Families and social network games

Information, Communication & Society

ISSN: 1369-118X (Print) 1468-4462 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20

Families and social network games Kelly Boudreau & Mia Consalvo To cite this article: Kelly Boudreau & Mia Consalvo (2014) Families and social network games, Information, Communication & Society, 17:9, 1118-1130, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.882964 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.882964

Published online: 05 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 739

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rics20 Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]

Date: 13 September 2016, At: 18:40

Information, Communication & Society, 2014 Vol. 17, No. 9, 1118–1130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.882964

Families and social network games Kelly Boudreaua* and Mia Consalvob a Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG) Research Center, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2W1 Canada; bDepartment of Communication Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

(Received 2 May 2013; final version received 8 January 2014) Based on a study of individuals playing online social network games (SNG), this article focuses on the opinions and practices of people who play Facebook games with family members.

Gameplay is contextualized in terms of (1) the structures of SNG (which shape gameplay in specific ways) and (2) via the norms and expectations for family leisure activities and relationships (which shape the social interactions in specific ways). The study offers an indepth understanding of social network gameplay within the context of existing family – rather than friend – networks; as issues of trust and obligation come to the forefront through family ties. This study illustrates that SNGs offer new spaces for purposive leisure for families that transcends geographical boundaries.

Keywords: social network sites; social network games; family; play; leisure; computermediated communication

Introduction Digital gaming is a widespread and in many ways an increasingly generally adopted leisure activity today. A wide variety of people from all ages now engage in digital games, alone as well as with others (Hewitt, 2013). Research has shown that family, friends, as well as strangers make up the mixture of gaming companions; with one study suggesting that friends and family members are even preferred (Eklund, 2012).

Yet, when considering families and videogame play, current research has so far focused more on consoles in the home and the negotiation of play between minor children and parental control (Harvey, 2012). Less attention has been on the social aspects of how families play together at home (for an exception, e.g. see: Aarsand, 2007) or on online family gaming. Concerning family members playing online games together, previous research has shown how family and friends come together in player-organized groups and through collaborative gameplay in massively multiplayer online games (MMOG) such as World of Warcraft (Nardi & Harris, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Williams et al., 2006). However, MMOGs are only one of the current popular game genres online. One of the most played game types today is that of Social Network Games (SNG). SNGs are online games played on and through a social network sites (SNSs), such as Facebook (2005). They are often turn-based, feature non-simultaneous gameplay and multiplayer functions. One of the most known SNGs is Zynga’s Farmville (2009/2013), with second installment drawing over 40 million players in 2012 (Zynga, 2013-01-04).

*Corresponding author. Email: kelly.boudreau@gmail.com © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Information, Communication & Society

1119

The content and context of MMOGs differ greatly from that of online SNGs; MMOGs feature simultaneous and often collaborative gameplay which is not true for most SNGs. This means that findings from MMOG studies are unlikely to be directly interposed to SNG play. Therefore, while research on families who play console and MMOG together helps frame the foundation of this research we argue that, due to the structural differences and also partly different audiences (Hewitt, 2013), SNGs need to be studied separately. Qualitative and exploratory in nature, this study aims to investigate how adult family members play online social networked games together, and how family roles might influence the context and purpose of play. We wanted to know: do players use SNG as a method of keeping in touch with family members? And if so, what types of communication do SNGs facilitate? Do players use these games as a topic of conversation or as a way of keeping in touch with family members? Is their gameplay with family different than their gameplay with others?

Families and leisure Families have played games together long before videogames were developed – card and board games, physical games, and sports have historically been a way for family members to engage in meaningful activities together. As Shaw and Dawson (2001) note, family leisure is valued as a way to facilitate family bonding and cohesion, as well as for children to learn positive values and develop ‘healthy lifestyles’ (p. 222). One element of that cohesion is what they call a ‘sense of family’ where the family develops a sense of itself as a family with a distinct identity (p. 223). Yet family leisure can be distinct from leisure undertaken by individuals.

For example, Shaw and Dawson found that often, family leisure was not freely chosen by parents, but rather seen as a duty or responsibility to be undertaken in order to gain the positive results they desired for their children. This was especially evident for women in their role as mothers, who were most often called upon to schedule such activities due to their role as caretakers for the family (p. 229). Overall, they argue that such leisure activity is best described as ‘purposive leisure’ which has positive benefits, despite also sometimes engendering work, effort, frustration, and lack of enjoyment (p. 228). While many families value leisure activities for the positive elements, they are hoped to add to the family structure, the particular forms that leisure takes can vary greatly. Leisure activities are cultural as well as social, with games being only one expression of leisure activity.

