CSCW at play:
‘There’ as a collaborative virtual environment
Barry Brown and Marek Bell
Department of Computing Science
University of Glasgow, Glasgow
United Kingdom
Barry@dcs.gla.ac.uk, Marek@dcs.gla.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Video games are of increasing importance, both as a cultural
phenomenon and as an application of collaborative technology. In
particular, many recent online games feature persistent
collaborative virtual environments (CVEs), with complex social
organisation and strong social bonds between players. This paper
presents a study of ‘There’, one such game, focusing on how
There has been appropriated by its players. In particular we
describe how its flexibility has allowed players to develop their
own forms of play within the game. Three aspects of There are
discussed: first, how the environment supports a range of social
activities around objects. Second, how the chat environment is
used to produce overlapping chat and how the game itself
provides topics for conversation. Lastly, how the ‘place’ of There
is a fluid interaction space that supports safe interactions between
strangers. The paper concludes by drawing design lessons
concerning the importance of supporting shared online activity,
interaction between strangers, and the difficulties of designing for
play.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
H5.1. Multimedia: Augmented, and virtual realities
General Terms
Human Factors
Keywords
CVEs, games, ethnography, entertainment
1. INTRODUCTION
CSCW has had a longstanding interest in collaborative virtual
environments (CVEs) [2, 5], pioneering support for group
interactions in virtual reality and critically examining the
resources which these systems provide for collaboration [27].
While in recent years research has moved onto combining CVEs
with ubicomp technology, commercial applications of CVEs have
become increasingly popular in the form of 3D-graphics based
video games. Indeed, nearly all video games sold today contain
CVEs in some form.
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. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
CSCW’04, November 6–10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Copyright 2004 ACM 1-58113-810-5/04/0011…$5.00.
Recently large multi-player persistent CVEs have attracted an
increasing audience. Everquest, for example, has over half a
million subscribers, and the Korean game ‘lineage’ over two
million monthly subscribers [48]. These games feature a complex
social organisation in which players develop strong social bonds
(in particular between ‘clans’ of players) as well as participate in
economic transactions of significant value [9, 33]. The economic
transactions that take place in these environments even display
many of the features of conventional economic exchanges –
Castronova estimates that Everquest had an in-game GNP of $135
million in 2001, and Everquest has recently suffered from an in-
game inflation problem.
While CSCW has often discussed playful collaborative
application of systems, e.g. [3, 13], collaborative games have been
a neglected topic. Yet games are one of the most popular
collaborative applications currently in use, and raise a number of
interesting issues for CSCW. In this paper we draw on results
from an ethnographic study of one commercial online persistent
game environment known as ‘There’, which we have been
studying for just under a year.
Three aspects of There’s design are of interest. First, There
supports a rich range of collaborative social activities around
objects. Objects have a dual role in There, as they are shared 3D
objects that can be jointly manipulated, as well as goods to be
bought and sold through a 2D web interface. Second, There
supports a flexible chat environment with overlapping chat, and
provides a range of topics for conversation from the game itself,
such as game ‘glitches’ and avatar gestures. Third, the ‘place’ of
There is a fluid interaction space that supports safe (although not
unproblematic) interactions between strangers.
In discussing There we do not focus on its technical features, but
rather on how the game has been adopted by its users. In
particular, we note how its open design has allowed it to become
something of a platform for gaming, and how the system supports
enjoyable social action amongst its users, specifically between
strangers. From these findings we develop implications for the
design of games, and other collaborative systems more generally.
2. Previous Work
Although some would argue that games do not come under the
remit of CSCW, CSCW has increasingly discussed the design and
study of non-work and leisure activities, such as Instant
Messaging [23] or tourism [6]. Games are not just an intriguing
application of collaborative technology: massive multi-player
games feature new and surprisingly complex forms of online
social organisation. At any one time, millions of players are
online; making these environments something of a giant social
laboratory in development. As Ruther argues, along with the
growing financial importance of the game industry, video games
have achieved a cultural and social importance as a new form of
leisure [42].
While research into online games can be traced back to work on
text based MUDs and MOOs [12], much of this work has
maintained a distance from players’ actual behaviour. For
example, research on identity online [35] has discussed at length
the role which gender plays, in particular the ability to play
characters of a different gender than ones’ own [7]. Yet there is
little analysis of how this affects behaviour or talk. Indeed, while
a number of studies have looked at game behaviour at the
aggregate level, such as through studying economic transactions,
there is little in-depth discussion of how individual economic
transactions are negotiated. This research does demonstrate,
however, that online gaming is an engrossing experience - a
number of the players Castronova studied admitted to “living in
Everquest and visiting the real world”. Questionnaire studies also
suggest that while the social bonds made online are generally
weaker than those created through face-to-face interaction, they
are social bonds nevertheless [52].
Within CSCW, it is collaborative virtual environments (CVEs),
rather than games, that have gained most attention. CVEs present
a number of opportunities for online interaction, both for work
and entertainment. For example, in ‘inhabited TV’ online players
can interact with those in a studio audience during a live TV
broadcast [3]. Research has also documented the many barriers to
successful interaction that these environments present. In
particular, CVE users often suffer from problem with the
‘reciprocity of perspectives’ between users [28], in that users
often find it difficult to predict what other users can see, and
therefore in reliably referring to objects, and even to other users
(see also the problems discussed in [10]). One shortcoming with
this research is the lack of data on the use of CVEs outside a
staged or research context. Nearly all the existing studies of
CVEs make use of data from short staged events, or from longer-
term use in research settings. The widespread use of CVEs in
games thus presents an opportunity to study the longer-term use of
CVEs outside research.
Within HCI, systems designed for play have recently gained
attention [4]. Pioneering work at the Swedish ‘Play’ lab has
looked at technologies which evoke pleasure from their users [31]
and Gaver et al’s recent work has discussed the use of so called
‘ludic pursuits’ as a design goal. The drift table [20], for example,
is a table on which aerial images of the UK slowly float by. This
table is not designed for a specific single purpose but rather to
support an open range of playful activities: “[These activities] are
not a simple matter of entertainment, or wasting time. On the
contrary, they can be a mechanism for developing new values and
goals, for learning new things, and for achieving new
understandings”.
3. PLEASURE, PLAY AND CSCW
It is obvious that games present some challenges to conventional
HCI frameworks based around optimising users’ behaviour. With
games, optimising the efficiency of behaviour makes little sense,
since it is the experience rather an end goal that is key. The
pleasure of games can come from features such as aesthetics,
narrative, or connection with a broader culture – topics difficult to
address under the troika of effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction. Yet games also present a challenge to CSCW’s
frameworks. CSCW retains from HCI something of its ‘negative
utilitarianism’ [47] – the goal in CSCW design is usually to
minimize the pain that a system produces – for example, by
replacing a difficult phone collaboration with a more effective
interaction using a media-space (e.g. [19]). There is little concern
with the pleasure that systems can produce. Indeed, even though
CSCW has been deeply concerned with the social, it has tended to
ignore one of the most uncontroversial forms of pleasure - the
companionship of others. Even work on instant messaging, while
considering the pleasures of communication, has seldom
addressed what affects IM has on friendship.
With games, enjoyment comes from play. Recent work on games
has argued that we need to move beyond considering the game
itself (and in particular the games’ narratives) to consider how
users play with games [16]. That is, to examine their behaviour
and exploration, rather than treating games as a text. Yet play is
difficult to define [45]. Indeed, Roy’s classic study of horseplay
at work [41] shows how play, rather than being its opposite, is an
essential part of the workplace.
A number of authors have attempted to build typologies of play
(e.g. [8]). However, in our view a CSCW approach to play would
not define play a priori, but rather seek to study the different
forms it takes. This would involve investigating in depth playful
technologies, and the pleasures they generate. For example,
research into slot machines [49] has shown how these games fit
into individuals’ lives by occupying time while waiting for others,
and how this is not necessarily the same as play in the office, or
play amongst children.
4. STUDYING THERE
To understand some of these issues we have been studying in-
depth one particular online multi-player game known as ‘There’
(see also [15]). There (www.there.com) has been open to the
public since October 2003, although it has been in beta testing for
over a year, and development for over six. There shares many of
the features of other online virtual environments, such as ‘active
worlds’ (www.activeworlds.com), second life
(www.secondlife.com), and other online, persistent role-playing
games such as Everquest or Star Wars Galaxies, There is a
persistent world with objects which can be manipulated,
customisable avatars representing each user, and various facilities
for interactions between avatars, and between avatars and objects.
In There specific effort has been paid to supporting social
interactions [11]. There is marketed as a ‘virtual getaway’ – a
non-competitive virtual world, where social interaction and play
are the main activities. There is no overall goal to ‘There’ and its
environment supports a range of activities such as buggy races,
paintball, flying jetpacks, treasure hunts, card games and even
playing with virtual pets. Avatars are capable of expressing
emotional gestures, and chat is displayed in speech bubbles within
the game world, word by word, rather than in the complete lines
of text displayed in instant messaging (figure one).
There also has a rich range of features for organisation that sit
outside the 3D space in separate 2D web browser windows. This
augments There’s virtual world with support for instant messaging
(both text and audio), forums, tools for organising virtual ‘events’,
and forming groups. The interface of There is therefore split
between a conventional set of webpages and a 3D virtual
environment.
5. METHODS 6.1 Things and money
We have studied There for nine months, playing There for around The design of There has a number of features that differ from
two hours each week. Our methods are informed by an emerging conventional CVEs. First, and of perhaps surprising importance,
approach to studying online activity characterised as ‘virtual is that the avatar control method uses the standard gaming control
ethnography’ [30]. This approach involves the familiar method, combining the use of the mouse (for direction of gaze)
techniques of ethnography with a significant amount of time spent and keyboard (for movement). This dual control method allows
online in the research setting, observing, participating and taking users to quickly move their gaze with their mouse, and then slow
field notes. As with all ethnographic work, the researchers own that movement to rest their gaze on a particular object. As their
experiences are taken as key data, yet due to the persistent nature gaze moves this action is visible to other players by the turning of
of online data, virtual ethnography also makes extensive use of their avatar’s head and body. By holding down a control key a
textual materials such as webpages, screenshots and videos. mouse pointer can also be made to appear, along with arrows over
objects in the scene. These arrows can be clicked to display a
menu to carry out different actions on these objects. There also
places its default view above the head and some distance back.
This increases the field of view allowing easier interaction with
objects that are close to the avatar. This goes some way to
smoothing the interactions that take place in There between
avatars, and in particular around objects.
There supports some remarkably smooth, although not
unproblematic, interactions around objects. In the example in
figure two, the first author (known as ‘Ba’) is giving a tour to a
new player (‘Bo’). Earlier the users had landed a hoverboat to
look round a forest and after deciding to get back in the boat the
users search around to locate the boat once again. After a minute
of searching, Ba resorts to ‘retrieving’ the boat – an in-game
function that retrieves objects to where the player is. When he
sees that Bo has noticed the retrieved boat he climbs onboard,
followed by Bo, and they take off.
Figure 1: A screenshot from There
A special focus of our study was the interactions between players
in the game. Most ethnographic studies of online worlds have
sought, in a broadly anthropological way, to study online culture.
In comparison in this study we have focused much more on the
details of the interactions between players. Like any online world,
There is an unusual conversational environment, and special
attention has been paid to chat and interaction in There’s design.
We were therefore interested in how interaction proceed with the
resources provided.
1) Ba: Wana get back on the boat? 2) Bo: yes
To study this we collected videos of our experiences inside There,
and our interactions with other players. These videos could be
viewed multiple times to look in detail at how certain interactions
were carried out. To analyse the video data we broadly followed
an interaction analysis approach [26]. This involved shared data
analysis sessions where we repeatedly observed key incidents
recorded from our time in There. One of the key inspiration we
used for this work was Sacks’ observations on ordinary interaction
[43], allowing us some useful comparison between There and
real-world naturally occurring interactions and conversation. 3) Ba: Where did we leave it? 4) Bo: I don t know
Bo: ‘? (Ba retrieves the boat)
6. RESULTS
While There has only been commercially open for a relatively
short period of time, it has gained considerable media attention
and some popularity [51]. This suggests that its designers have
had some success in producing an engaging environment, as does
our experiences playing There, and our conversations with other
players. Of specific interest were two questions about There:
what form does play take in this environment and how have users
appropriated There to support that play? We address these
5) Ba: Hey Bo! 6) (Ba gets on boat, Bo gets on
questions in four main sections: things and money, chat and the boat and Ba takes off)
role of the game as topic, identity, and the ‘place’ that is There.
Figure 2: Conversation around a boat
While these interactions may not seem a source of enjoyment or a
form of play in themselves, interaction around objects is a key
part of everyday activity [28]. Most real world games feature
some sort of interaction around an object – such as a football. The
players in this clip co-ordinate their activities (search, retrieval
and discovery) without having to explicitly describe to each other
what they are doing– both users search the local area, and are seen
by each other to be searching. At the end of the clip, after
beckoning Bo, Ba sees Bo walking towards the boat – he does not
need further confirmation to jump on the boat. The orientation of
each avatar in this example allows what each user sees to be
predictable. A key part of this short interaction is how the object
of the hoverboat exists not as a single user object but as an object
shared between the two players.
Not all interactions around objects are as unproblematic in There.
In particular, gaze and orientation is only grossly available so, for
example, an avatar’s orientation towards a particular seat on the
boat would be unavailable (and in our other extracts this causes
problems with negotiating who sits where). Yet this is an
example of a straightforward successful collective social action,
analogous to a real world situation where we drop ours keys and
find them again with a friend's help. That players can reliably
interact around objects is a crucial building block in enabling
more complex interactions in There.
Along with their use in the 3D environment, objects can also be
made, bought and sold on an E-bay style auction website. This
takes the form of a separate 2D web interface that allows players
to buy and sell objects. While this 2D web interface is perhaps
easier to use than a 3D interface, the move is with some cost. As
with real world shopping aspects of identity creation are done
through the purchasing and display of objects, such as in the form
of avatar clothing. Indeed, one of the main activities in There is
making and selling clothes. Many players have large collections
of outfits – one player we spoke to talked about having over one
hundred outfits, with each outfit costing around US$2 on average.
Unfortunately, the buying and selling interface is only a single
user interface. The move from 3D to 2D interface has been at the
cost of the collaborative features of the virtual environment. This
makes one of the most important activities in There – shopping - a
single user activity. Players who wish to shop online together
need to constantly switch between the 2D and 3D environments
and manage the connection with talk or chat.
As with aspects of consumerism more generally, the economic
features of There are a source of some controversy for players.
Since there are only limited ways of earning money in There, the
game’s currency (‘Therebucks’) is usually bought with real
money. Indeed, this is a key way in which the company that
designed There makes money from the virtual world. As an
example, the hoverboat, in figure one costs around fifteen (real)
dollars. The lack of opportunities for making Therebucks has
encouraged some entrepreneurship amongst players. One player
flew to a great height in the world and bookmarked this location.
The user then started to offer “skydiving” tours where he would
transport players to that height, for a charge, so they could freefall
down into the world. However, this enterprise failed after only
two paying customers, since these customers themselves
bookmarked the sky-high location. This user then turned to
selling virtual t-shirts advertising the skydiving tours, making
more money from the virtual t-shirts than the tour itself.
In ways like this the complex uses of objects in There builds on
the actions shown here – interaction, transportation, trading - to
produce complex compound activities such as skydiving into
falling cars, or making short films which are recorded in-game.
Importantly, objects in There have taken on a social function, in
that they centre the collaborative activities within the game and
produce opportunities for social action.
As Duck argues in his work on friendship it is through
experiencing enjoyable activities together that we perform our
friendships and relationships [14]. This is a view of social
relationships as collective action. By choosing to do leisure
activities with certain people they become our friends. Yet over
the Internet there has generally been very little opportunity for
‘social action’, for ordinary shared social experiences together
with others. Social action on the internet has tended to be limited
to text communication, such as in message boards, or chat rooms.
While these are obviously powerful mediums, they are very
different from face to face interactions. By offering a range of
collective activities around objects, There expands the opportunity
for social action.
What is crucial here is a sense of acting together around objects –
such as skydiving, trading, travelling around the world, playing
cards and such building up a shared history of collective
experiences. Work on other online games, such as Everquest has
also suggested the importance of shared activities in producing
enjoyable experiences, for example, [46] argue that a key feature
of guilds is their shared activities in the game.
6.2 Chat
Along with interactions around objects, chat – what players say to
each other – is an important part of There. As evidenced by the
popularity of instant messaging, chat can be a valuable and
enjoyable part of online interaction. While previous research has
uncovered problems with text chat, such as the out of turn
sequencing of turns [40], less attention has been given to the
temporal aspects of text chat. That is, the timing of chat as it is
typed. These aspects are particularly important in There since,
unlike IRC or IM, text is displayed in speech bubbles which rise
above users as they type each word [11]. In its design There takes
the use of speech bubbles in systems such as Habitat [39] or
Comic Chat [36], and applies this to a 3D environment. Since
sentences are shown as they are typed, the system affords some
dynamic features of chat, with overlapping typing visible on
screen as turns unfolding simultaneously. For example, in this
extract a group of users are arranging where to meet up in the UK
(the square brackets show overlapping typing, the numbers in
round brackets are notable pauses):
Jim: We have arranged Internet meets not
for this program but for IRC and
worlds.com the best place to (.5s)
hold a (1s) meet is (9s)[Birmingham]
Sam: [Holland?]
One player suggests meeting in Birmingham, but his pause allows
a second player to heckle him, completing the sentence with a
joke destination.
Overlapping talk affords replying to chat as it is produced, rather
than waiting to the end of a turn, hastening conversation. Chat in
There is thus unusual in that, rather than having only one speaker
at a time, the system supports overlapping chat. In this extract a
user replies while the previous turn is still unfolding:
Jo: Something as simple as town hall
meetings should be a
[requirement of each subcommittee
thing]
Sue: [I agree or more vocal] webpage at
there.com would be nice
Sue’s reply agrees with Jo’s suggestion before she has finished,
displaying an assumption about how Jo’s suggestion will finish.
This display of chat as it is produced limits the time in which
players are waiting for others’ turns to end and mitigates some of
the frustrations of slow typing:
Jo: Maybe they read but don’t respond
Sue: Or can’t [officially respond]
Gail: [well they used to] really
respond and gleam info from the
forums
In this extract following Sue’s collaborative production of a
sentence (as in [43, vol I, p144]), Gail’s ‘really respond’
acts as a contrast right after Sue’s ‘officially respond’,
even though her sentence started before Sue had finished. The
slow movement of the speech bubbles up the screen can also work
as a resource when entering a new conversation or walking past
conversing groups – the bubbles allow users to see at a glance the
previous turns in a conversation and thus quickly gain a rough
concept of the topic of the conversation.
However, the use of speech bubbles does not come without cost.
Speech bubbles occlude much of the environment as they are
relatively large and each bubble may only contain a small segment
of the conversation.. To prevent overlapping speech bubbles,
There also needs to puts users into a specific ‘conversation’ mode
when it detects a stable conversation, moving users into positions
where their speech bubbles will not overlap (as in figure one). As
with all modes, users need to issue an explicit command to leave.
While this does solve problems with achieving positioning of
avatars during conversation [1], it does put limits on the number
of participants in a conversation as well as the possibility of
interaction around objects. Large groups also lead to problems
with speech bubbles overlapping on screen. Simultaneous chat
can also lose the sequential positioning of turns. This can cause
confusion regarding who players are addressing their talk to, and
players often need to use naming (such as in figure one) to
disambiguate turns.
6.2.1 Topic
The social interaction in chat rooms often disintegrates into
'trivial, useless, sex-oriented’ babble. (Esther Dyson, quoted in
the New York Times [38])
Much of the conversation in There concerns There itself. For
example, glitches (bugs or mistakes in the system) are common
topics of conversation with users often manipulating the glitches
to produce bizarre actions that are otherwise impossible. In one
‘glitch’ two users found themselves superimposed upon each
other. This allowed the players to appear as a combination of two
people, causing much play and conversation around the bizarre
combined body. Glitches have become ‘local resources’ for
conversation, topics for discussion as much as problems or bugs in
the system (see also [43, vol ii –p92].
This topicalisation of the game itself can also be seen in how
gestures have moved from a resource for conversation to a topic.
Gestures pervade conversation in There, and, as with emoticons
[24], players have adopted these gestures to communicate lost
aspects (e.g. emotions, illocutionary force) of face-to-face
conversation. However, gestures have also become a topic of
conversation in themselves. Users discuss the different gestures,
and tutor each other in using them effectively. Support for
gestures has even led users to exchange ways of producing avatar
‘dances’. Using keyboard macro software, different, otherwise
unrelated gestures, can be combined to make avatars ‘dance’ on
screen. Indeed, ‘dancing competitions’ have even become popular
where avatars compete for prizes for elaborate or inventive
‘dances’.
In this way much of the chat in There is actually about There. As
Sacks remarks, in some cultures there are topics that are
inexhaustible as topics: they are “intrinsically rich, in the sense
that whatever it is that members of that culture tend to talk about
[…] they can talk about via that thing.” [43, Vol i - p178] In
American youth culture, Sacks observes that topics such as
‘respect’ can be discussed - often at great length – through talking
instead about cars. This can also be seen in There:
Jo: The advisory board seem really closed
[off to the untrained eye.]
Gail: [Well if you have any time Jo get on
the IM with them let em] know
Jo: I’m not sure my little voice would
make a difference=
Gail: =oh please woman [you are
public beta 1 you people get mad
respect from there]
Sue: [every
little bit helps I don’t think it is
due to a lack of listening] more a
slow development turn around
While the topic here is ostensive the system itself, matters such as
showing each other respect, and organisational politics are
covered through a conversation about the system. So while chat
in There often concerns There itself, like with any group of
enthusiasts, other topics are addressed through that topic.
6.3 Status and identity
In the classic text based MUDs there is often a differentiation
between ‘mortals’ [33] - ordinary game players, and ‘immortals’ –
players with special abilities who are usually involved in running
the game. In newer games such as Everquest or Star Wars
Galaxies this has developed into ‘levelling up’ – player characters
gaining levels through completing in-game tasks, with different
levels having different abilities.
While There does have levels for users, such as ‘socialisation’ or
‘boarding’ level, the advantages of higher levels are limited. This
makes levelling up less of a goal in There. However, one clear
visible divide that does exist is between trial users (who play for a
limited time for free) and paying users. Trial users have no
money to buy clothes, and so are usually adorned with a plain
white t-shirt and slacks, in contrast to the colourful outfits of other
players.
Indeed, appearance is a major focus in There, with avatar clothing
used to present an identity in the world and differentiating oneself
from others. While much of the research on virtual online worlds
has argued that online identity is more flexible and transitory than
real world identity [50], with users experimenting with changes
such as trans-gendered identities, identity in There is a relatively
stable and persistent phenomena. The system itself presents
barriers to maintaining multiple identities; users can only have one
avatar per account, with a fixed gender and name which is decided
before a user even enters the game. There also creates a
standardized home page for each player, listing their interests, the
clubs they are a member, a biography and a virtual and real photo.
These features encourage the maintenance and creation of a single
online identity, with a fixed gender.
This stability assists the formation of stable relationships – users
create virtual relationships listing each other on their ‘buddy’ list.
Indeed, our experiences with identity manipulation in There met
with considerable resistance from other players. When we
experimented with logging into other accounts, this generated
hostility from our ‘buddies’ who felt we were misleading them,
and subverting the relationships they had built up. Even
experimenting with changing our avatar’s body shape was a
source of complaint.
6.4 Place
The last issue we discuss concerns the role of place in There.
Since Harrison and Dourish’s critique of the notions of space in
CVE design [25], the role of places in coding and controlling
behaviour has been a strong theme of CSCW work. Harrison and
Dourish emphasise how places are culturally invested with
understandings of appropriate behaviour. One aspect of this
‘cultural coding’ is the practical constraints put on activity by the
presence of objects and other people. Often our actions are
controlled simply by the configurations of objects and people that
are in different places. That is to say, what we can do in different
places is constrained by what is actually in different places.
In There constraints on behaviour are to an extent imposed by the
system. So although the different ‘islands’ in There are
differentiated considerably in terms of their design, style and
appearance, it is these constraints on action which configure
activity more than appearance. For example, some areas are
specifically designated to support particular activities, such as
paintball or buggy racing. This is not just a cultural coding, since
these areas contain roads for driving buggies on, or a flat clear
area for playing paintball. These activities are fairly incompatible
with conversation - talking in the middle of a paintball game
would be difficult with other players attempting to shoot around
you. Alternatively, in the drop off points where new players enter
the game there are usually a large crowd of players ‘hanging out’
available for, and engaged in, chat. These places not only have a
reputation as being where to go to chat, but there is a practical
motivator for this, since they are the busiest places in There, full
of new players. The different places in There thus comes in part
from the practical organisation of There. Place has come from the
way objects and other avatars behave and interact. That is, from
practical significance rather than an arbitrary assignment
culturally.
Overall, There is also a distinct place in itself, with its actions
coded and restrained technologically, different from real world
interactions. One aspect of the ‘place’ of There is that a player’s
presence in There indicates an availability (and willingness) for
interaction. Conversations are relatively easy to start in There,
since one can just walk up and join a group, or simply greet an
individual and see if they respond.
Encouraging interactions between strangers has been a goal of a
number of CSCW systems [29, 34], usually with little success -
interaction with strangers is a heavily regulated activity. While
we frequently interact with strangers (such as with shop staff), the
interactions we have are strongly regulated. Yet there are
situations where new interactions are accepted and even usual. As
Goffman observes: “[an] illustration of the open regions provided
by convivial occasion is carnivals […] the assumption of mutual
regard and good will built into open regions guarantees a rationale
for discounting the potential nefariousness of contact among the
unacquainted” [21, p136]. Initiation of interaction between the
unacquainted is less likely to be rebuked, by common implicit
agreement.
In this way, There shares some features of an open region, such as
a carnival or a party. Presence in the environment indicates
availability for interaction. If participants are already in
conversation this can affirm this availability. The explicit
commitment that individuals have to make to play There – as with
joining a distinct social place such as a carnival or a party - acts as
a way of signifying a distinct set of time constraints and
commitments. While this availability for interaction can be a
strength of the environment, as with parties it creates problems
with leaving conversations. Players who leave a conversation
usually account for why they are leaving:
Sam: Well I’m going to look around. It’s
been nice talking to you. Cya!
Dee: Well I’m going to get my boarding
skills up somemore. Toodies :-)
The ‘place’ of There also suffers from the complications that its
inhabitants are not ‘in’ the environment, but are simply using a
computer simulation. As highlighted by Bowers et al [5] this
produces the problem of alignment between avatar and real world
activities - players are often engaged with real world
contingencies, with no sign of this on their avatar. As an added
complication, with a system such as There users may also be busy
in other windows – such as checking their mail or shopping using
the system’s 2D web interface.
Absences from interaction cause confusion for other players, since
they encounter a ‘dead’ avatar that does not reply, and appears to
ignore their conversational opening. For example, here a user does
not reply to her name for 23 seconds prompting a question about
if she is away from the computer smoking:
Sue: Gail, (23s)
Sue: smoking?
Jo: I think so
The developers of There have taken some effort to counter these
problems –the system displays sunglasses on an avatar who is
using their computer in another window, and a small microphone
if a player in an instant messenger conversation.

Figure 3: players avatars left in the environment
Players themselves deal with some of these problems through the
placing of their avatars in the environment looking into space.
Players often leave their avatars in a position and orientation such
that their avatars are “looking at nothing” when they are busy
elsewhere. Indeed, the environment is often littered with avatars
composed this way (figure 3). Although the appearance of these
‘awaying’ avatars can be disconcerting, players are indicating
their unavailability for interaction. As Sacks comments in
ordinary life we rarely stare into space for long periods of time –
we occupy ourselves: “it’s not a usual thing to do, to say well this
evening I’m going to examine that corner of the ceiling.” [43, vol
ii - p217]. In this sense figure three might seem unusual, yet it is
specifically because we do not normally stair into space that this
stance can be used. While it is possible that these players have
chosen to examine a particular part of the environment in detail,
that it is unlikely can be used to indicate another involvement.
This politely manages unavailability for interaction, players’
avatars in figure three are in There but their owners are shown to
be busy elsewhere,
7. DISCUSSION
Now we have given an overview of There and some aspects of
users’ orientations within the environment we will draw out two
points for further discussion: the development of shared social
action and the role of structure in the game.
