skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174195acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Playing to Wait: A Taxonomy of Idle Games

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Idle games are a recent minimalist gaming phenomenon in which the game is left running with little player interaction. We deepen understanding of idle games and their characteristics by developing a taxonomy and identifying game features. This paper examines 66 idle games using a grounded theory approach to analyze play, game mechanics, rewards, interactivity, progress rate, and user interface. To establish a clearly bounded definition of idle games, we analyzed 10 non-idle games with the same approach. We discuss how idle games move players from playing to planning, how they question dominant assumptions about gameplay, and their unusual use of resources such as player attention and computer cycles. Our work illuminates opportunities for the design of idle games, suggests design implications, and provides a framework for researchers to clearly articulate questions about this genre.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn4745.mp4

mp4

254.1 MB

References

  1. Espen Aarseth, Solveig Marie Smedstad, and Lise Sunnanå. 2003. A multidimensional typology of games. In DiGRA - Proceedings of the 2003 DiGRA International Conference: Level Up. 48--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ernest Adams and Joris Dormans. 2012. Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design (1st ed.). New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. George Allan. 2003. A Critique of using Grounded Theory as a Research Method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2, 1 (2003), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Thomas H. Apperley. 2006. Genre and game studies: Toward a critical approach to video game genres. Simulation & Gaming 37, 1 (2006), 6--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. 2017. ATLAS.ti Mac. (2017). http://atlasti.com/product/mac-os-edition/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2013. Understanding the Role of Body Movement in Player Engagement. Human-Computer Interaction 28, 1 (2013), 40--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Staffan Björk and Jesper Juul. 2012. Zero-Player Games Or: What We Talk about When We Talk about Players. (2012). http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/zeroplayergames/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Blizzard Entertainment. 2004. World of Warcraft. Game {OSX}. (November 2004). Blizzard Entertainment, Irvine, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ian Bogost. 2016. Play Anything: The Pleasure of Limits, the Uses of Boredom, & the Secret of Games. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. J. Allen Bostian and Charles A. Holt. 2013. Veconlab Classroom Clicker Games: The Wisdom of Crowds and the Winner's Curse. The Journal of Economic Education 44, 3 (2013), 217--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Erik Brynjolfsson, Yu Jeffrey Hu, and Michael D. Smith. 2006. From niches to riches: Anatomy of the long tail. Sloan Management Review 47, 4 (Summer 2006), 67--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Roger Caillois. 1961. Man, Play, and Games. Thames & Hudson.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcus Carter, Bjorn Nansen, and Martin R. Gibbs. 2014. Screen Ecologies, Multi-gaming and Designing for Different Registers of Engagement. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jacob Cohen. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological bulletin 70, 4 (1968), 213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. David L. Craddock. 2015. Dungeon Hacks: How NetHack, Angband, and Other Roguelikes Changed the Course of Video Games. Press Start Press, Canton, Ohio, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Chris Crawford. 1984. The Art of Computer Game Design. Osborne/McGraw-Hill, Berkeley, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1997. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sebastian Deterding. 2016. Progress Wars: Idle Games and the Demarcation of "Real" Games. In DiGRA/FDG #3916 - Abstract Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG. Digital Games Research Association and Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games, Dundee, Scotland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining "Gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Christian Elverdam and Espen Aarseth. 2007. Game Classification and Game Design: Construction Through Critical Analysis. Games and Culture 2, 1 (2007), 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mark Eyles and Roger Eglin. 2008. Ambient Games, Revealing a Route to a World Where Work is Play? Int. J. Comput. Games Technol. 2008 (Jan. 2008), 7:1--7:7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Giant Bomb Wiki. 2015. New Game Plus. (September 2015). https://www.giantbomb.com/new-game-plus/3015--150/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Barney G. Glaser. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Pr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Barney G. Glaser. 1998. Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Joyce Goggin. 2011. Playbour, farming and labour. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 11, 4 (2011), 357--368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniel Goldberg and Linus Larsson (Eds.). 2015. The State of Play: Creators and Critics on Video Game Culture. Seven Stories Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Carl Gutwin, Christianne Rooke, Andy Cockburn, Regan L. Mandryk, and Benjamin Lafreniere. 2016. Peak-End Effects on Player Experience in Casual Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5608--5619. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kilem Li Gwet. 2014. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among rater. Advanced Analytics, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Alison Harvey. 2014. Twine's revolution: Democratization, depoliticization, and the queering of game design. G| A| M| E Games as Art, Media, Entertainment 1, 3 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Rashina Hoda, James Noble, and Stuart Marshall. 2011. Grounded Theory for Geeks. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 24:1--24:17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Mikael Jakobsson. 2011. The achievement machine: Understanding Xbox 360 achievements in gaming practices. Game Studies 11, 1 (2011), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedhoff Jane. 2014. Untangling Twine: A Platform Study. In DiGRA #3913 - Proceedings of the 2013 DiGRA International Conference: DeFragging Game Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eric Jordan. 