Digital games are a new(er) form of family leisure activity, at least since such games left arcades and bars in the 1980’s (facilitating different forms of leisure activity networks) and became ensconced in family rooms around the world. Yet much early research continued to concentrate on individual digital gameplay in isolation, with a particular focus on play by young children (Mitchell, 1985). Despite the narrow view common at the time, game companies and marketers continued to position consoles and videogames as family entertainment – with Nintendo making the idea implicit in the name of its early hardware the Famicom, or Family Computer in Japan in 1983 and later as the Nintendo Entertainment System (1985/1987) in the West.

Further, early Nintendo Power, a game magazine, issues highlighted the potential of the systems for family play – one letter from grandparents thanked Nintendo for the console, which the grandparents kept at their house to entertain grandchildren in group play when they visited; and which they also played themselves (Levin & Maney, 2012).

Early research that did take families as a focus relative to videogames did not do so in the context of leisure activities or even social play (Ferrari, Klinzing, Paris, Morris, & Eyman, 1985; Mitchell, 1985). Instead, one such study examined family communication surrounding videogames (O’Neill, 2002), investigating how such games were a topic of conversation between different family members. The study presupposed that the primary players of such

1120

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

games were the children in the family, with non-playing parents mostly concerned with game ratings, game violence, and how much time was appropriate for children to spend on such games (O’Neill, 2002). Thus, such studies were more concerned with the effects of children’s gameplay on family communication, rather than how videogames might be an emergent form of family leisure.

More recently, researchers have begun investigating how families play together, particularly as the Nintendo Wii (2006) has become more popular and broadened the demographic for who plays games (Harvey, 2012; Ulicsak, Wright, & Cranmer, 2011; Voida & Greenberg, 2009).

Chambers (2012) examined commercials and advertisements featuring the Wii and families, finding that the images suggest ‘videogames are integral parts of family life’ and that ‘familycentred video gaming is being embraced as having beneficial sociable and educational effects on children’s social and coordination skills … family gaming is inevitably “good” for families’ (p. 78). Yet Chambers (2012) goes on to add that much actual gameplay at home remains solitary, with parents more interested in monitoring their children’s activities rather than engaging with them in a leisure activity.

Eklund has also explored how and why families play videogames together; particularly focused on families with adult children. She found that gaming is a way of spending time with siblings, a joint interest and activity shared growing up which has continued even after moving away from home. For others it is a way for the entire family to spend time together. (2013, p. 3)

In her interviews with players, she also discovered that individuals have definite preferences for who they play games with online, ‘where playing games with your family comes first: friends second: then internet friends and last strangers you meet online’ (2013, p. 7). Yet we know little about how family structures might impact play activities (if at all) or why family comes first for so many players. Additionally, investigating if and how extended families play videogames together can expand our knowledge of families in an increasingly networked society and the role social gaming plays today.

The rise of SNGs Over the past decade, the contexts in which we play digital games have changed a great deal. In addition to consoles and dedicated handheld systems, we can now enjoy gaming experiences on mobile phones, tablet devices, with haptic devices, and via sites such as Facebook (2005). The rise of SNG in particular has been notable, due to their wide popularity, controversies surrounding their production (Jamison, 2010), concerns over their addictiveness (Krauss & Griffiths, 2011), and discussions of their ‘true’ game qualities (Consalvo & Paul, 2013). SNGs have become a regular part of many individuals’ daily activities online, with 40% of all Facebook visits dedicated to gameplay (Siegler, 2010) and Facebook remains the dominant SNS for gameplay, despite bids

by Google+ to establish competition (Efrati & Sherr, 2012). Due to SNGs’ unique placement on a platform built to facilitate interactions within individually crafted networks of friends and family, they become key objects to study and understand. This is particularly relevant given that other gaming networks such as Xbox Live and Steam are not linked to already existing networks of friends and family, and are also strongly associated with gaming activities. In contrast, Facebook brings together immediate and extended family groups (among others), many of whom may have little or no prior interest or experience in playing games, and offers an environment for doing so.

How they engage in those activities via this platform thus becomes a relevant question in need of exploration.

Information, Communication & Society

1121

Research conducted on families who do play games together has often concentrated on family-friendly systems such as the Wii, which has been explicitly designed and marketed to appeal to family groups (Voida & Greenberg, 2009). Yet families play games on different platforms, across multiple genres, and via networked as well as co-located play. In particular, SNGs are a site where families can play together across distance and time. Yet we are only beginning to understand how and why people engage with games on such sites, and how players and play-styles may differ from (or be similar to) other types of digital gameplay.

While industry professionals identify such games as social games, researchers have argued that instead such games should be considered SNGs, as that better identifies the platform on which they are played, and does not imply that other types of games are not actually social (Consalvo, 2011; Wohn, Lampe, Wash, Ellison, & Vitak, 2011). The research surrounding SNG and gameplay has encompassed two central strands: one examining the design of the games themselves and the other focused on player practices across both individual SNGs and SNS gameplay in general.

In terms of game analysis, research has looked at the ways in which the games’ design facilitated social interaction, finding that most games offer very little in terms of meaningful social interaction, instead relying on gifting, visiting, and limited communication and competition to serve as social options (Consalvo, 2011). Another work has found that such games: encompass many of the motivational techniques identified by behavioral economics and behavioral psychology. … they deftly incorporate these techniques to motivate players, and utilize a wide array of phenomena to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. (Lewis, Wardrip-Fruin, & Whitehead, 2012, p. 7)

Most SNGs require the player to draw on their established social networks in order to progress or accomplish goals (Consalvo, 2011; Rossi, 2009). Some games also attempt to integrate one’s friends into the gameplay experience, using their names or profile pictures to personalize non playing characters in a game, or allowing players to use friends as allies in certain battles.

Drawing on the language of the Facebook platform, most games refer to a player’s network specifically as a group of friends and constantly encourage players to add more friends to their game experience via invitation. When games do depart from that tradition, such as Marvel’s 2012 Avenger’s Alliance game, players are instead referred to as allies (similar to Zynga’s Empires & Allies).

Of course, the inclusion of friends in most games is about more than the social enhancement, or pleasure, of gameplay. In fact, friends more often play a utilitarian role in expanding one’s gamespace, as seen in the case of Ghost of Mistwood where the player must recruit friends to staff resource-creation buildings or rely on them to acquire items required for quests. Overall these games create systems where friends are the equivalent of resources for advancement and success in gameplay, and most games rely on the rhetoric of friends, friending, and friendship as the central relationship between one player and her network. While a few games might also use language such as neighbor or ally, there is rarely (if ever) thought given to constructing relationships between players as members of a family or some other forms of social grouping, where expectations for reciprocity might vary in some ways.

Studies of players have likewise failed to consider how playing with family might alter or shape the attitudes and beliefs concerning the play of SNG. Researchers have investigated the social rules governing SNG and in particular politeness norms, and how gameplay ‘ … contributes to relationship initiation and development’ (Wohn et al., 2011, p. 1). More recent work has found that for many players, the habit of playing such games was a stronger predictor of play than any particular motivations (Wohn, 2012), and finally that ‘culture plays a small but significant role in explaining why people play social network games and how they play’ (Lee &

1122

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

Wohn, 2012, p. 1312) with cultural orientation not directly affecting SNG usage patterns, but instead affecting the outcomes people expect from play itself.

One study has examined how families in China play SNG together and found that parents and adult children who played the popular game QQ Farm used the game to provide common conversational topics among family members and to enhance awareness of remote family members’ real-life activities (Wen, Kow, & Chen, 2011). Yet we know little about how families elsewhere play and make meaning from SNG. Family gameplay on a SNS raises particularly interesting questions about how such players negotiate invitations to play, how familial power structures might impinge (or be altered by) gameplay, how extended families might utilize gameplay, and how these activities unfold in a wider ecosystem with a player’s other friends, neighbors, and game-playing strangers.

Methods Exploratory research is a valuable and rich method, especially in the early stages of research (Stebbins, 2001). It can be used to discover the perimeters of a new research area, determine the best methods for data collection, and selection of research subjects and participants. Exploratory research allows for different research questions to surface through exploration of multiple lines of inquiry at the same time, working to hone in on social phenomena that may not otherwise be clear upon first glance. In order to gain foundational information on who plays social networked games and with whom, we developed an online questionnaire and conducted in-depth qualitative interviews (Babbie & Benaquisto, 2002). This allowed us to gain insight from the perspective of the players directly as we work to understand the nuances of the ways in which family members negotiate relationships through social network gameplay. The questionnaire was used as an exploratory instrument in order to help us better guide and narrow the focus of the questions for the interview process. Only descriptive results were culled from the questionnaire for this paper, as it is too early to ascertain models or patterns from the responses given. As such, the questionnaire is not intended to be quantitatively representational of a larger player base or their gameplay preferences and not intended to be used to draw any definitive, statistical conclusions.

An online questionnaire was posted for a period of 45 days in early 2012. The questionnaire consisted of 57 multiple-choice and open-ended questions and covered demographic information including age, education level, as well as social network game genre preferences, frequency, and reasons for playing social networked games, types and extent of interactions with family members, how players prioritize their gameplay activities based on relationships with other players, how players negotiate the boundaries between gameplay activities that occur out of the game but within their social network, and perspectives on cheating in SNG (as part of a related, but separate research project). Collectively, these questions were aimed at building a general picture of how the respondents viewed their gameplay within the broader context of their personal networks of friends and family on SNSs. Understanding that the aim of this research is to explore the qualitative aspects that make up family gameplay on social networking sites issues concerning representation of population, probability, and generalizability was not given priority. Interested participants were directed to a website which was created specifically for the research project,1 which hosted a link to the questionnaire for the duration of the first phase of the research. We used two ways to find respondents: (1) our own networks and (2) game forums (for non-connected networks). Questionnaire respondents were actively solicited through multiple channels, including an initial call to the researchers’ pool of Facebook and Twitter friends. In order to expand the pool of respondents to networks that were not directly (or indirectly) connected to the researchers, the questionnaire was posted on several social network game-related forums and message boards with an accompanying

Information, Communication & Society

1123

description of the research project, as well as the link to the above-mentioned project website.

Finally, the research project was a feature story on Gamezebo.com2 giving the research project, and the questionnaire, exposure to a community that may have otherwise ignored the soliciting forum posts.

The questionnaire yielded 163 respondents ranging in age between 18 and 70, with the largest group, 37%, between 30 and 39 years old. Of the 163 respondents, 50% said they started playing Facebook games out of curiosity, while 11% claimed to have started due to being asked to play by a family member. Results were then filtered to focus on the respondents who had stated that they have played or currently play SNG with family members for a total of 58 completed questionnaires, or 44% of the overall respondents.

Respondents were asked to select all the types of Facebook games they play or have played from a list of eight different categories; puzzle, word, build and harvest, card, role-playing games, sports simulation, strategy, and hidden object games as well an option to select ‘other’. From those choices, the majority, 63% of respondents, said they played puzzle games such as Bejeweled and Bubble Witch Saga, while 58% said they played ‘build and harvest’ games such as Farmville and Cityville. In build and harvest games, which often fall under the rubric of simulation games, players work to build and maintain growth of an environment such as a farm in Farmville, a café in Café World, or to develop a homestead in the untamed land of Pioneer Trail. In a game such as Farmville, players must plant and harvest crops, as well as build up their farm with fences, barns, and homes. Points are accumulated through harvesting, which in turn levels the player up, granting them access to more lucrative crops which yield more points. Players require ‘neighbors’ in order to expand their farms and must draw on their Facebook network to progress. As such, players must learn to negotiate their networks – whom to invite to a game, whom to ask for quest items, etc. – in order to be able to play and progress in the game. It is for this reason that these types of SNGs are the central focus of this research.

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they would be interested in being interviewed. Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted via email or Skype. Of the 11, two were male and nine were female. All respondents were over the age of 18, ranging between 18 and 64.

Three of the interview respondents were extended family members who lived in different geographical regions within the same country.3 In conjunction with the questionnaire data, the following analysis incorporates the responses of the 11 in-depth interviews where the respondents were asked open-ended questions around how they started playing SNG with family members, to describe the ways in which they play with family members, whether they felt that SNG caused tension between family members, and whether or not they felt that SNG aided in helping them feel more connected to their family. By allowing the respondents to openly discuss and describe their gameplay experiences with family, we were able to add a qualitative depth to the results. The in-depth interviews aimed to explore the nuances of how respondents defined keeping in touch, and how they feel the game(s) and Facebook as a networked community helps or hinders that connection.

Finally, the in-depth interviews aimed to contextualize the differences between meaningful and instrumental gameplay within the broader family context.

Families that play together: getting started As part of the questionnaire, we asked players to identify the makeup of their Facebook friends’ list, and whether it was chiefly comprising friends, family, work colleagues, or a combined configuration. We believed that those with largely family-based friends lists would also use SNG as another way to interact with family members. When asked whether or not they drew on their network of friends and family members solely for the sake of their progression in a game, just

1124

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

over half of the individuals playing with family members stated they drew on their existing connections. This suggests a utilitarian stance toward these relationships within the context of Facebook gameplay. This finding was reiterated during our interviews, where most of the players interviewed described how they would ask friends and family to play before extending their neighbor search to friends of friends or strangers (found through third-party SNG forums).

These players also engaged in reciprocal game-playing behavior to help out other players in their network.

Although respondents stated that they played with their friends slightly more than family, they felt more of an obligation to help family members over any other type of player in their network.

Just over half of the respondents (57%) stated that they played a social network game solely to help a family member, and 48% said they have asked or convinced a family member to play a game solely for the purpose of their own gameplay progress. These results were echoed in the interview data. While they played with friends and family members, and even strangers at times, they all said that they felt more comfortable asking family for help compared with asking friends. And with good reason, one of our respondents, Ray, (aged 40), said that particularly in games where the option to help others is limited, he will consciously: ‘scan [his] list for dear friends and family first and always click theirs first so they get the rewards’. Likewise, as Janet4 (aged 59) stated about asking her granddaughter Alyson (aged 21) to play a particular title so that she could have more neighbors, ‘ … they have to help you, they’re family!’

For many, the motivation for playing Facebook games can be tied to a sense of consideration for or obligation to friends and family (Wohn et al., 2011). Such feelings can either extend gameplay for individuals beyond what they would do on their own, or lead to creative solutions to extend play. Thus, for Amy, (aged 28), when her father stopped playing Gardens of Time she simply accessed his account on her own to use it to send her own account needed items. Similarly, Alyson (21) eventually played a game solely to help her grandmother. And although Janet (59) no longer plays the game that she lured her granddaughter into playing, she admitted to feeling bad that she no longer played. As such, she too gave Alyson her Facebook account’s login information so that her granddaughter could continue to progress in the game, despite having quit playing the game herself. Although Alyson continued to play the game with her grandmother’s login information, she expressed a bit of sadness that Janet no longer played. Even though SNGs were played asynchronously, Alyson enjoyed playing with her grandmother stating that it made her feel connected to her grandmother despite the geographic distance between them, even if that was not the explicit intention of their gameplay.

In contrast, Alyson’s Aunt Lana (35) did not feel the same sense of personal connection to playing with her family but did admit to drawing on the games as conversational content with her mother Janet (59) on many occasions. Living a few hours apart, they would talk almost daily on the phone and would … always start the conversation off with an update on our games, what we needed to complete a quest or complain about how long it is taking to finish a certain mission. We always had something to say!

This echoes research on intergenerational families’ online gameplay in China. (Wen et al., 2011)

where the authors asserted that social network gameplay offered families a common topic of conversation and enhanced the quality of time spent together. Furthermore, ‘online games with welldesigned shared virtual spaces can also help enhance remote families’ awareness of each other’s real-life activity’ (abstract).

Of the 58 respondents who stated that they actively play SNG with family members, just over half claim that they do not talk about SNGs with their family. When asked specifically how often players who did talk about SNG with their family, just under half said that they did so ‘about the

Information, Communication & Society

1125

same’ as they do with their friends. Only 14% stated that they talked about SNG with their family more than they did with their friends. Drawing solely on the data from the questionnaire, it would appear that there is little difference between the ways in which players view their relationships with friends and family within the context of gameplay and communication. However, differences were noted during the in-depth interviews. For those who said they did talk about SNG with family members, 40% said they did so in face-to-face conversations, whereas 19% discussed them over the telephone.

Our research illustrates that even though players did not initially believe that they treated friends and family differently in the context of social network gameplay, players acknowledged that they ‘use’ family because there is often a deeper sense of obligation to help family members over players of any other relationship. Players may play with friends more often, but they tend to help family more and often beyond their own desire to continue to play the game. As such, it could be argued that while players may not explicitly use SNG as a method of communication to feel closer or to keep in touch, it is a shared leisure activity that contributes to the connection and bonding between family members both on and offline.

Extending the family network via SNG Perhaps one of the most interesting findings to emerge from this research is that SNGs also have the ability to bring family members together who may not have previously known each other. As Janet (59) noted, not only had she played with family members with whom she had existing ties, but that she had come to meet extended family members that she had never met before explicitly through SNG. She would often ‘creep’ or methodically peruse family members’ pages in search of potential friends that could be invited to play SNG to help with her gameplay progress. On one such occasion, she noticed a family connection, a cousin she had never met who also played SNG, and sent a friend request based solely on the fact that the other person was an extended family member. Her friend request was accepted and Janet invited her cousin to play several games.

While SNGs were not initially used as a means to keep in touch with her cousin, Janet said it was through game updates that she got to know her long-lost cousin; seeing his gameplay activities appear in her newsfeed often led her to click on his profile and learn about him outside of the context of gameplay.

Similarly, Ray felt that games were a way that he could be ‘a good nephew’ to his aunts who played SNG. He argued that playing such games with his extended family ‘relieved a lot of guilt’ for him, the activity also afforded him a way to interact with family when being geographically distant. In response his aunts reciprocated that it was ‘nice to see you and spend time with you’ giving him the opportunity to feel closer to individuals that he rarely sees in person. In addition to simply spending time with an extended family member, SNG can give individuals a way to interact with extended family they might not have much in common with otherwise, or reasons to contact individually. For Amy (28), such games are a way to be social with her young nephew, as the games give them a reason to talk via instant messaging about game strategy, ‘because when I call home I usually just talk to my sister’.

Such stories indicate that there is much more to learn about how extended families can and do use SNG as a form of purposive leisure, in addition to traditional nuclear family units. As families become increasingly geographically dispersed for a range of reasons, including post-secondary education or work opportunities, SNG can offer family a convenient means or excuse for interaction, a reason to meet or reconnect, a conversational topic, or a new way to meet familial obligations.

Traditionally, interactions across geographical distance occurred through phone calls usually with the intent to ‘catch up’ or share news from each other’s lives. Skype (2003) and other online

1126

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

video chat systems may have added the visual dynamic that can contribute to family members feeling closer to each other, but families do not typically ‘hang out’ on the phone or on Skype without the purpose to engage in conversation. With the increase popularity of online SNG, families that are separated by distance now have a space to engage in ‘low-impact’ leisure interactions that have the ability to bring family members together yet does not rely on a ‘meaningful’ exchange of information. SNSs, and SNG more specifically, provide families with a space of leisure where they can engage with each other in a way that allows them to feel connected without the same level of purpose. Due to the asynchronous nature of SNSs (and games), when playing a social network game, players do not interact with each other directly, in ‘realtime’. There is no need for conversation or direct interaction, yet logging in to help a family member has the potential to strengthen ties in much of the same was as going over to an aunt’s house to tend to her garden, or taking care of a pet while she is away. Our research has found that fundamentally, social network gameplay for many family members is not so much about the game itself as it is about interacting with each other in a less purposive yet still meaningful way, allowing them to feel connected without necessarily being actively engaged with each other.

Helping priorities – family first Throughout the course of the interviews, although the respondents actively played with more friends, it became apparent that when prioritizing whom to help, one’s existing ties to family members played a factor in the decision. This was regardless as to whether or not the respondent was geographically or emotionally close to the family member or not, family ties appeared to be stronger than ties to most friends and strangers the respondents had added in order to progress in their own gameplay. It could be argued that in the case of SNGs, where the player must draw on their network (Rossi, 2009), the stronger the personal tie the more obligated the player feels. This can be seen in many cases where respondents continued to log into a particular game simply to help out a family member, or in the sharing of login information for the sole purpose of gameplay as we saw with Amy and Alyson. Respondents showed no such sense of obligation to the strangers they added in order to progress in a game. But when it came to family members, it was unanimously stated that they helped family members with their gameplay regardless of their own play choices. As Ray explained, his desire to play games with other people was so strong that he eventually switched games in order to play with friends and family, and stuck with certain games ‘because of family playing’ them. Even when his own interest began to wane, he ‘continued playing out of obligation … I’d log on just to meet obligations I have’.

With the increased pervasiveness of the internet in contemporary life and the growing popularity of SNSs, there is instead a merging of networks that redefine the role and structure of onand offline social networks. This can be seen in the questionnaire data when the respondents were asked to define the predominant makeup of their friends list. When given the choice between family, current local friends, current distant friends, past friends reconnected, work related, and other, 36% selected other. Given the option to elaborate, those who selected other specified responses such as ‘gaming friends’, ‘evenly drawn across all categories’, and ‘a wild mix’.

However, when it came to prioritizing whom to help in the context of Facebook games, the interviews clearly articulated that familial networks had precedence over other types of relationships, especially when time and interest were limited. Players were more apt to help out family members over friends, and both family and friends over strangers whom they had friended for the sole purpose of gameplay advancement. This echoes the findings of Eklund (2013) in relation to preferences for playing alongside friends and family over strangers and goes further in clarifying that it is also helping behaviors where family and friends are prioritized relative to strangers. This

Information, Communication & Society

1127

suggests that when game resources (either time or item-related) are (perceived as) scarce, players will allocate them to those with whom they have stronger existing ties.

Williams (2006) addresses the role of the internet as a space that extends existing offline interactions in stating ‘ … the online world is a site for social activity, both original and extended from offline life’ (p. 3). This can be seen when looking at Facebook games and family interactions.

While the space and nature of the interactions are original, the familial foundations of the interactions are rooted in a pre-existing bond. So far, we have shown how different ties to game companions will affect the gameplay and here a further distinction between strong and weak ties can advance this analysis. While strong ties are our connections to close friends and family, weak ties are our connections to acquaintances (Granovetter, 1973) or people we do not know very well and therefore feel few or little obligations toward. The questionnaire showed that 59% of the respondents said that they have asked a stranger to be a friend solely for the purpose of advancing game play. This was discussed at length in one interview as the respondent said that there are websites and message forums dedicated specifically for friend or neighbor recruitment. Indeed, this type of networking may expand the player’s game community, but it does not necessarily create stronger ties between the players. This point was also brought up during the interviews, where several respondents mentioned that many of their ‘friend’ additions of strangers tended to wane in helping over the course of their gameplay participation and interaction. Suddenly, in a game where one respondent had over 100 ‘friends’ at the peak of her gameplay, she found it challenging to progress as many of these strangers stopped playing without communicating that they no longer wanted to play. Strangers added for the sole purpose of gameplay were fundamentally seen as weak ties with little to no social obligation to each other.

In contrast, Williams (2006) building on Putnam’s (2000) concept of bonding social capital (which he in turn takes from Granovetter’s strong ties) explains that ‘bonding’ ‘occurs when strongly tied individuals, such as family and close friends, provide emotional or substantive support for one another’ (p. 4). Within the context of social network gameplay, family networks offer players more substantive, reliable support. While the player may not have a vast network of family online, the pre-existing ties along with the sense of commitment and obligation that is traditionally connected to familial bonds can be seen in the extended support of gameplay that family members who no longer play SNG give to family members that still play. As the questionnaire data revealed, 57% of the respondents have played a Facebook game solely for the purpose of helping a family member advance in a social network game. This was echoed throughout the interviews, as all respondents discussed feeling obligated to continue to help a family member advance in their gameplay due to the fact that they are family–even extended family that they may not have had much, if any, offline contact with, family bonds were deemed stronger by definition. As such, it could be argued that although family members may not actively use SNG as a means to keep in touch with other family members, offline identity and familial networks play a significant role in the longevity of gameplay, as friends (and acquaintances) may come and go, but families often stick together.

