• No results found

Pokémon GO and the city: How Pokémon GO players in Uppsala use, experience and connect to the city

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Pokémon GO and the city: How Pokémon GO players in Uppsala use, experience and connect to the city"

Copied!
65
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Pokémon GO and the city

How Pokémon GO players in Uppsala use, experience and connect to the city

Stefan Cizinsky

Department of human geography Degree 30 HE credits

Urban and regional planning

Master thesis in urban and regional planning 30 credits Spring term 2020

Supervisor: Sofia Cele and Johan Berg

(2)

Pokémon GO and the city

How Pokémon GO players in Uppsala use, experience and connect to the city Stefan Cizinsky

Abstract:

Pokémon GO hit the world with a bang in the summer of 2016 and has since then set new records regarding revenue on multiple occasions. It has been researched extensively, although first and foremost from a HCI (human-computer interactions) and healthcare/public health perspective. In particular, studies approaching the phenomenon from a human geography and urban planning perspective have been very limited. This study therefore takes an inductive and exploratory approach and explores the ways in which Pokémon GO influences how players use and experience the city and how urban planners can use Pokémon GO in their work. To do this, nine interviews were conducted, six with currently active players and three with completely new players. A number of different themes emerged from the interviews and was subsequently used to structure the results. ​Physical activity, social interactions and benefits and ​exploration and discovery were the most prominent themes and also the most frequently mentioned reasons why players enjoy the game. Finally the findings are discussed in relation to planning with a focus on participatory planning practices but also in more general terms regarding urban and spatial planning.

Keywords: ​Pokémon GO, using the city, physical activity, social benefits, exploration and discovery, sense of place, public art, statues, urban planning.

(3)

List of contents

Glossary ​4

1. Introduction ​5

1.1. Aims and objectives 6

1.2. Research Questions 7

1.3. The “gamescape” and gameplay of PG 7

1.3.1. Intertwining physical and digital space 10

2. Theories and Literature ​10

2.1. Digital Wayfaring 11

2.2. Motivations to play 13

2.3. Bartle’s taxonomy of player types 14

2.4. Participatory planning 14

3. Methodology ​16

3.1. Methods 16

3.1.1. Sampling 16

3.1.2. Interviews 18

3.1.3. Wayfaring operationalised 19

3.1.4. Bartle’s taxonomy operationalised 20

3.2. Positionality and validity 21

3.3. Impacts of covid-19 23

3.4. Limitations 24

4. Results 25

4.1. Results pertaining to research questions one and two 26

4.1.1. Physical activity 26

4.1.2. Digital Wayfaring 28

4.1.3. Social interactions and benefits 30

4.1.3.1. Social media 32

4.1.3.2. Other social aspects 33

4.1.4. Exploration and discovery 35

4.1.5. Collecting and routine tasks 38

4.1.6. Nostalgia 39

4.1.7. Primary - secondary styles of play and associated mobility patterns 40

4.1.8. New player experience 41

(4)

4.1.9. Stigma 43

4.1.10. Wayfarer 43

4.2. Pokémon GO and planning 45

4.2.1.Organizing Pokémon GO-related events 47

4.2.2. Wayfaring and planning 48

4.2.3. Wayfarer, sponsored locations and planning 49

4.2.4. Infrastructure 50

4.2.5. Playgrounds and parks 51

4.2.6. Big data 52

5. Conclusions ​52

5.1. Suggestions for future research 54

6. References ​56

Appendix ​60

(5)

Glossary

Application (App)​ - A software designed for end users. This paper will specifically talk about smartphone applications, ergo software used on smartphones. Common examples are word processors, social media software, games and public transport apps.

Pokémon GO (PG)​ - The main topic of the paper, Pokémon GO is a location based smartphone game based on the popular Pokémon franchise.

Pokédex ​- A fictional encyclopedia of all the different Pokémons in the Pokémon universe.

The Pokédex fills in information about Pokémons as they are caught by the players and completing the Pokédex is one of the main goals of protagonist Ash Ketchum in the Pokémon Tv-series.

Global Position System (GPS)​ - A system for satellite navigation and positioning. It allows for highly accurate geolocation and is the system PG uses to decide where players are in the world.

Player versus Player (PvP) ​- Refers to game elements where players fight or compete directly with one another as opposed to PvE, “Player versus Environment”, in which players fight or compete with entities and enemies controlled by the game itself.

Augmented reality (AR)​ - Entails technology that enhances (or “augments”) a real-world experience with some form of sensory experience. In this paper it describes the feature in PG that allows for Pokémon to be superimposed in real-world settings on the player's smartphone screen through the camera. A picture is provided below to showcase this feature.

(Picture provided by a participant in the study. It shows the Pokémon “Wingull” generated on a pathway near the Parliament House in Stockholm.)

(6)

1. Introduction

Pokémon GO (PG) arrived with a bang mid-summer 2016. It was not the first game of its kind, but by far the most successful (Colley et al., 2017. Iqbal, 2019). PG is a location based mobile game which involves players moving around in the real world to move their avatars in the game. The game world in PG is a colorful rendition of the real world, based on google maps (Webwise). The game, while having no definitive goal or endpoint, essentially revolves around the finding and capturing of “Pokémons” (short for ​pocket monsters) which spawn pseudo-randomly in the world. It has since its hugely successful launch more or less continuously engaged millions of players worldwide on a daily basis (Ibid. Iqbal).

I have had an interest in video and computer games since I was a young boy. For as long as I can remember, games have been an important part of my life, arguably the most important part of all. When I realized I could combine my love for games with my interest in urban planning I started to explore ways games could be ​used in planning. Especially the inclusion of PG in the Wayfarer system in late 2019 piqued my interest. When I started exploring this in greater depth it seemed unfeasible at the time to conduct a study specifically about Wayfarer, but I came across interesting previous research which had explored how PG affected the way players interact with and use their urban environment, but there was no direct connection to the realm of planning in any of this research. I wanted to examine further how PG players in my city of Uppsala use the city, how and why they had begun playing PG, what kept them playing, what they enjoyed about the game and also the social aspects of playing, making new friends but also conversely if they had had any negative experiences or had felt any stigma in relation to other people (players and non-players). As I could see a number of ways this connects to planning, both directly and indirectly, I then wanted to explore some ways PG could be used by planners. I believe this is valuable knowledge for civil society, academia and the professional field of planning alike. Although this has been studied to some extent in previous research, much of this research has been focused on the public health aspects of the game (Clark & Clark, 2016. Yang & Liu, 2017. Althoff et al., 2016. Andone et al., 2017), with only some limited research done on the social and geographical impacts of the game. As mentioned previously, there have been very limited studies that particularly explore the connections explicitly to planning and how PG and other apps like it can be utilized by planners. This can furthermore be contrasted by a notable amount of other material written on this topic (a quick google search will testament to this).

(7)

This paper is an inductive, qualitative study on what PG players in Uppsala enjoy about the game, how they use the city, how this has changed as a result of the game and what this means for planning, both in terms of direct consequences and how planners can use PG in their work. The paper also discusses this in relation to participatory planning practices and is driven by a user-based perspective.

In a time when much of the public and political debate is focused around battling covid-19 it may seem arbitrary and pointless to discuss the potential impacts of a smartphone game which by and large requires you to go outside to play, especially since a significant part of the population is increasingly staying at home. However, Niantic reported revenues of around $23 million dollars during week 12 (​march 16-22), an increase of more than 60%

from the previous week and its highest revenue of 2020 to that point (Minotti, 2020). Looking at revenue alone, there seem to be no signs of PG play diminishing, perhaps even the opposite (revenue on its own is likely to not perfectly represent usage, however there seem to be no other data readily available). The interviews also did not provide any clear account of whether players play more or less, although they did indicate that if anything players did get out less to play, which can perhaps be expected. It should also be noted that this study was conducted in a swedish context where measures have been lenient. Studies from other contexts where sharper measures have been taken are likely to produce different results.

There are also good reasons to believe AR technology and apps like PG have profound consequences for the future of (urban) life which motivates this study even in a time of global crisis (Kamols, 2016. Colley et al.).

1.1. Aim and objectives

The aim of the study is to examine how players use and experience the city differently due to PG and to elaborate on what this means for planning. This is done through interviews (n=6) with currently active players where they were asked to talk about the game, including mobility patterns and specifically the experience of discovering their city through the game.

The interviews also focused on social aspects, such as the social interactions facilitated by the game and conversely any potential negative experiences and stigma. I also wanted to explore what it would be like to start playing PG for the first time in 2020 to gauge the “new player experience”. For that I had some of my friends (n=3) who had never previously played download the game and play it at their own discretion for about a month before interviewing them on their experiences. These findings are then used to discuss what planners can learn

(8)

from PG and subsequently propose a number of ways PG can be used for planning purposes.

The interviews revealed a number of themes common to most, or all participants'

experiences of playing. These include but are not limited to ​wayfaring, ​social interactions, physical activity, ​exploration and discovery, different styles of play, ​motivations to play and stigma. These where developed partly through influence from previous research but also developed as I transcribed and coded the interviews. The themes are also discussed in relation to what kinds of players they are likely to appeal to, based on the ​Bartle taxonomy of player types to assess what kind of players PG appeal to and what that implies for using the game in planning.

1.2. Research Questions

1) In what ways does Pokémon GO affect how players use and experience the city?

2) What are the most common motivations to play and how does this vary between players?

3) What are the implications of Pokémon GO play for urban planning and how can it be used by planners?

1.3. “The “gamescape” and gameplay of Pokémon GO

To describe the visual makeup of games the concept “gamescape” is often used (Nobaew &

Ryberg, 2012). The “gamescape” concept is principally concerned with the visual elements of games, but I will employ it in a slightly broader way to also describe the gameplay structure of the game, i.e. the rules and mechanisms by which the player actually plays the game. Although the “landscape of games” is not fundamentally what I am focusing on, it is still a useful concept to conceptualize the main source of information the game feeds the player through visual elements, such as the game map and the various points of interest and Pokémons that inhabit it. The gamescape is what creates meaning and goals for the players to achieve (or strive towards) within the game (ibid)

(9)

(Picture provided by one of the new player participants)

PG is a location-based augmented reality mobile game with its game world essentially

“superimposed” over the real world. The gameplay revolves around players moving about the real-world to move their avatar in the game world, this is done through the phone’s GPS.

The game world, or game map, is inhabited by Pokémons whom players, or “trainers”, locate and catch. To do so, one has to have Poké Balls which can be stocked up at “Pokéstops” (to a certain limit, forcing players to revisit Pokéstops regularly). These are distributed in the world firstly based on data from Niantics previous game Ingress (GamePress, Colley et al.) and secondly through “sponsored locations”, places which companies pay Niantic a fee to have introduced in the game as Pokéstops (as per a “fee per player visit” basis (Zuboff, 2018)).

Before concluding I will briefly explain the in-game events, most notably what is known as

“Community Day” and “Raid Hour” as these were mentioned by all participants in some regard and have become a critical part of the gameplay. Community Days happen once a month and last for a few hours during which a particular Pokémon will appear much more regularly and will also come equipped with a special “move” (each Pokémon has a select number of moves they use in battle, these could be understood as the Pokémons means of

(10)

fighting other Pokémons) exclusive to Pokémon caught during the event (Pokemon GO Live). Raid hour on the other hand happen usually every wednesday between 6 and 7 p.m.

and will generate a ​raid at every available Gym (Niantic Support, Pokémon GO Wiki). Raids are particularly difficult Pokémon battles featuring a powerful Pokémon opponent, typically requiring multiple players to band together to defeat. Doing so will give the players an opportunity to capture a powerful Pokémon of their own (ibid). These features (raids and events) are the main elements of the game bringing players together to cooperate and play together.

Figure 1: ​“Pokéstops” and “Gyms” in Uppsala. Blue boxes mark “Pokéstops” while the orange pyramids are “Gyms”. ​Be aware as new Pokéstops are added regularly, and some Pokéstops “upgraded” to Gyms, this map may as such be outdated.

(Source: Pogomap.info)

(11)

While the distribution of Pokéstops and Gyms in Uppsala can and perhaps should be unpacked in much greater detail, it is beyond the scope of this paper. Of particular note is however the complete absence of these elements in certain parts of the city, particularly significant parts of the south-easternmost parts of the city in the areas known as

“Boländerna” and “Fyrislund”. These areas are predominantly dominated by industrial functions and retail outlets (sometimes referred to as “verksamhetsområden” in swedish, which literally translates to “area of activity”) but also features some residential areas, such as the area “Industristaden” located near the railway tracks in the westernmost part of this area.

1.3.1 Intertwining physical and digital space

“Mobile phone technology is uniquely well positioned to act as an intermediary between gameplay and the physical world”​ (​Vella et al. 2019).

A fundamental feature of PG is the “intermixing” or “intertwining” of the digital and the physical, “cyberspace” and “realspace” (Hjorth & Richardson, Vella et al., Colley et al. see also Holland & Denyer-Simmons, 2017). The augmented reality feature is perhaps the most concrete example of this, by which the game uses the phone’s camera to animate Pokémon characters in a real world setting seen through the smartphone camera. When looking at the game on one’s phone, one gets the illusion that there is actually a Pokémon sitting on one's bed or table. Although this feature is perhaps nothing more than a gimmick (see Kamols), it serves to illustrate how PG mixes digital and real. The very core of the game is essentially a mix of the “digital” and the “real”, as players are required to travel the real world to specific locations to be able to play the game.

2. Theories and literature

PG is complex. It sits at the nexus of a number of different phenomena and processes (Hjorth & Richardson) relating to HCI (human-computer interactions) and the increasing pervasiveness of digital media. However, PG also connects to a number of issues more closely related to human geography, planning and sociology, including mobility (wayfaring), consumption behaviour, access and geospatial structures (Ibid., Colley et al., Woods, 2020., Juhász & Hochmair, 2017. See also Bell et al., 2006. See also Zuboff, 2019). This paper will

(12)

explore further how players use and experience the city through PG which connects clearly to these topics.

Several studies have found that the game tend to enforce “geo-spatial structures”, meaning in practice that in the US where these study were (primarily) conducted, areas with a predominantly white non-hispanic populations can have up to ​20 times the amount of Pokéstops compared to areas with large minority populations (Colley et al.). In addition to this, urban areas can have up to almost 100 times the Pokéstop density compared to rural areas (ibid). This significantly impacts ​where one can successfully play PG as players must regularly visit Pokéstops to “refuel”. This means that players in areas with few Pokéstops are severely limited in the game. Colley et al. therefore concludes that PG creates an incentive structure for players to travel from “disadvantaged” areas to “advantaged” ones and that this corresponds clearly to socioeconomic (ethnic/racial) geo-spatial structures. A study by Juhász & Hochmair also finds that black and hispanic neighbourhoods are generally

disadvantaged in terms of propensity of Pokéstops and other game-related features and that these features tend also to be more common in “commercial, recreational and touristic sites”

and around Universities (Juhász & Hochmair, 2017). Colley et al. also found that a majority of players play primarily within 3km of their homes or workplaces. This can be compared to the map provided above of Pokéstop and Gym distribution in Uppsala, however this paper will not go into any significant detail on this topic as it is beyond its scope.

2.1. (Digital) Wayfaring

“Wayfaring” is a concept I use to capture people’s everyday routine and repetitive

movements, with ​commuting being the most obvious example (Hjorth & Richardson. Hjorth &

Pink, 2014). Wayfaring is part of a rather complex theory or set of theories put forward by Tim Ingold, I will however employ it in a simplified and concise form specifically to talk about travel behaviour. While Ingold distinguishes between ​wayfaring and ​transport - with

commuting and everyday shopping for instance being more associated with the latter - I will make no such difference (Hjorth & Pink). Wayfaring is rather a spontaneous and organic form of traversing space and place, making one’s own way not necessarily with a set goal, the journey being just as important as the destination. Transport on the other hand simply entails travelling from point A to a pre-decided point B, the journey is simply a means to an end and is not in and of itself that important or meaningful (ibid). It is no difficult task to imagine these two different forms of travel, we can probably all recall experiencing both, perhaps even on a daily basis.

(13)

With digital media becoming more and more commonplace - chiefly in the form of smartphones and associated apps - it follows somewhat naturally the “digitalisation” of wayfaring, ie. the increasing intertwining of “digital” and “real-life” in our everyday mobility patterns (ibid). This also creates a link between “digital” and “real”, with players moving in a space that is simultaneously “online” and “offline”, mixing cyberspace with realspace (ibid.

Colley et al.).

Colley et al. argues that PG might be a “rare catalyst for large scale destination choice change” (ibid), meaning that it could be a game changer in human travel behaviour. This they argue is not at all common, human mobility is generally very predictable, but PG creates unique incentive structures which lead to changes in where people decide to go (ibid). This is predominantly related to visiting new places, locations they have not visited before. They also find that PG not only shapes destination choice, but also impacts where people decide to spend money and that these changes in movement patterns primarily concerns group movement rather than individual movement (ibid). While it is not clear if these changes in movement are related specifically to wayfaring, it remains an important find as it is likely to affect all kinds of movement, wayfaring included.

In a paper from 2006, Bell et al. developed a game similar to PG called “Feeding Yoshi”.

Although much more rudimentary, the game tested how teams of players would play a location-based game over a week-long test period. The game consisted of players using PDAs (​personal digital assistants) to track WiFi access points. Secure access points would constitute “Yoshis” while insecure ones were “plantations”. The players would then collect seeds from the Yoshis and plant them in the plantations to grow various kinds of fruits which were then fed back to the Yoshis to collect points. Different teams were seen to develop different wayfaring practices while playing the game. Some players would take different routes to and from work which were more advantageous for playing the game while others would develop strategies to play during public transport commutes and some would go out on what they called “drive-by Yoshi” where one player would drive a car and the other, the passenger, would play the game and call for the driver to slow down when approaching game elements. This constitutes some practical examples of digital wayfaring. Some players would integrate play in daily routines while others would adjust their routines to make time specifically to play. These approaches highlight different ways wayfaring practices can be adapted to the context presented by the digital media.

(14)

2.2. Motivations to play

Looking at previous research, motivations to play seem heterogeneous. One debated aspect is the social impacts of PG, particularly whether the quality and quantity of social interactions changed due to playing the game. Rasche et al. (2017) for instance finds no significant change for players in terms of social contacts while Lindqvist (2018) concludes the opposite, social elements dominated and making new friends was an aspect players particularly appreciated. Vella et al. (2019) also confirms many players appreciate the social benefits of playing PG. Colley et al. similarly found that a majority of players play with at least one friend, with only about 10% of players always playing alone. It is quite possible that these two seemingly contradictory claims are entirely compatible and coherent, Rasche et al. wrote their study in 2017 while Lindqvist published hers in 2018 and Vella et al. in 2019 (Colley et al. stands out, having published their paper in 2017), during this time the game features that facilitate social interactions might have been developed and expanded upon greatly. Rasche et al.’s study even suggests this by noting that former players often quit the game due to missing social features in the game. Lindqvist also finds that “cooperation conquers competition” (2018), players prefer playing together to accomplish joint goals rather than compete with one another, while Rasche et al. concludes that for players who have quit the game, many reported missing competitive features in the game which would facilitate competition between players. This could indicate that people who primarily enjoy fighting other players (in Bartle’s terms these would be “killers”) are ultimately not attracted to PG.

They also list a number of features players missed in the game, many of which have been introduced to the game by now, such as more ways to interact with other players (being able to trade Pokémons with other players was a feature requested in both of these studies, this is now possible), more Pokémons and more Pokéstops. Many players also requested more PvP elements (Rasche et al. see also Vella et al.) which has since then been implemented, chiefly in the “battle league” game mode.

Beyond the social, common motivations to play include things like ​catching all Pokémons (“completing” the “Pokédex”), ​exploration and discovery, increased physical activity (Vella et al. Liu & Yang, 2017. Althoff, White, & Horvitz, 2016) and ​nostalgia (Liu & Yang).

The heterogeneity of motivations is likely due to different players enjoying different things in games. This has been a topic of research (Tondello et al., 2017) for decades, with Richard Bartle’s taxonomy of player types being perhaps the most iconic account of this. The taxonomy will be described in greater detail below.

(15)

2.3. Bartle’s taxonomy of player types

The Bartle taxonomy lists four different player types based on what interests and motivates them in games, originally based on observations and debate surrounding so called “MUD’s”

(“Multi User Dungeons”), a type of text based online roleplaying game (Bartle, 1996). The four types are ​achievers, explorers, socializers and ​killers. These types are fundamentally tied to different general approaches to playing MUD’s and could be described as follows:

Achievers will set goals for themselves and set out to accomplish them. They are motivated by the feeling of achievement when finishing an objective or quest, one often set out by themselves in the first place.

Explorers seek out to explore and learn as much as possible about the game world. This typically starts with exploring and mapping the world but will often transition into

experimentation with the boundaries of the game and the game physics.

Socializers are principally interested in using the game as a medium to talk to and interact with other players. These were typically the most interested in role-playing aspects as well.

Killers are concerned mostly with harming and otherwise hindering other players. They play for the thrill of engaging in battle with other players, directly or indirectly. In rare

circumstances they were also observed to help other players.

These were developed specifically to the context of MUD’s and the game elements they featured. It is therefore likely that these types will not be exhaustive in regards to other games and game contexts. In a later chapter on methods an operationalisation of the taxonomy will be provided.

Bartle’s taxonomy is not without controversy, with critics arguing it lacks empirical backing and generalizability (Tondello et al.) while proponents praise its practical simplicity

(Schneider et al., 2016). Controversy notwithstanding, there is merit to applying it in my case, not least because many participants presented motivations and rationales that by and large conform to the patterns described by Bartle, albeit with some approximation which will be clarified below. Previous research on motivations to play PG also more or less conform to the taxonomy which further warrants its use.

2.4. Participatory planning

The aim of participatory planning practices is as the name suggests to include the citizenry in the planning process. This is believed to create a more fair, (democratically) legitimate and effective planning system which also brings about learning effects for those participating

(16)

(Sager, 2018 in Gunder & A. Watson. Smith, 1973). How this is done in practice is bound to vary between different national and even subnational contexts, and can take different forms depending on what one aims to achieve. Aitken describes for instance a case in Scotland where the local residents were invited to a consultation to discuss the development of a number of wind turbines in the area (Aitken, 2010). This took a very formal and technical form where developers on the one hand pitched their arguments and graphs to the population on the other which responded in kind. A rather different approach - or different approaches rather - is provided by Sachs Olsen who describes her experiences working with an art project (“zURBS”) aimed at involving civil society in workshops to reimagine and reconceptualize their urban landscape and consequently also to empower the participants (Sachs Olsen, 2017). Three different cases are presented with variations in both design, outcome and conclusions, but they all have in common in relation to the aforementioned Scottish case a more playful and creative approach to participation and planning alike. One of these workshops for instance revolved around participants imagining a utopic version of their city (Monthey in Switzerland) and built it collectively from found and reused materials (ibid). This was done to facilitate a discussion about what kind of city they wanted to live in and subsequently how they wanted Monthey to evolve in the future.

Both of these articles however highlight that many of the norms, hierarchies and structures of the respective context carried over into the consultations and workshops respectively.

Aitken describes how a very technocratic atmosphere emerged in the consultations, a focus on expert knowledge and “hard facts” was championed by the organizers and subsequently embraced and internalized by participants on both sides. She also describes how the representatives of the developers would often stoop to personal attacks and ridicule to dismiss the locals and their arguments, something that was not addressed adequately by the planners at site (Aikten). Sachs Olsen on the other hand discusses the difficulties of working with what was perceived by planning officials as “childish”, disconnected and unfeasible in reality, making it hard to bridge the gap between participants (civil society) and officials (planners) (Sachs Olsen). To this can be added a number of other cases where participatory planning practices are plagued by issues of power imbalance, miscommunication, difference in expectation​s​ and at times a lack of commitment to the ideals of participation rather than consultation (see for instance Sager, Bouzguenda et al., 2020., Cele & van der Burgt, 2013 and Wänström, 2009).

Practical problems aside, participatory planning remains celebrated - at least theoretically and ideologically - as a worthwhile endeavour (Bouzguenda et al.) and is furthermore an interesting avenue to approach planning with PG. Others have similarly called for

(17)

participatory planning models to transition to greater use of digital media and in particular ICTs (Information and Communications Technology) has been applauded as a good way to advance the participatory project (ibid). The use of games in planning is not at all a novel idea, but most commonly this entails using serious games (Poplin, 2012), ergo games developed not principally for fun but for other purposes (Susi et al., 2007). What sets PG apart from these types of games is that it is conversely first and foremost a “casual” game, putting fun and entertainment centre stage (see Vella et al. for a discussion on the topic of

“casual” game design). This will be explored in further detail later on in the paper in the chapter “Pokémon GO and planning”.

3. Methodology

This chapter will discuss methods used, methodological considerations such as positionality and validity. Operationalisation of ​wayfaring and ​Bartle’s taxonomy of player types

respectively will also be featured here. The impacts of the covid-19 pandemic and other limitations to the study will also be discussed.

3.1. Methods

The material was generated through interviews. Six were conducted with current players and three with new players (ergo individuals who had not played PG prior to participating in the study. They were given a period of approximately a month to play completely on their own discretion and then invited to an interview). The interviews were then transcribed and coded according to common themes. The themes were developed partly by using previous

research for inspiration (principally Lindqvist) but by and large also emerged more or less naturally from the material itself.

3.1.1. Sampling

Participants were selected using a convenience sample. I made a post in the facebook group “Pokemon GO Uppsala” explaining who I am and that I am interested in conducting interviews for a master’s thesis. Initially, seven players responded but eventually two pulled out, leaving a total of five. This was not entirely sufficient so I recruited a friend of mine to participate whom I knew was very invested in the game, ending with six current player participants. The participant list was as follows:

(18)

Figure #1. List of participants.

Some observations of these participants can be made. Participants were all of adult age, with the youngest being 34 years old and the oldest 71 years old. I believe this is either because younger players are not very active in these facebook groups (less likely) or not very interested in participating in studies like these (more likely). Players below the age of 18 would also present some particular ethical considerations, however this did not become relevant as no one below the age of 18 responded. Using this kind of sampling method of course has implications, for instance it is likely that players who frequent social media and are interested in participating in interviews or studies of other kinds are socially outgoing and appreciate the social aspects of the game (​socializers in Bartle’s terms).

Although I did not make any effort to investigate the participants socioeconomic status or ethnicity. As the data does not permit a very thorough analysis of socioeconomic status, admittedly it barely allows any analysis at all, I will keep this discussion brief and instead urge future research to further assess who uses PG and similar apps (in terms of

socioeconomic status, further warranted by a lack of previous research on this particular subject, at least in regards to PG). However, some rudimentary patterns emerged.

Participants were predominantly white (five out of six) and belonging at least to the middle class. About half of the participants lived more or less in the most central parts of Uppsala, one lived in a smaller town about 30 km outside of Uppsala (but works and plays in central Uppsala) and the final two lived in suburban areas of Uppsala. They were all of adult age

(19)

and five out of six were also in good physical shape, with no apparent disabilities (the exception being #6 who suffers from a lung condition). As such, their access to the city - materially (economically and physically) and socially - can be expected to be generally good.

This will be discussed further later on in the paper.

3.1.2. Interviews

The interviews with current players (n=6) were conducted over zoom and recorded with the explicit permission of every participant. Participants were also informed that as far as

possible I would attempt to anonymize them, however because of the size of Uppsala and in particular the Uppsala PG community I could not guarantee that readers will not be able to figure out who some participants are. No participants found this to be of any real concern and agreed to the interviews. The interviews were semi-structured (starting out more structured and becoming less so as I became more experienced and comfortable with both the method and the subject matter) and lasted approximately an hour. The interview

questions were largely inspired by previous research, primarily Colley et al. and Lindqvist (2018). I asked questions initially about their social status (occupation, housing, age, relationship status) and how and why they had begun playing PG, what kept them playing, what they enjoyed about the game and the social aspects of playing, making new friends but also conversely if they had had any negative experiences in relation to other people (players and non-players). I then steered the interview more specifically towards their experiences and routines playing PG in Uppsala, regarding for instance where they played, if they had discovered any new places as a result of playing and if playing the game had affected the way they view and experience and use the city (the full interview guide is available in the appendix). I concluded with a short discussion on the impacts of covid-19 on their play and finally if they had anything else to add that had not come up during the interview. I asked all participants if they were interested in “participant validation” and potential second interviews, all participants were eager to remain involved. Only about half however responded when I eventually sent them the summary. This was unfortunate but I had said during the interviews that this was of course optional and that they could opt out of checking, I therefore only sent one message with the summary asking for feedback, if there was no response I concluded they were not interested since I did not want to bother them.

The interviews were then transcribed, coded according to themes brought up by the participants and summarized (with the summary as mentioned used for feedback from participants). Initially I did this to get an overview and a summary that I could work with for the analysis but as I went through the interviews a few themes emerged that permeated all

(20)

interviews, some of which I had explicitly asked for while others had come up organically.

The analysis was then conducted in line with these themes.

I also conducted interviews with three of my friends who had never previously played PG to explore the “new player experience”; what it is like to start playing the game as a new player.

The design of these interviews differed from the first six as questions about playing habits and experiences which develop over longer periods of playing the game served no purpose, instead these interviews focused more on what it had been like to download the game and start playing for the first time, also asking questions relating to how much and how often they had played, in what contexts and what they had done in the game. The three participants, numbered ​A to ​C so as to separate them from the six original participants, had varying levels of gaming experience and varying previous relationships with the Pokémon franchise. These interviews were similarly transcribed, thematically coded and sent back for participant

validation.

All interviews except for two (#A and #C) were conducted in swedish. Any quotes in this paper are as such translated to english by the author and I have attempted to stay as true as possible to the original quote. Some deviations however had to be made for the sentences to make sense in english, but I have made every effort to stay as close to the original swedish quotes as possible.

3.1.3. Wayfaring operationalised

Wayfaring is one of the key theories used in this paper, but what concretely constitutes as wayfaring? I have operationalised the term to mean activities like commuting to and from work (or other daily activities such as school), grocery shopping, leaving and picking up children at kindergarten or school, going to the gym, going to free-time activities (like for instance an evening class or sports practice) and other potential reoccurring, routine travel patterns. The list can be made much longer and will inevitably vary from person to person based on one’s work situation (one could for instance work from home, eliminating the daily commute), whether one has children or not, whether one participates in out-of-home

exercise and so on. What matters is that the travel is ​routine and happens more or less every day. Wayfaring as I operationalise it does not encompass going to a friends home for dinner or a party (unless it happens very regularly), going out to buy a new car or other forms of irregular shopping, visiting one’s parents for christmas and the like. Even though many of these examples constitute highly mundane travel activities they are typically

(21)

irregular and happen rarely rather than being routine and every day. What constitutes wayfaring then is once again decided by regularity and routine rather than mundanity.

3.1.4. Bartle’s taxonomy operationalised

The types originally provided by Bartle are by and large applicable to PG, although with some shortcomings. I have therefore“translated” what these four types might entail in the context of PG which will be provided here.

Achievers as mentioned set goals for themselves, this most commonly entails completing the Pokédex (capturing one of each Pokémon) or getting a gold badge in every Gym

(awarded to players for battling over and defending the Gym, Pokemon GO Live). Striving to meet these goals will be the main objective for an achiever when playing. Often these types of players are in it for the long haul as these goals often require significant amounts of playtime to achieve. Observe that these goals are not always explicitly given to them by the game, although to a large degree implicated by the games design and the Pokémon setting in general (completing the Pokédex is typically one of the primary goals in other Pokémon games and is also the main objective of Ash Ketchum, the protagonist in the Pokémon television series). Achievers in PG are also motivated to play on a daily basis by the in-game quests, such as for instance research tasks and weekly challenges.

Explorers on the other hand are keen on using the game as a means of exploring and experiencing new places, these players value going to new places to play, variation in playing in different places and appreciate finding new Pokémons. For the explorer, the main attraction is variation and discovery and it is important for these players that the game constantly introduces new content.

Socializers find the greatest joy in interacting with other players and will actively seek out game settings where they encounter (and interact or cooperate) with other players. For these players the game is typically only as exciting as the human interactions it facilitates, making the game more of a means than an end. These players will typically gravitate

towards raids and will also value highly the in-game events as these typically facilitate social interactions and activities.

Finally, ​killers strive to compete with and battle other players and will gravitate towards game elements that facilitate PvP encounters, such as the Battle League and Gyms.

(22)

Inherent to both the original conception and my adaptation of the archetypes is a certain overlap in definition, it is for instance entirely possible for an achiever to set goals related to PvP combat or exploration. Is that player then primarily an achiever, killer, explorer or a mix of them all? As with any theory or definition that is fundamentally about ideal types, applying them on fuzzy real world situations will typically involve some amount of compromise. This notwithstanding, the problem of inherent overlap is of a somewhat different nature. I do not ultimately believe this is a real problem however, it is perfectly in order for players to fit into more than one category at a time, they are not necessarily meant to be mutually exclusive.

This is also how I will employ the theory going forward, a “soft” interpretation of the archetypes that are not mutually exclusive but rather signals whether a particular game element appeals to the player or not. What qualifies as an explorer then for instance is that exploration is a main motivational factor for that player, but it does not need to be the only motivator for that player.

3.2. Positionality and validity

I have since my childhood had a relationship to Pokémon, I played all the Pokémon games that were released for the Gameboy and Nintendo 64, I collected and played with Pokémon cards and I saw the first three or so movies at the cinema (I did not watch the television series). I have also played video and computer games for most of my life and they are to this day a big part of who I am. I have however not played PG whatsoever. I previously lacked any interest to get into it and when I started working on this study I was essentially faced with two options, either start playing myself or don’t and remain an outsider. Both of these approaches have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Not playing meant I had some knowledge gaps about the game and had to do more research to understand what players were talking about at times. There are still admittedly elements of the game I only understand from a “textbook” perspective as I have not personally experienced or interacted with them. This also meant however that it was easy for me to adopt an outsider perspective.

While this is not necessarily desirable in qualitative research, I feel it allowed me the ability to not take anything for granted and conduct the interviews more thoroughly. I have little to no previous experience with interviews and so this aided me to not overlook things that might have seemed obvious or implied had I been more experienced with the game.

Similarly, had I started playing while working on the study I would have probably developed a new player perspective which would have in turn likely led me to focus on different things.

Although not necessarily a bad thing, it would have nonetheless likely caused the paper to take a different direction.

(23)

My background as a games enthusiast creates a potential for bias on my end, threatening the validity of this paper. It however also, perhaps needless to say, gave me a very good pre-emptive understanding of the game and the concepts and experiences players reported as they had much in common with experiences of my own. Even though I have never played PG I could relate to many of the things the participants talked about and I believe this gave me an ability to ask questions, probe and elaborate on things that someone without any personal relationship with games would have been able to. I tried however to counteract my biases by asking questions designed to let participants give meaning and value themselves to their experiences playing PG. I also gave my participants the opportunity to check and confirm my interpretations should they want to, a common strategy employed to deal with bias and interpretation error known as “respondent validation” (Bryman, 2012). Finally I have also asked my supervisor to look over my interpretations and analysis. These strategies I believe will be sufficient to tackle my own potential biases and increase the validity of my research. Nevertheless I believe it is unavoidable in a qualitative study of this kind that the positionality of the researcher shines through and shapes the study in many ways, this paper is no exception. My particular relationship and interest in games and in urban planning alike has naturally impacted how I interpret and analyse the interviews, and how I conducted them in the first place.

On the other hand however is the potential pitfalls of participant bias and error. Both are in different regards a problem of design. The first can become a threat if my interviews give participants the impression that I want certain answers or certain types of answers. I needed therefore to carefully ask questions that did not lead participants to self-impose restrictions on their answers. The survey used by Colley et al. were used to provide guidelines for my questions. I have also not asked questions which were of a very personal or normative nature to avoid participants feeling uncomfortable with providing truthful answers.

All interviews were conducted with my own camera turned on so as to hopefully make the interview more transparent and less threatening (to the participant). I allowed participants to freely decide whether they wanted their own cameras on or not and nearly all chose to keep theirs on (the exception being one participant that simply did not have a working webcam).

To create a more equal and mutual exchange of information - which I thought important to address the skewed power relations between interviewer (me) and interviewee (the participants) - I also shared with participants both personal experiences and some of the research and knowledge I had come across. I typically waited with sharing knowledge in particular until they had answered my related questions as I was afraid it could influence their answers. I employed all of these methods to try to create an environment where

(24)

participants would feel safe, comfortable, relaxed and without judgement, and where they could also feel after the interviews like they too had gotten something out of it.

3.3. Impacts of covid-19

The ongoing covid-19 pandemic has shaped the study in a few ways. I had initially planned on doing walk alongs and conducting interviews in connection to these. However, the advent of the virus in Sweden in early March had me reconsider. Although Sweden has only seen rather lenient measures and the few restrictions and recommendations that were enacted did not practically prevent me from going along with my original plans, this no longer seemed feasible. One reason for this was that even though there were no concrete obstacles, I was afraid it would be difficult to persuade participants to meet me in person for fear of getting sick. Uppsala was one of the first swedish cities with confirmed cases. As such I was also afraid for my own health and wanted to limit my participation in activities that could further the spread of the virus. I decided therefore I would only do interviews and conduct them over Skype or Zoom.

This also changed the focus of my study. My original approach was to examine how players reasoned and made decisions while playing about where to go, how long to play and other potential factors that determined and shaped their playing and in consequence their experiences of the city and how they used it. I was also interested in exploring embodied experiences and aspects of playing the game. I had figured walk alongs would be a good fit with such a research focus, but as I decided against doing them I also felt I had to change the focus of the study. Relying exclusively on interviews to assess these things did not seem feasible so my focus had to change. I instead opted for a more inductive approach where the interviews would help shape the study.

Another consequence of covid-19 was that Niantic launched a number of (temporary) updates to the game to adapt to the current conditions (Hernandez, 2020). I did not want to conduct my study in the middle of a rapidly changing game environment and so I decided to postpone my data collection until things stabilized. These updates were aimed at making the game more readily accessible for players who did not wish to journey too far from their homes and/or were keen on practicing social distancing or even self-isolation. The game was also adapted to enable the social aspects, such as interacting with friends or strangers, to work from greater distances so players could play together without having to clump together in the real world. These changes include increasing spawn rates of Pokémons in certain areas to make it easier for players to play close to home, radical discounts on items

(25)

available for purchase in-game which lets players “lure” Pokémon to their location and making the player versus player feature not require players to be in the same location (ibid).

Another significant recent change is that Pokéstops and Gyms can be interacted with from further away, making it easier for players to access these features without having to go to their specific locations (ibid).