2016. Why idle/clicker games will have more impact than virtual reality. (February 2016). http://www.develop-online.net/opinions/why-idleclicker-games-will-have-more-impact-than-virtualreality/0216911.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jesper Juul. 2010. A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jesper Juul and Rasmus Keldorff. 2010. Well Played 2.0. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Chapter Depth in One Minute: A Conversation About Bejeweled Blitz, 196--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Brendan Keogh and Ingrid Richardson. 2017. Waiting to play: The labour of background games. European Journal of Cultural Studies (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Joey J. Lee and Jessica Hammer. 2011. Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly 15, 2 (2011), 146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Chris Lewis, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, and Jim Whitehead. 2012. Motivational Game Design Patterns of 'Ville Games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 172--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Thorey Mariusdottir, Vadim Bulitko, and Matthew Brown. 2015. Maximizing Flow as a Metacontrol in Angband. In The Eleventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE-15).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Maxis. 2003. SimCity 4. Game {Windows}. (January 2003). EA Games, Redwood City, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros, and Annika Waern. 2009. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Florian 'Floyd' Mueller, Martin R. Gibbs, and Frank Vetere. 2008. Taxonomy of Exertion Games. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat (OZCHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. David Myers. 1990. Computer games genres. Play & Culture 3, 4 (1990), 286--301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Viknashvaran Narayanasamy, Kok Wai Wong, Chun Che Fung, and Shri Rai. 2006. Distinguishing Games and Simulation Games from Simulators. Comput. Entertain. 4, 2 (April 2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Oxford English Dictionary. 2017. "derivative, adj. and n.". Dictionary Definition. (June 2017). Retrieved September 12, 2017 from www.oed.com/view/Entry/50609.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Janne Paavilainen, Juho Hamari, Jaakko Stenros, and Jani Kinnunen. 2013. Social Network Games: Players' Perspectives. Simulation & Gaming 44, 6 (2013), 794--820. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Anthony Pecorella. 2016a. The Math of Idle Games, Part I. (October 2016). http://blog.kongregate.com/the-mathof-idle-games-part-i/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Anthony Pecorella. 2016b. The Math of Idle Games, Part II. (October 2016). http://blog.kongregate.com/the-mathof-idle-games-part-ii/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Blair Purkiss and Imran Khaliq. 2015. A study of interaction in idle games & perceptions on the definition of a game. In 2015 IEEE Games Entertainment Media Conference (GEM). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Scott C. Richmond. 2015. Vulgar Boredom, or What Andy Warhol Can Teach Us about Candy Crush. Journal of Visual Culture 14, 1 (2015), 21--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Evan F. Risko and Sam J. Gilbert. 2016. Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, 9 (2016), 676 -- 688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams. 2003. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. New Riders Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Paolo Ruffino. 2016. Games to Live With. Digital Culture & Society 2, 1 (2016), 153--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2005. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ian Schreiber. 2009. Level 3: Formal Elements of Games. (July 2009). https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/ 2009/07/06/level-3-formal-elements-of-games/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. David Stark. 2014. So you want to make an incremental game? (January 2014). http://dhmholley.co.uk/incrementals.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Theresa Jean Tanenbaum and Jim Bizzocchi. 2009. Rock Band: A Case Study in the Design of Embodied Interface Experience. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (Sandbox '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 127--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Jason Tanz. 2011. The curse of Cow Clicker: how a cheeky satire became a videogame hit. (December 2011). https://www.wired.com/2011/12/ff_cowclicker/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. thatgamecompany. 2012. Journey. Game {PS3}. (March 2012). Sony Computer Entertainment, San Mateo, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. The Noob Company. 2010. TheNoobBot. (2010). http://thenoobbot.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Peter Tolmie, Andy Crabtree, Tom Rodden, and Steve Benford. 2008. "Are You Watching This Film or What?": Interruption and the Juggling of Cohorts. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 257--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Bill Tomlinson, Juliet Norton, Eric P. S. Baumer, Marcel Pufal, and Barath Raghavan. 2015. Self-obviating systems and their application to sustainability. iConference 2015 Proceedings (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Phoebe O. Toups Dugas, Nicole K. Crenshaw, Rina R. Wehbe, Gustavo F. Tondello, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016a. "The Collecting Itself Feels Good": Towards Collection Interfaces for Digital Game Objects. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 276--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Phoebe O. Toups Dugas, William A. Hamilton, and Sultan A. Alharthi. 2016b. Playing at Planning: Game Design Patterns from Disaster Response Practice. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 362--375. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Deborah P. Vossen. 2004. The Nature and Classification of Games. Avante 10, 1 (2004), 53--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown. 1995. Designing Calm Technology. (1995). http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/calmtech/calmtech.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. A. P. White. 1995. Angband Borg. (January 1995). www.innovapain.com/borg/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Nick Yee. 2016. The Surprising Profile of Idle Clicker Gamers. (July 2016). http://quanticfoundry.com/2016/07/06/idle-clickers/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Zynga. 2009. Farmville. Game {Flash}. (June 2009). Zynga, San Francisco, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Playing to Wait: A Taxonomy of Idle Games

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader