argued that any edited volume in such a dynamic environment will always remain incomplete, especially when relying on concrete and current research. Technological developments and social changes will lead to new phenomena that were unknown at the time of writing. And these are not only peripheral fluctuation in the material objects of analysis, but changes to the very essence of the phenomenon per se. So gaming itself does not remain the same!

The evolutionary metaphor (despite some obvious limitations) may be a helpful for a moment, in understanding this statement better: Gaming, as a social phenomenon, can be regarded as being coevolving with society and its communication and media technologies. Even the use of basic technologies that may look like static ‘devices’ at first sight (a console, a computer, a smartphone, etc.) becomes embedded and shaped in our social environments until they are superseded by new generations of superior devices with improved capabilities and functions. With the ‘software’ side, the evolutionary character is probably even more obvious – games are updated and ‘patched’, extended with download content, adapted to new situations and demands, socially embedded in day-to-day practices, and sometimes even used in ways beyond the imagination of the developers and designers. And when regarding gaming as a social ‘collectivity’, its evolutionary character, with ongoing changes and differentiation, is more than apparent – and again, this sequel of Multiplayer is a reaction to this.

For us as scientific observers, the fast differentiation of the field poses many problems, though. As noted previously, our work always remains incomplete, and often we are even slower than the developments in the field. Studies need to be prepared, ethically approved, and conducted, often with limited resources. Analyses need considerable time as well, and the writing and publishing process delays the public circulation of innovative scientific findings considerably (and to be frank, editors sometimes also delay the process by imposing stressful rewriting procedures on their esteemed authors!). As a result, and probably also in principle, our work is just a snapshot of a social reality that has already evolved in a different direction. When reading older texts on gaming and gamer culture, we are often surprised how ‘ancient’ these descriptions read – sometimes like ethnographic depictions of exotic tribes from colonial times. Without any doubt, much of the excellent work in this book will probably make a similar impression to future generations of games researchers.

The work in this book is current and many of the authors are on the forefront of cutting-edge research in digital games. However, it is important to note that some of the work contained within this volume has a more general applicability to the field and future researchers will likely relate to it as a valid analysis of core qualities of gaming for many years to come. They touch upon the very essence of gaming and their work will pass the test of time. However, other articles focus on aspects that are currently relevant, but may lose their importance in the future. Their objects of analysis will change, disappear, or be replaced by other modes of gaming. Still, there is value to this in depicting specific evolutionary phases of development, or specific branches of gaming that are relevant at a given point of time (and that lead to subsequent developments). Much like solo gaming was, at a certain point, the main and leading mode of use, it is still echoed by the lingering stereotypes mentioned before.

In that sense, the articles in this book are current, and mostly based on up-to-date research, but they are also a reflection of a specific status quo, representing gaming as of now. We are witnessing the evolution of gaming while it happens! Gaming is not a fixed and finished, static object of analysis, but something much more organic. Recently discovered social aspects – or recently evolved aspects – of gaming are in the focus of Multiplayer 2; but some articles also refer to its rich (pre)history and speculate on potential futures that are most likely even more social than what we see now (and most likely beyond our current imagination).

As with other forms of evolutionary analysis, looking back can also be instructive in learning about the roots of developments, general principles and potential future paths. Indeed, the social side of gaming can be traced back to the very roots of the field: Frans Mäyrä, Jaako Stenros, Janne Paavilainen, and Annakaisa Kultima argue in their piece on social network games that the very DNA of gaming already had a social component in it. They note that early experimental electronic games and some early arcade video games were meant to be played by two players, or they were played in the social context of arcades. In their further analysis, Mäyrä and colleagues focus on social network games (including Facebook games, like Farmville, etc.) – their (short) history, their characteristics, and their potential for social play. Interestingly, despite their name, ‘social’ games can be argued to be not so social after all. Still, they had a key influence on the development of the gaming market and its (re)financing structures. In that respect, they already have left their very own mark in the genetic heritage of gaming – although their future is currently not that clear, given the notable decline of social games (at the time of writing), as also described in the article by Mäyrä and colleagues.

Despite the wealth of current research acknowledging the social side of gaming (much more than it was the case some years ago), many basic concepts of use and effects research are still rooted in a single-player perspective. That is, they implicitly treat the gamer as somebody who is playing against an automated or computer controlled character, in total social isolation. As argued by Joceran Borderie and Nicolas Michinov in their piece, this kind of reduction unnecessarily places the focus on individual perceptions and processes within a closed system. By focusing on Cszikszentmihalyi’s seminal concept of flow and discussing it in the context of multiuser video games, Borderie and Michinov outline findings from a lab study on League of Legends players. Perhaps surprisingly, they argue that flow can be conceptualised and measured as a social phenomenon in-group situations rather than being be limited to a self-referring, inward-looking state in mind. Their work demonstrates the need to rethink our base categories when discussing the social aspects of digital gaming.