As became evident in the interviews however, most participants have not noticed any significant changes in their playing habits. Some reported getting out less, but no one was unable to get out and play at least once a day. I asked all participants explicitly if the current situation in regards to covid-19 had affected their play and since the general consensus was a slightly hesitant “no” it will not be explored in much depth in the analysis. While the

covid-19-related PG updates and changes are interesting to explore further, I will leave that aside.

3.4. Limitations

Not so much a limitation but a caveat, I wish to say something about the paper’s lack of any conceptualization and problematization of place and space, it also does not discuss potential problems related to publicly and privately owned space respectively. The main reason is quite frankly that this was not an apparent concern in the data, in none of the interviews did we talk specifically about public and private spaces and the discussion of place and space was generally on a very superficial level. As such I decided against going in-depth with any such discussions and theories.

In terms of limitations it must be said first of all that I have practically no previous experience with interviews. I tried to prepare for the interview by conducting a trial with a close friend of mine. This not only prepared me a little better for conducting interviews, it also gave me some insights on PG and how his relationship with the city has changed as of playing which was valuable for improving the interview guide. Nonetheless, when I started conducting the actual interviews my lack of previous experience became evident. The first few interviews in particular were of noticeably lower quality than the later ones and proved overall less useful.

I was not prepared to ask the follow up questions I should have asked and parts of the material is somewhat one dimensional due to this.

The study is exclusively qualitative leading to very limited potential for generalization. Further studies on Uppsala using quantitative methods to triangulate the findings could help with this. Similar qualitative studies could also be conducted in other cities to compare the

(26)

findings of this study which would also help improve our understanding of what influence PG has on players' use and experience of the city. The results of this study must be understood primarily in terms of qualitative data, it speaks for the context of Uppsala and is based on the particular habits and experiences of the participants of the study, meaning the generalization of the results might even be questionable in relation to other players in Uppsala itself. I believe once again a study using quantitative methods could improve upon our

understanding by triangulating these findings to either strengthen them or call them into question.

4. Results

The results will be presented in two subchapters, one pertaining primarily to the first two research questions and the other relating to how PG can be used in planning. I will also discuss some other observations and implications that I believe are important both for apps and games like PG and for using them in planning​. These themes will be discussed both in terms of how the participants experience and appreciate the game and how they talk about them in relation to experiencing and using the city of Uppsala.

Before doing any of this however I wish to briefly make a note in regards to a notion that has featured in much previous research, namely the intertwining of physical and digital space.

While there are many dimensions to this, with the most topical examples being 1) how players’ move their avatars in the digital space (the game world) by moving around the real world themselves and 2) the AR feature. Although this might be a crucial aspect of the game (at least theoretically or analytically), there was little in the interviews that spoke to its

significance. AR was for instance only discussed explicitly with two of the new player participants and with very mixed experiences. One did not get it to work properly, while the other thought it was fun for a short time but was simultaneously annoyed when Pokéstops did not use this feature to any significant extent (see also Kamols). As such, I conclude that while this aspect of the game - the intermixing of digital and physical space - has been highlighted in the past, it played no major role in this study and might even be somewhat overplayed in previous research or that it is analytically and theoretically more interesting than it is in practice.

(27)

4.1. Results pertaining to research questions one and two

The first section of the results chapter will focus on discussing finds relating primarily to research questions one and two, regarding use of the city and motivations to play. This will be presented primarily along the themes developed when transcribing the interviews but some other relevant topics will also be discussed.

Among the participants in the study, achievers and socializers were the most common and killers the least. Explorers were somewhat hard to conceptualize and difficult to spot among the participants since more or less all participants seemed to enjoy the exploration related aspects of the game. Either, all participants were to some extent explorers, or there was some form of error in the definition. After some further examination of the interviews, there seemed to be a difference between those who would intentionally and actively set out to explore when playing and those who would enjoy it as a side-effect of whatever game element or activity they were primarily pursuing. Many participants also exhibited traits of multiple archetypes, with for instance ​exploring and ​socializing often overlapping.

4.1.1. Physical activity

In all but one interview “physical activity” was brought up as either a primary motivation for playing the game or a main benefit of playing it. The only participant who did not highlight this as important was a male in his late thirties ( #2) who already exercise extensively and to whom PG would rather constitute a break from exercising. For all the other participants physical activity constituted a more or less fundamental reason both for starting to play and continue playing:

“I heard about the game, I was bored and so I downloaded it and started playing. I thought it would be a good way to get out and about a little. [...] The game itself is not that much fun, it doesn’t give me a lot, [I play PG] rather to get out more. [...]

Sometimes I go out on a walk just to catch some Pokémon. It doesn’t feel all that rewarding but for some reason it’s easier for me to go out on a walk if I think of it as an opportunity to play the game a little.“ #2

“When I saw that PG was coming out in the US I thought “ah this can combine my childhood appreciation for Pokémon but also motivate me to get out more”” #3

References

Related documents

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

The increasing availability of data and attention to services has increased the understanding of the contribution of services to innovation and productivity in

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar

I dag uppgår denna del av befolkningen till knappt 4 200 personer och år 2030 beräknas det finnas drygt 4 800 personer i Gällivare kommun som är 65 år eller äldre i

Den förbättrade tillgängligheten berör framför allt boende i områden med en mycket hög eller hög tillgänglighet till tätorter, men även antalet personer med längre än

The research questions investigated concerned teachers’ thoughts and experiences of students’ use of the target language both inside and outside the classroom,

Industrial Emissions Directive, supplemented by horizontal legislation (e.g., Framework Directives on Waste and Water, Emissions Trading System, etc) and guidance on operating

The EU exports of waste abroad have negative environmental and public health consequences in the countries of destination, while resources for the circular economy.. domestically