Blog Post

What Makes Gaming Social?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

In case we needed proof that social gaming is hot, look no further than the not one but two Silicon Valley conferences being held this month that are dedicated to the space. Yet with representatives at Interplay and the Social Gaming Summit from companies as far afield as Meebo, IMVU and Kongregate, it makes you wonder if there is anything linking these companies together at all. It’s time to define what we mean by social gaming, so that we can better focus on the actual value we are creating for the players themselves — and avoid the trap of slapping a sparkly new phrase on any gaming startup that wanders onto the scene.

Just as social networking is a tag applied to just about anything community-related on the web, it is temping to lump every game that has chat or a shared leaderboard under the social gaming umbrella. But to do so muddies the water of a category that just may be the natural progression from social networking. While social networking is focused on connecting people together, we should expect the best of social gaming to be about creating and building relationships with those friends. Not every multiplayer game is a social game, and by looking at it this way we can see that social gaming has a lot more in common with Wii Sports, Rock Band and Monopoly than it does with single-player casual games like Bejeweled or Bloons.

Texas Hold’em Poker is a great example of a synchronous social game. Playing a game of Texas Hold’em Poker with a friend tells me a host of things that last far longer than the game, including their level of aggression, willingness to bluff, and proclivity for risk. It’s also in the camp of games designed to rely on fast feedback in order to give a sense of being “there” with your fellow players. This real-time nature ties Texas Hold’em to synchronous communities that include Kart Rider, World of Warcraft and Club Penguin.

Synchronous social games feel like real-time card games at their lightest, and like Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games at their deepest. The unifier for synchronous startups such as I’minlikewithyou, Three Rings, and Habbo Hotel, is that in an increasingly “always on” world in which we are overwhelmed with choices, the high-value online communities of tomorrow will be the ones that get users past the “snacking phase” of browsing and asynchronous interactions to a place where they are engaged with each other.

This is in direct contrast to the other crop of social gaming companies, typified by Scrabuluous, that rely on turn-based asynchronous game mechanics to lower the stress level and focus on playing with your current crop of friends. Games such as Social Gaming Network’s Warbook, Ikarium, and Serious Games’ Friends for Sale have the benefit of closely matching the current behavioral model of social networks in which posting to walls and poking one other serve as the primary modes of communication. These games allow users to take time to make their decisions, they integrate well with a players current set of friends, and they do not require the “presence” that real-time games require.

Conduit Labs, the startup we founded a year ago this month, is firmly in the camp of creating a new, real-time social entertainment network. Despite this, however, I don’t think synchronous social gaming is going to “win” over asynchronous. They simply represent two very different types of play on the web, one ideal for maintaining relationships and the other for creating new ones. Just as there is room for both email and IM, there are key things that make each valuable.

To use an offline analogy, imagine trying to start a relationship, from scratch, entirely through sending snail mail back and forth. On the flip side, imagine trying to get 15 of your best friends to agree to get together at a concert. It’s a scheduling nightmare that might work in a rare situation, but you might as well just grab coffee with a couple of them at a time. In other words, synchronous gaming is a powerful way to build new relationships and have deeper interactions with current friends, asynchronous gaming is perfect for low-pressure friend/acquaintance maintenance.

What both of these modes of play have in common — and what separates them from other multiplayer games and the single-player gaming industry — is the real world social resonance of their activities. When a friend changes their relationship status on Facebook to “single” there is a emotional meaning that transcends the site. Similarly, there are the stories of Monopoly leading to long-term family feuds, to marriages that started from playing World of Warcraft, and to the effects of Rock Band on a group of friends at a party. Social gaming holds the promise of letting us have a little fun together online in a way that has meaning. That’s something worth remembering over the coming months as a slew of startups try to use the term social gaming to define everything in sight.

Written by Nabeel Hyatt, one of the co-founders of Conduit Labs.

29 Responses to “What Makes Gaming Social?”

  1. The key to social gaming in my experience was teamwork. In WoW if an objective didn’t require assistance then it would usually be done solo in the hope to accomplish your goal with greater efficiency. In fact, many people go out of their way to try to accomplish goals meant for multiple people by themselves for the bragging rights.

    Social interaction in WoW particularly comes from the NEED to have someone else help you. In the chat channels you will usually find people advertising for help with a quest, help to have something made etc. It would not be the same game it is today if it weren’t for the necessity of other players to attain certain goals.

  2. Tom Johnston

    Hi, interesting article, i’d like to raise you on a couple of points you made.

    You state that

    “They simply represent two very different types of play on the web, one ideal for maintaining relationships and the other for creating new ones”

    I’ve been doing a lot of research recently in the UK, talking to teenagers about social gaming. We’ve spoken to over 30 teenagers and only 1 of them claims to have created a new relationship through gaming. He got to know a guy through XBOX live and met up with him IRL when he came over to England from the states. However, this relationship died down when he went back to America.

    What we’ve found is that social gaming is good at reinforcing existing offline friendships: giving teens the chance to share experiences, talk about games, compete, and show off their records. Games can form the backdrop to important friend bonding times, but many ‘social’ games are bad at bringing whole friendship groups together and games that do [such as WoW] are quite exclusive in their nature [many teens perceive MMORPGS to be sad and geeky].

    I was wondering what your views were on this, as i’d be really interested to talk more about it and discuss my findings in more depth.

    Thanks, Tom

  3. Great article Nabeel, I’d argue till I was a trans-gender avatoid that social gaming ‘just may be the natural progression from social networking’, it combines social interaction with competition and it don’t get much more Darwinian than that…

    With Qajack, we’re endeavouring to create the next web addiction that will seek to define everything in sight within the framework of a wholly engaging social game.

    It’s predicated on gambling with what you know. Knowledge is an asset.

  4. Hit – exactly my point. In face that is a direct quote from the last sentence of the second paragraph, “Not every multiplayer game is a social game, and by looking at it this way we can see that social gaming has a lot more in common with Wii Sports, Rock Band and Monopoly than it does with single-player casual games like Bejeweled or Bloons.”