The subsequent piece by Jasmien Vervaeke, Frederik De Grove, and Jan Van Looy follows a similar pattern, by reflecting and testing some base ideas of gaming and gamers in a social context. However, whereas Borderie and Michinov take an arguably ‘individualistic’ concept and transfer it into a social context, Vervaeke and colleagues can show that inherently ‘social’ concepts can also have a rather nonsocial component. In their empirical study on experiences with other people while gaming, they discover four archetypes of interactions with, and constructions of, the ‘other’. Not all of these are social, at least in a common-sense meaning: Although the ‘others’ in gaming can be coplayers or even companions in meaningful social relationships, they can also serve as sole witnesses of the player’s actions and progress, or even as purely functional tools for playing the game. These findings challenge us to think about our conceptualization of interactions with others as being inherently and automatically social and meaningful. For example, as indicated by their ‘tool’ archetype, interactions with humans in gaming can sometimes be reduced to a merely instrumental relation. On the other hand, the ‘companion’ archetype shows that gaming can also be much more than a superficial, solitary activity that relies on ‘beating’ game mechanics or breaking high scores (as it is still often depicted in the public debate). Vervaeke and colleagues also note that there can be deep relationships with others, with the game simply serving as an environment for being together.

Such a meaningful social interaction is certainly impossible without forms of communication. Not all of them need to be verbal, but many games offer forms of direct textual and oral utterances via embedded chat channels. Furthermore, team speak can be added to games that do not offer such options, and considerably enhance the social experience. The study by John Sherry, Andy Boyan, Kendar Knight, Cherylann Edwards, and Qui Hao focusses on communication as a core element of social interaction in multiplayer games. Using Searle’s speech act categories as a conceptual basis, and applying innovative methods of analysis (partially derived from bioinformatics), they look for recurring patterns and predictable sequences in the flow of utterances. As Sherry and colleagues argue, human communication, by definition, is not random, because it is at least partially rule-based, logical, and therefore predictable. However, they also note that there may be some flexibility in the flow of communication, depending on its circumstances, underlying tasks, and discursive restraints. So human communication can be analysed and categorised according to its deep structure. Sherry and colleagues compare various types of communication in their study, from World of Warcraft (WoW) raids to film scripts, and find striking differences – that may be helpful for the development of base categories for future analyses of in-game communication, and comparisons with other nongaming activities. In that sense, the work by Sherry and colleagues give us a glimpse at future analyses of gaming that make it comparable to other forms of meaningful communicative interaction.

Interactions are also a central element to the work of Daniel Pietschmann, Benny Liebold, and Georg Valtin. They pick up the evolutionary metaphor introduced previously, and apply this idea to the analysis of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) as a genre. In essence, they argue that genres are not fixed and can develop over time, and in sync with these changes, the gameplay characteristics and social interactions in the respective games can change. They discuss this for several cases, with WoW being the most prominent one. As they show, interaction in early MMORPGs was a necessity due to the difficult mechanics and harsh conditions of the in-game-world – so social aspects were a result of a ‘need to cooperate’ to succeed. However, as they further argue, this lead to frustrations of gamers outside the hardcore group, and the industry reacted by making the games more accessible, easy and ‘casual’, partially removing the need to cooperate. Pietschmann and colleagues note that some modern MMORPGs do not even allow cooperation in some of their parts (as is the case with the introduction of phasing in WoW, or a pure single player expansion of the popular MMORPG Star Wars: The Old Republic). They argue that this process of casualization actually reduces meaningful social interaction in the genre, making the games more of a single player experience. Their analyses serve as a reminder for observers and researchers to test and rethink their ideas of gaming and adapt them to the changes of gaming as an organic, evolving object of analysis.

Indeed, a temporal and evolutionary way of thinking is also essential for the subsequent study by André Marchand. He analyses the success of games depending on the inclusion of multiplayer features, but also in connection to the lifecycles of console generations. As noted previously, even the hardware side of gaming should not be thought of as something static: The respective console systems form dynamically changing environments for specific games, with some types of games being more successful in earlier stages of market presence than in later ones. In addition to this, the consoles are also competing against each other, amplifying, dampening, accelerating, or slowing down sales in other console environments. Naturally, there are some very strong, general effects of sales being high (shortly after a console’s introduction and directly after the release of games), which are relatively independent from the environment and the competition. However, as Marchand notes in his article, the market success of multiplayer games in such dynamic environments is strongly connected to the user base: He finds that online multiplayer games are especially successful in later stages of a console’s lifecycle, as the user base is higher and allows for attractive and easy online gaming with many coplayers being available. So this can counter the decline of sales in later stages of a console’s lifecycle, and ‘breathe new life’ into older system’s sales.