As our exploratory findings demonstrate, it could also be argued that families who play SNG together have the potential to not only draw on, but also expand their social ties beyond the confines (and context) of the game. By playing together, family players add another dimension to their existing relationships, and in the case of Janet, extended her familial network explicitly though the act of social network gameplay.

Discussion Leisure activities in the context of the family have always been complex practices to understand.

We know that leisure is often purposive in nature, designed to help bring the family together and

1128

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

create some sort of group identity for the family. Yet we are particularly ill-informed about leisure activities when considering families with adult children, as well as extended families, in any kind of gameplay context – digital or otherwise. SNGs that are played by adult family members as well as extended family groups are thus a key site for better understanding those practices due to their extensive reach and online components. Likewise, studying these groups and their actions in games like Castleville gives studies of games a more complete picture of who is playing games and how. Family dynamics can often alter the act of gameplay when compared to playing with friends, colleagues or strangers through a sense of obligation. As such, it is important to continue to explore how familial bonds shape the reasons for and means of gameplay.

Through both questionnaire and interview results, we have found that even though the goal of social network gameplay among family members may not have been initially intended as a way to keep in touch with each other, through the act of play, family members often felt more obligated to continue playing solely for the purpose of supporting each other over other friend dynamics. By drawing on pre-existing, familial connections, players were able to extend the life of their gameplay. Moreover, topics surrounding gameplay often extended into alternative subjects of communication through both on- and offline interactions, broadening the scope of familial interactions.

Understanding the sense of obligation that family can bring to a leisure activity raises interesting questions for the future of social network game design. Despite games that draw on no overt or even implicit family tropes or connections, families that play together seem to play the longest, and have the greatest sense of duty to one another as players. This purposive play may extend the life of such games beyond what it would be if only friends or strangers were playing together, and beyond the appeal of the game’s content. What this means for the design of such games is intriguing to consider as SNGs continue to draw record number of players.

Finally, this study raises interesting questions for game studies scholars to consider. We are starting to see more attention to varying forms of social gameplay, but very little focusing on families beyond their gameplay activities in MMOGs. How are family ties influential in other sorts of games? What distinctions do players draw between close friends and family members, or biological versus families of choice? Exploring such questions in terms of how family networks are already (sometimes problematically) constructed via SNSs will lead to valuable research on how the context of our playing partners comes to matter in different gameplay contexts.

Conclusions Our conclusions are that SNGs can offer family a convenient means or excuse for interaction, a reason to meet or reconnect, a conversational topic, or a new way to meet familial obligations as families become increasingly geographically dispersed. Moreover, families who play SNG have the potential to not only draw on, but also expand their social ties beyond the confines (and context) of the game. By playing together, family players add another dimension to their existing relationships. We show that SNGs have the ability to support and create both strong and weak social ties. Yet a certain ambiguity is present in how players both ‘use’ family because family ‘have to help’ at the same time as players seem inherently more inclined to help family due to stronger offline social and familial ties that exist well beyond their online social network and gameplay.5

Notes 1.

http://facebookgamesresearch.wordpress.com/about/

Information, Communication & Society 2.

3.

4.

5.

1129

http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2012/05/25/gamezebo-readers-tell-us-what-you-think-aboutcheating-social-games Respondents were not explicitly asked their nationality, but the issue of geography was broached by the respondents in this particular case.

All respondents have been given pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.

We would like to thank Dr Lina Eklund for her sharp eyes and keen mind.

Notes on contributors Kelly Boudreau is currently a research fellow at the Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG) Center for research at Concordia University. She has a Ph.D. in Film Studies with a concentration in Game Studies.

With an MA and BA in Sociology, her research focuses on player-avatar hybridity developed through the networked process of play in video games. Other research areas include forms of mediated sociality ranging from the dynamics of social identification in online computer games and virtual worlds to the fusion of internet activity and everyday life, research methodologies surrounding digital technologies as well as the role of indexicality on the player experience. [email: kelly.boudreau@gmail.com] Mia Consalvo is Canada Research Chair in Game Studies and Design at Concordia University in Montreal.

She is the author of Cheating: Gaining advantage of videogames, and is currently writing a book about Japan’s influence on the videogame industry and game culture. Mia has published her work in Critical Studies in Media Communication, Games & Culture, Game Studies, Convergence, and many other journals.

She has presented her work at professional as well as academic conferences including regular presentations at the Game Developers Conference. She is the President of the Digital Games Research Association, and has held positions at MIT, Ohio University, Chubu University in Japan, and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. [email: mia.consalvo@concordia.ca]

References Aarsand, P. A. (2007). Computer and video games in family life: The digital divide as a resource in intergenerational interactions. Childhood, 14, 235–256.

Babbie, E., & Benaquisto, L. (2002). Fundamentals of social research. First Canadian Edition.

Scarborough, ON: Thomson/Nelson.

Chambers, D. (2012). ‘Wii play as family’: The rise in family-centered video gaming. Leisure Studies, 31(1), 69–82.

Consalvo, M. (2011). Using your friends: Social mechanics in social games. Presented at Foundations of Digital Games ’11, Bordeaux, France, June 28–July 1.

Consalvo, M., & Paul, C. (2013). Welcome to the discourse of the read: Constituting the boundaries of games and players. Presented at Foundations of Digital Games 2013, Chania, Greece, May 14–17.

Efrati, A., & Sherr, I. (2012). Game makers pull titles from Google+. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404577467152446366184.htm Eklund, L. (2012). The sociality of gaming: A mixed methods approach to understanding digital gaming as a social leisure activity (Thesis). Stockholm studies in sociology New Series, no. 56. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm.

Eklund, L. (2013). Family and games: Digital game playing in the social context of the family. In T. Quandt & S. Kröger (Eds.), Multiplayer: Social aspects of digital gaming (pp. 162–171). Routledge: London.

Ferrari, M., Klinzing, D. G., Paris, C. L., Morris, S. K., & Eyman, A. P. (1985). Home computers: Implications for children and families. Marriage & Family Review, 8(1–2), 41–57.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Harvey, A. (2012). Gendered networks of play: Regulating digital games and technological subjects in the home (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto, Canada.

Hewitt, D. (2013). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Entertainment Software Association. Retrieved from http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf Jamison, P. (2010). Farmvillains. SF Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.sfweekly.com/2010–09–08/news/ farmvillains/ Krauss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. (2011). Online social networking and addiction – a review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(9), 3528–3552.

Lee, Y.-H., & Wohn, D. Y. (2012). Are there cultural differences in how we play? Examining cultural effects on playing social network games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1307–1314.

1130

K. Boudreau and M. Consalvo

Levin, J., & Maney, K. (2012). Nintendo and Reptiles forever!: Nintendo Power’s best reader letters. Slate.

Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/22/nintendo_power_letters_the_best_rea der_submissions_to_the_bible_of_8_bit_gaming_.html Lewis, C., Wardrip-Fruin, N., & Whitehead, J. (2012). Motivational game design patterns of ‘ville games.

Foundations of Digital Games 2012, Raleigh, NC. Mitchell, E. (1985). The dynamics of family interaction around home video games. Marriage & Family Review, 8(1–2), 121–135.

Nardi, B., & Harris, J. (2006o). Strangers and Friends: Collaborative play in World of Warcraft. CSCW ’06 Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 149–158). New York, NY: ACM. O’Neill, M. (2002). Video game playing and family communication patterns. Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, 31, 68–80.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rossi, L. (2009). Playing your network: Gaming in social network sites. Breaking new ground: Innovation in games, play, practice and theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009. Retrieved from http://digra.org:8080/ Plone/dl/db/09287.20599.pdf Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2001). Purposive leisure: Examining parental discourses on family activities.

Leisure Sciences, 23(4), 217–231.

Siegler, M. G. (2010). Half of all Facebook users play social games – it’s 40% of total usage time.

TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/30/half-of-all facebook-users-play-socialgames-its-40-of-total-usage-time/ Stebbins, R. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds: Exploring online gaming culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Ulicsak, M., Wright, M., & Cranmer, S. (2011). Gaming in families: A literature review. Journal of Distance Education, 3, 026. Retrieved from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-YCJY201103026.htm Voida, A., & Greenberg, S. (2009). Wii at play: The console game as computational meeting place. CHI 2009, April 4–9, 2009, Boston, MA, USA. Wen, J., Kow, Y. M., & Chen, Y. (2011). Online games and family ties: Influences of social networking game on family relationship. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.) INTERACT 2011 (pp. 250–264). Part III, LCNS 6948. Berlin: Springer Heidelberg.

Williams, D. (2006). On and off the ‘net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 11(2), article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ williams.html Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree house to barracks the social life of guilds in world of warcraft. Games and Culture, 1(4), 338–361.

Wohn, D. Y. (2012). The role of habit strength in social network game play. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 74–79.

Wohn, D. Y., Lampe, C., Wash, R., Ellison, N., & Vitak, J. (2011). The “S” in social network games: Initiating, maintaining, and enhancing relationships. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii international conference on systems science, Hawaii.

Zynga. (2013-01-04). The FarmVille 2 almanac of records and facts. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http://blog.zynga.com/2013/01/04/farmville2infographic/