7.1 Enjoyment and Social Action
Computer gaming has always been a social affair – the original
video game “Pong” was, after all, a two player game [45]. The
massively multi-player environments of There and other games
bring this even more to the fore. This is at the heart of what makes
There enjoyable – it supports, in a crude, though still enjoyable
form, many of the ordinary activities that we engage in as part of
our social lives. Conversation is perhaps the most obvious, but
There also supports travelling, buying goods, exploring new
places and playing conventional games (such as cards). While
many of these activities are possible in single player games,
multiplayer features make these activities sociable, supporting a
community around these activities.
Some attention in the CVE community has been given to the
notion of ‘social presence’ – the sense in which users of a CVE
feel that there are real people present in the online environment
[1]. Alternatively, in the game literature the social ties formed in
online games have also been a focus [52]. However, we would
argue that both these approaches ignore the importance of social
action in CVEs. This is the ability to do things together with
others, something often enjoyable in itself. A focus on ‘social
bonds’ misses the importance of the shared activity together -
such as chat, or interaction around objects, where we perform our
friendships. Research on friendship underlies the importance and
enjoyment of leisure activities carried out in the company of
others. We would argue that it is this shared activity in itself
which is pleasurable and a goal for players, rather than necessarily
making new social bonds.
As we mentioned earlier, There is unusual in that it encourages
and supports interactions between strangers, something which has
proved difficult to support in face-to-face settings [29]. Over
time, however, players do build up collections of ‘online buddies’.
Some players also play online with their existing friends and
family – encouraging them to join. So it is not that There is only
about doing things together with strangers, but also enjoying
social action with those you have built up a relationship. The
flexibility of There means players can choose to interact with
strangers or those they already know.
These social actions in There depend to an extent upon the
conventions for interaction developed by users, which although
similar to those used in everyday life, differ due to the very
different nature of the online world. So, while in spoken
conversation one speaker speaks at once, within There multiple
speakers can chat simultaneously. Yet speakers still use
techniques to select the next speaker, such as including their name
in their chat [44]. The placement of avatars staring into space also
makes use of the very unusualness of this behaviour to indicate a
user’s unavailability. The interactional structures of There are,
therefore, adaptations of the ordinary structures of interaction to
this new context. Players have appropriated everyday
interactional structures to overcome limitations of the system.
7.2 There as an open game
While designing for appropriation is a familiar recommendation
for the design of CSCW systems, it is still a rare feature of
computer games. Games are normally constrained around a linear
plot based involving the completion of a set number of tasks [17].
However, in There much of the play has come from the creation
of new activities - heckling, joking, dancing, skydiving and the
like. As Hughes’ work on playground games [32] shows, children
invent whole repertoires of new rules around traditional games,
provided sufficient resources are available. For children in a
playground this can be as simple as chalk markings, free time, and
a ball (e.g. [22]). In There these resources were its flexible
support for chat and interaction around a range of objects.
Consequently, this means that There is as much a platform for
gaming and play, as it a specific game in itself. There provides
resources for users, but it is users themselves who decide what
form their play will take. There has been appropriated for play by
its users in ways not intended by its designers, such as in how
accidental glitches in the system have become opportunities for
play and conversation. The social online environment, and fan
websites around the game all produce an environment supportive
of appropriation with sharing of new activities.
Yet this flexibility does come at some cost - There presents a
problem to users in that they need to decide what to do next,
rather than have a preset goal or task. Users must find their own
activities in the game and negotiate their participation in group
activities. Enjoying There thus involves some of the commitment
and organisation of real world activities. While the open nature of
There supports playful appropriation, it in turn require
commitment from its users. The key problem for users in There is
‘what will I do next?’
There’s open nature also gives it a more ‘playful’ form than many
other games. Sacks [43, vol i - p475] remarks that in children
games mistakes are seldom serious, since the games are short and
imaginary. Yet due to the persistent and competitive nature of
online games mistakes, such as loosing objects, often have serious
consequences. In There, however, the consequences of losing
objects are minor, since missing objects can be easily ‘retrieved’.
In the situations discussed in figure one, although the players lose
their hoverboat, Ba can ‘retrieve’ the boat easily. The lack of a
competitive goal allows for a safe environment where users can
play with different activities without conflict with their overall
goals or broader enjoyment.
8. LESSONS FOR CVEs, GAMES AND
BEYOND
By successfully supporting interaction in a CVE, There produces
an enjoyable social gaming experience. We draw a number of
lessons from There for both the design of games, CVEs and
collaborative systems more generally.
8.1 Objects and talk: building blocks of play
At a basic level, the necessity of interactions around objects
underlines the importance of prosaic design features in CVEs such
as the default position of the camera, and the control method used.
Certainly, the keyboard and mouse method used is a standard and
successful way of controlling movement. The split in functionality
between the 3D environment and 2D web pages that are used for
buying and selling objects is also a promising feature. 2D web
pages offer a quicker interface for certain actions. CVEs and
Games may therefore benefit from splitting their functionality
between a 3D and 2D interface. One shortcoming of this split in
There is the lack of collaboration around these web pages. 2D
interfaces could therefore be augmented with support for
collaboration, such as in systems which support collaborative web
browsing [37].
Another promising feature is the presentation of chat as part of the
game world. While other online gaming environments feature
more complex graphics, or richer game worlds, There succeeds in
how it supports chat – a basic building block of online interaction
- in a more natural way than other environments. Although there
are some disadvantages to the speech bubbles used in There, they
do offer a more versatile resource for chat that using a separate
chat window (as in Everquest). In particular, the ability to see
turns as they are composed allows for overlapping turns – a
resource that can be used to hasten conversation, or even for
jokes. The technique of displaying text as it is typed is a feature
that could also be applied to other chat systems such as instant
messaging.
8.2 Supporting social action
One key finding above was the importance of social action in
There and how the environment supports a sense of activities
being carried out together with others. For example, activities
could be designed to require the co-ordination of groups of
individuals, encouraging collaboration. Skydiving into a car in
There involves co-ordination, since one player needs to drop the
car from high up, while the second player jump into the car as it
falls. The pleasure of this activity comes in part from the
difficulty in co-ordinating actions together. This suggests a key
design goal for future multiplayer games will be supporting in
game social activities. Economic transactions are one activity that
could be enhanced in this way – with greater support for
negotiation and interaction during the exchange of objects.
Systems could also assist in producing a sense of group activity
and belonging amongst users. For example, a system could
automatically generate a history of what a group does together
(such as in the form of a weblog), or of allocating a special game
area to a particular group.
The formation of groups and relationships in There are facilitated
by its successful at supporting interaction between strangers. One
aspect of this is that presence in the environment provides ticket
for interaction between strangers. This suggests a lesson for the
design of systems that require interaction between strangers: these
systems should require some sort of commitment from
participants to a setting which is differentiated from ordinary
interaction. In that way a setting may work to produce an
availability for interaction amongst participants. This also
suggests that interaction between strangers will be harder around
technologies which require little commitment to their use – such
as, for example, museum exhibits [29], compared to those where
there is a clear divide from ordinary interaction - such as in a tour
group. More success may be had in settings where participants
can show an availability for interaction with others.
8.3 Designing for play
The players of There have shown considerable originality in adopt
the flexibility of the environment to support their play. There is an
example of a game where its designers have not overly
constrained what players can do, instead allowing communities of
players to form who exchange new activities and forms of play
with each other.
A final lesson then we would draw concerns how one can thus
design for play. The key here is to implement resources for play
that can be combined and used in different ways. A key
characteristic of these resources (such as the support for gestures
or chat in There) is that actions are visible to others, and can be
combined together in new ways. A ball and a field, for example,
are unremarkable in themselves, but support a remarkable range
of games when combined. Their flexibility comes from how
players themselves invent new activities around them.
Resources for play may not even be explicitly designed, since
accidents can also be appropriated (such as with the system
glitches). Indeed, resources which support play perhaps all share
the feature that when they are successful their use will extend
beyond that conceived by their designers.
9. CONCLUSION
This paper has focused on three aspects of There’s use. First, we
have described how play in There depends upon the building
blocks of smooth interaction around objects and chat between
players. While these are not dramatic features, they enable many
of the richer interactions in this game. Second, we discussed the
open design of There and in particular how users have
appropriated features of There to support their play in
unpredictable ways. Lastly, we discussed the importance of social
action in There, and how players can carry out social activities
with other players. There also supports social action with
strangers, something that has proved difficult in face-to-face
settings.
Virtual environments, perhaps more than any other application,
have suffered from hyperbolic accounts of their impact and
development. Exaggerated claims of ‘replacing reality’ place
unrealistic goals onto systems, and may, as Fraser et al argue,
undermine the goal of designing compelling CVEs [18]. The
nature of There and other virtual environments as games should
be kept in mind – they do not replace social encounters or life in
the real world. Although for some users they can become
obsessions on the whole they fulfil the traditional roles of
enjoyment and enrichment, a role that games have traditionally
played along with movies, music and fiction.
It is easy to dismiss games as of little significance, certainly when
compared with more weighty topics or activities. Yet games
occupy our attention for longer than many of the traditional office
applications studied within CSCW. It is not only that games are
an interesting new application of collaborative systems, but that in
looking at games CSCW has the opportunity to consider new
purposes for the systems we design, and new social benefits that
they can produce.
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Jon Hindmarsh, Matthew
Chalmers, Carl Gutwin, Eric Laurier, and our anonymous
reviewers for useful comments on the paper. Both the authors
work is supported by the Equator EPSRC grant (GR/N15986/01).
11. REFERENCES
[1] Becker, B. and Mark, G. Social Conventions in Computer
Mediated Communication: A Comparison of Three Online
Shared Virtual Environments. in Schroeder, R. ed. The
Social Life of Avatars, 2002.
[2] Benford, S., Bowers, J.M., et al. User Embodiment in
Collaborative Virtual Environments. in Proceedings of
Chi'95, Denver, Colorado., ACM Press, 1995.
[3] Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., et al. Experiments in Inhabited
Tv. in Proceedings of CHI 98, Los Angeles, California.,
ACM Press, 1998.
[4] Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., et al. Funology: From
Usability to Enjoyment. Klewer, 2003.
[5] Bowers, J., O'Brien, J., et al. Practically Accomplishing
Immersion: Cooperation in and for Virtual Environments. in
Proceedings of CSCW 1996, Cambridge, Ma., ACM Press,
New York, 1996, 380-389.
[6] Brown, B. and Chalmers, M. Tourism and Mobile
Technology. in Kuutti, K., Karsten, E.H., Fitzpatrick, G.,
Dourish, P. and Schmidt, K. eds. Proceedings of ECSCW
2003, Helsinki, Finland, Klewer Academic Press, Dordrecht,
2003, 335-355.
[7] Bruckman, A. Gender Swapping on the Internet, Presented at
The Internet Society (INET '93) in San Fransisco, California,
1993. http://www.ramsch.org/martin/uni/fmi-
frauen/A.S.Bruckman.html
[8] Caillois, R. Man, Play and Games. Thames and Hudson,
London, 1962.
[9] Castronova, E. Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of
Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier, CESifo
Working Paper no. 618, 2001. <http://papers.ssrn.com>,
2001
[10] Churchill, E.F., Snowdon, D., et al. (eds.). Collaborative
Virtual Environments. Digital Places and Spaces for
Interaction. Springer Verlag, London, UK., 2001.
[11] Clanton, C. and Ventrella, J. Avatar Centric Communication
in There, Stanford seminar on people, computers and design,
Stanford University, 2003. http://stanford-
online.stanford.edu/murl/cs547/
[12] Curtis, P. Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual
Realities. Intertek, 3 (3). 26-34.
[13] Dourish, P. The State of Play. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work Journal (JCSCW), 7 (1-2). 1-7.
[14] Duck, S. Friends: The Psychology of Personal Relationships.
Harvester, 1991.
[15] Dyck, J., Pinelle, D., et al. Learning from Games: Hci Design
Innovations in Entertainment Software. in Proceedings of
Graphics Interface 2003, 2003.
[16] Frasca, G. Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes from a
Debate That Never Took Place. in Copier, M. and Raessens,
J. eds. Proceedings of Levelup 2003, DIGRA, 2003.
[17] Frasca, G. Sim Sin City: Some Thoughts About Grand Theft
Auto 3. Game Studies, 3 (2).
[18] Fraser, M., Glover, T., et al. Revealing the Reality of
Collaborative Virtual Reality. in Proc. Third ACM
Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (Cve
2000), ACM Press, 2000, 29-37.
[19] Gaver, W. The Affordances of Media Spaces for
Collaboration. in Proceedings of Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Cscw'92. Toronto, Canada., ACM Press,
1992, 17-24.
[20] Gaver, W., Boucher, A., et al. The Drift Table: Designing for
Ludic Engagement. in Proceedings of CHI 2004, Vienna.,
ACM Press, 2004.
[21] Goffman, E. Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social
Organization of Gatherings. Free Press, 1985.
[22] Goodwin, C. Action and Embodiment within Situated
Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32. 1489-1522.
[23] Grinter, R.E. and Eldridge, M. Y Do Tngrs Luv 2 Txt Msg?
in Prinz, W., Jarke, M., Rogers, Y., Schmidt, K. and Wulf, V.
eds. Proceedings of ECSCW '01, Kluwer Academic Press,
Dodrecht, 2001, 219-238.
[24] Guye-Vuillieme, A. and Capin, T.K. Non-Verbal
Communication Interface for Collaborative Virtual
Environments. Virtual Reality Journal, 4. 49-59.
[25] Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. Re-Plac-Ing Space: The Roles of
Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. in Proceedings of
CSCW '96, ACM Press, Boston, Mass., 1996, 67-76.
[26] Heath, C. and Luff, P. Technology in Action. Cambridge
university press, Cambridge, 2000.
[27] Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., et al. Fragmented Interaction:
Establishing Mutual Orientation in Virtual Environments. in
Proceedings of CSCW 1998, Seattle, Wa., ACM Press, 1998,
217-226.
[28] Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., et al. Object-Focused Interaction
in Collaborative Virtual Environments. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7 (4). 477-509.
[29] Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., et al. Creating Assemblies: Aboard
the Ghost Ship. in Proceedings of CSCW 2002, ACM Press,
2002, 156-165.
[30] Hine, C. Virtual Ethnography. Sage, London, UK, 2000.
[31] Holmquist, L.E., Björk, S., et al. What About Fun and
Games? in Ljungberg, F. ed. Informatics in the Next
Millennium, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden., 1999.
[32] Hughes, L. Beyond the Rules of the Game, Why Are Rooie
Rules Nice? in Manning, F. ed. World of Play: Proceedings
of 7th Annual Meeting of the Association of the
Anthropological Study of Play, 1983.
[33] Jakobsson, M. and Taylor, T.L. The Sopranos Meets
Everquest - Social Networking in Massively Multiuser
Networking Games. fineArt forum, 17 (8).
[34] Jancke, G. Linking Public Spaces: Technical and Social
Issues. in Proceedings of CHI 2001, ACM Press, 2001, 530-
537.
[35] Kauppinen, A.K.K. and Robinson, M. Identity in Virtual
Communities. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 19 (3). 29-33.
[36] Kurlander, D., Skelly, T., et al. Comic Chat. in Proceedings
of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and
Interactive Techniques, ACM Press, 1996, 225--236.
[37] Lieberman, H., Dyke, N.W.V., et al. Let's Browse: A
Collaborative Web Browsing Agent. in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces,
Redondo Beach, Ca., ACM Press, 1999, 65-68.
[38] Marriott, M. Now Playing: Reality without the Downside,
January 9, 2003., The New York Times, New York, 2003
[39] Morningstar, C. and Farme, F.R. The Lessons of Lucasfilm's
Habitat. in Benedikt, M. ed. Cyberspace:First Steps, MIT
press, Cambridge, Mas., 1991, 273-302.
[40] O'Neill, J. and Martin, D. Text Chat in Action. in
Proceedings of Group '03, ACM Press, New York, 2003.
[41] Roy, D.F. Banana Time: Job Satisfaction and Informal
Interaction. Human Organization, 18. 156-168.
[42] Rutter, J. and Bryce, J. Editorial Comment. Information,
Communication and Society, 6 (4). 5-11.
[43] Sacks, H. Lectures on Conversation: Vol 1 & 2. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, 1995.
[44] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., et al. A Simplest Systematics for
the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.
Language, 50. 696-735.
[45] Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design
Fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
[46] Seay, A.F., Jerome, W.J., et al. Project Massive 1.0 :
Organizational Commitment, Sociability and Extraversion in
Massively Multiplayer Online Games. in Copier, M. and
Raessens, J. eds. Proceedings of Levelup 2003, DIGRA,
2003.
[47] Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Consequentialism. Zalta, E.N. ed.,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/consequen
tialism/
[48] Sterling, B. An Analysis of Mmog Subscription Growth,
2003. http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce/Subscriptions.html
[49] Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard Univ
Press, 2001.
[50] Turkle, S. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Gae of the
Internet. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1995.
[51] Xiong, C. Where the Girls Are; They're Online, Solving
Puzzles and Making up Characters in Narrative-Driven
Games, Wall Street Journal, 2003
[52] Yee, N. Mosaic: Stories of Digital Lives and Identities, 2002.
http://www.nickyee.com/mosaic/home.html