The composition and development of the user base is not only relevant for economic questions, but it also has a strong influence on player experiences. As games are social in so many ways – played with others or in social contexts, embedded in player communities, released, promoted, and debated in societal contexts – they are also dependent on who the ‘others’ in gaming are, how they behave in interactions, and how we perceive them ourselves. As Jesse Fox and Wai Yen Tang note in their article, there are many myths regarding the user base. In the public, there is still a prevailing stereotype of gaming being a predominantly male hobby, despite numerous studies indicating a much more balanced gamer population that is nearing the gender distribution in the societal base population. The notion of gaming being a ‘male thing’ may be explained by public perceptions developing slower than the social reality (and even scientific studies!), but it may also be explained by gaming experiences still being gendered in many ways. Unfortunately, inequalities and even harassment are still part of gaming, and this is especially the case with multiplayer games, where, unfortunately, sexist attitudes and behaviour are common. Fox and Tang give a lucid overview of the literature on sexism in video games and the gaming community, and as they can show, there are multiple forms and fields of sexism in gaming that are well documented. They further argue that there is a need to react and actively work against toxic gamer culture (that not only affects women, but also other groups of gamers) as this would not only benefit society, but also the industry and game sales. In their chapter, Rachel Kowert, Johannes Breuer, and Thorsten Quandt also focus on sexism in video game content and culture by identifying and outlining a ‘cycle (model) of exclusion’ for female game players. According to Kowert and colleagues, there are three central components that drive the cycle: (1) early media and gender socialization, (2) the video game industry, and (3) player communities. They propose to observe these three in sync, as the components and their interplay cannot be fully separated, and they argue that joint efforts on all levels are needed to break the cycle of exclusion. Indeed, thinking about gaming and the user base as organically evolving is also helpful in this context: Such a perspective fosters the hope that toxic, antisocial forms of exclusion can be reduced over time, and indeed, that gaming can become a more friendly environment for social experience.

Such a positive attitude towards change also lies at the heart of the next piece by Ruud S. Jacobs, Jeroen Jansz, and De la Hera, as they focus on persuasive games. Theis specific type of serious game is meant to change or reinforce (positively connoted) attitudes, and in essence, also subsequent behaviour. In their case analysis of 11 persuasive games, Jacobs, Jansz and De la Hera identify three major themes: (1) poverty and hardship, (2) lived experience and suffering from disorders, (3) violence and politics. They further analyse to what degree specific persuasive dimensions are used in these games, and find a high reliance on procedural, linguistic, and – to some extent – narrative persuasion, whereas other strategies are used rarely. Based on their analysis, they come to the conclusion that persuasive games are in many ways different from mainstream titles, as they do not necessarily appeal to large audiences. In that sense, Jacobs and colleagues deem (at least some) persuasive games as a form of ‘digital pamphlet’. So although these games are typically not ‘multiplayer’ titles, they are still social, in the sense that their aim is to positively influence and change society. As we can learn from this work, we see that the role of games can go beyond pure ‘entertainment’ and even solo gaming can have an inherently social meaning.

The role of video games in society is further emphasised in the subsequent article by Lin and Sun. In their case analysis of the Sunflower movement in Taiwan, they show that the skills and knowledge acquired in MMOGs can be transferred from a gaming environment to political actions in the real world. They argue that the Sunflower student protest movement against a Taiwanese trade agreement with China had four characteristics that were directly influenced by MMOG culture, based on the notable experience with these games by many of the protesters: (1) game-like organization and collaboration; (2) ease of collaboration with strangers; (3) ‘game tip’ creation, usage, and distribution; (4) game culture as a reference to understand situations and take action. As argued by the authors, these aspects of gaming found their way into day-to-day behaviour and tangibly contributed the Sunflower social movement that had a notable impact society! Interestingly, Lin and Sun model MMOGs as a part of participatory culture argues that gaming is a segment of a larger, ongoing development towards participation that is fostered by new technologies and online communication. This is an interesting thought, as it doesn’t regard gaming as something that is unique and detached from societal trends and changes but deeply embedded into them and, as a consequence, the influence goes in both directions, from gaming to societies and vice versa.

The final piece of the book returns the focus to the impact of games on society and everyday life, but from a very different perspective. The chapter by Mathias Fuchs focusses the concept of gamification that has been controversially debated in recent times. He argues that the transfer of gameplay characteristics into other areas of life, like health and self-improvement, learning, behavioural change, and work, can be used for the (seemingly) good and the bad. Although some people have regard gamification as a useful and effective form of incentivising desirable forms of behaviour, others have deemed it a form of mental conditioning and manipulation or as a rather empty marketing hype. Fuchs critically analyses the potential forms, uses, and effects of gamification, and concludes that gamification may actually be an ideology (i.e. the unification of work and play is a ‘necessary false consciousness’). Although this may sound radical at first, it is a reminder that social aspects of gaming do not necessarily equate beneficial or desirable phenomena. We have to take this reminder seriously – if gaming is a deeply social phenomenon these days, we have to move beyond shallow analyses of ‘obvious’ risks of direct effects, and turn to more complex analyses of indirect social effects and developments.

The articles in this book give some hints at such developments. The authors observed various ‘social’ aspects of digital games from surprising angles. Naturally, on a rather mundane level, modern video games are often played with others, so there is a natural social component to multiplayer gaming. However, the articles go much further than that. As we learn from the analyses, we are reminded that games are deeply embedded into society. They are used for pleasure and joy, learning, and change. They are loved, hated, controversial, discussed, and their meaning often transgresses the boundaries of pure entertainment.

We also learn from the work in this book that gaming is not static – it’s changing, evolving, and rather ‘organic’ as a part...