skip to main content
10.1145/3131085.3131115acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The intertwined role of play at game studios: an examination of office play strategies

Published:20 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

This article presents a qualitative study conducted between 2010 and 2012 of the office design of game studios based on interviews and photographs. In the interviews, the representatives of the companies explained the interiors and their studio philosophy tied to the physical spaces. The focus of this study is in how and why game companies integrate playful elements into their physical office layout and how company representatives rationalize these elements. The presence of play and playful elements were manifested in physical and social artifacts in the office design, and utilized in different playful strategies. At minimum, the game companies practiced a basic play strategy. Other playful strategies included collaborative decorative play, brand play, and gamification through player metrics. In general game companies form special arenas for office play, where play and work are intertwined on symbolic, social and instrumental level. The celebrate play, play together and need the presence of play in their work in multiple levels.

References

  1. Baldry, C. & Hallier, J. (2010) Welcome to the House of Fun: Work Space and Social Identity, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 31(1), pp. 150--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Brooks, D.S. (2011) Political Decorating and Branding: A Historical Retrospective of the Oval Office Interiors from 1934 to 2010. Interior Design Educators Council, Journal of Interior Design 36(4), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Budd, C. (2000). Narrative Research in Design Practice: Capturing Mental Models of Work Environments. Interior Design Educators Council, Journal of Interior Design 26(2) 58--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Cadin, L., Guérin, F. & Defillippi, R. (2006) "HRM Practices in the Video Game Industry: Industry or Country Contingent?" European Management Journal Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 288--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Danko, S. (2000). Beneath the Surface: A Story of Leadership, Recruitment, and the Hidden Dimensions of StrategicWorkplace Design. Interior Design Educators Council, Journal of lnterior Design 26(2), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Davis, T.R. (1984). The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices. Academy of Management Review, 1984, Vol. 9, No. 2, 271--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleming, P. (2005) Workers' Playtime? Boundaries and Cynicism in a "Culture of Fun" Program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2005 41:285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. 2nd Edition. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Hagen, U. (2009). "Where Do Game Design Ideas Come From? Invention and Recycling in Games Developed in Sweden". Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hiltunen, K., Latva, S. & Kaleva, J-P. (2013) Peliteollisuus - kehityspolku. Tekes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hiltunen, K., Latva, S., Kaleva, J-P & Ronkainen, E. (2015). The Game Industry of Finland. Report 2014. Neogames.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunter, C., Jemielniak, D. & Postula, A. (2010). Temporal and Spatial Shifts within Playful Work. Journal of Organizational Change management. Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 87--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Juul, J. (2014). The Art of Failure. An Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall-Indiana, L. & Harland, L. (2005) Attitudes Toward Workplace Fun: A Three Sector Comparison, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 12(2), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Keith, Clinton. (2010). Agile Game Development with Scrum. Pearson Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kerr, Aphra. (2006). The Business and Culture of Digital Games: Gamework/Gameplay. Sage Publications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kroon, Jacob & Casén, Sara. (2015). Game Developer Index 2015. Based on 2014 Annual Reports. Dataspelbranchen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kultima, A. (2009). Casual Game Design Values. Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era. Digitally available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1621841.1621854 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kultima, A. (2010). The Organic Nature of Game Ideation: Game Ideas Arise from Solitude and Mature by Bouncing. FuturePlay 2010, Vancouver, Canada. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kultima, A. (2015a). Iteration in Game Development. Academic Mindtrek Conference 2015. ACM digital library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kultima, A. (2015b). Game Design Research. Academic Mindtrek Conference 2015. ACM digital library. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kultima A. & Alha K. (2010). "Hopefully Everything I'm Doing Has to Do with Innovation" Games industry professionals on innovation in 2009. Proceedings of the 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronic Society's Games Innovation Conference GIC 2010: IEEE, 41--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kultima, A, Nummenmaa, T., Tyni, H., Alha, K. & Mäyrä, F (2014). Goofy Mus, Grumpy Mur and Dirty Muf: Talking Playful Seats with Personalities. Love and Sex with Robots Congress. http://loverobots.mixedrealitylab.org/ ACE 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. O'Donnell, Casey. (2014). Developer's Dilemma. The Secret World of Videogame Creators. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Paavilainen, J., Alha, K. & Korhonen, H. (2012). Exploring playability of social network games. In ACE'12 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment, pp. 336--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Raftopolous, M., Walz, S. & Greuter, S. (2015). How Enterprises Play: Towards a Taxonomy for Enterprise Gamification. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2015: Diversity of Play: Games - Cultures - Identities. DiGRA 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Siwek, S.E. (2014). Videogames in the 21st Century - The 2014 Report. Entertainment Software Association. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sotamaa, O. & Karppi, T. (2010). Games as Services. Final Report. TRIM Research Reports 2. University of Tampere.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. 1st Edition. Qualitative Research Methods (Book 48). SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Strömberg, S. & Karlsson, J. C. (2009). Rituals of fun and mischief: The Case of the Swedish Meatpackers, Employee Relations, Vol. 31(6), pp. 632--647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Tschang, F.T. & Szczypula, J. (2006). Idea Creation, Constructivism and Evolution as Key Characteristics in the Videogame Artifact Design Process. European Management Journal Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 270--287, 2006. Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A. & Yaacov, C.S. (2005). Instrumentality, Aesthetics, and Symbolisim of Office Design. Environment and Behavior. Vol 37 No. 4, July 2005 533--551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Vithayathawornwong, S., Danko, S. & Tolbert, P. (2003). The Role of the Physical Environment in Supporting Organizational Creativity. Journal of Interior Design 29 (1&2), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The intertwined role of play at game studios: an examination of office play strategies

    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
      AcademicMindtrek '17: Proceedings of the 21st International Academic Mindtrek Conference
      September 2017
      271 pages
      ISBN:9781450354264
      DOI:10.1145/3131085

      Copyright © 2017 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: 20 September 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader