In the relational view on firm advantage we assume – as Gulati et al. (2000, p. 203) claim – that “firms are embedded in networks of social, professional, and exchange relationships with other organizational actors.” Therefore, if we limit the focus to formal agreements only, our perspective on interorganizational relationships will remain incomplete. Indeed, as Ratajczak-Mrozek (2017, p. 4) stresses “
SR are acknowledged as relevant, but there are still some research gaps making our knowledge on SR non-comprehensive. First, so far researchers have focused mainly (if at all) on the general role of SR in different sectors (Ahmed et al., 2015; Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a,b; Hite, 2005), while in creative industries, SR have been considered much less frequently (Aoyama & Izushi, 2003; Boyd et al., 2015).
Second, it seems important to identify the benefits of SR not only in general, but referring to different types of actors, that is, business partners, employees, customers, competitors, etc. As such, studies are completely missing in the literature.
Third, there are considerations in the literature referring to social contexts, including the shared norms, habits, and routines of social groups (Cohendet et al., 2018). However, such works adopt a group-level perspective, not the individual one, even though this level is the most suitable for the interlinks among people managing organizations.
Given the above, in this paper, we extend the existing perceptions on SR and thus place our study in one of the creative industries, analyzing SR established, maintained, exploited, and terminated by a wide range of individuals operating in the video game industry (VGI). The focus is given on VGI, as it is one of the fastest-growing creative industries (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020), and SR are suggested to be critically important for its development (Balland et al., 2013; Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Cardoso et al., 2018; Gidhagen et al., 2011; Wachs & Vedres, 2021). Nonetheless, even if in some works SR are considered in VGI, the focus is placed on the relationships between and among gamers (Boyd et al, 2015; Kwon, 2022) and/or their communities (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Cohendet et al., 2020; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014), SR among industry actors such as video games developers remain outside the scientific exploration.
This article presents the results of a field study implemented through 17 in-depth interviews and 1 focus group interview with Polish video game developers. Our research has shown that building and maintaining SR with a wide range of actors – current and previous employees, gamers, competitors, and business partners, (including cooperators), investors and contractors – enables game developers to achieve multidimensional business benefits. Moreover, we show that these benefits may differ depending on the type of actor. Research findings contribute both to theory, extending the existing knowledge on the importance of SR for business activity (by type of actors) and simultaneously can be useful from a practical point of view. The findings may be interesting for game developers in the VGI growing rapidly and serving to generate economic benefits on a global scale (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020).
The aim of the paper is to explore the relevance of SR for video game developers. Our exploration takes three perspectives: the specificity of VGI as favoring SR exploitation, actors with whom valuable SR are maintained, and heterogeneous benefits of SR.
To reach the above aim, we conducted qualitative research in the form of seventeen in-depth individual interviews (IDIs) and one focus group interview (FGI) with six purposefully chosen game developers operating in Poland.
The number of scientific papers on SR has been growing for many years (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1997). Nonetheless, although they are still identified as significant for business activity in recent papers (Baggio et al. 2022; Mariani, 2016; Styvén et al., 2022), the concept of SR itself remains not clearly presented in the literature. This is because SR are complex and multidimensional (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). They may be defined by interaction with a single person – “
In this paper, after Cook and Whitmeyer (1992), we define SR as information-carrying connections between people in social networks. SR are seen as a component of social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002), while personal relationships are an element of SR (Polese, 2009). This means that SR include personal relationships but are not limited only to them (Gulati et al., 2000). In other words, SR occur not only between individuals but also between communities (i.e., collective SR). Last but not least, SR include not only private but also business and professional relationships (Polese, 2009), as they can take place both within and outside the organization (Jo & Ellingson, 2019).
SR generate many positive organizational effects (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1997), which are identified by many researchers regarding different sectors of economy. We synthetize SR benefits in Table 1.
Benefits of social relationships for business practice
Factors | Author(s), year |
---|---|
Access to resources, for example, information, tacit knowledge, experience accumulated inside informal communities | Watson, 2008; Wright et al., 2001 |
Enhance business performance (e.g., sales volume) | Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018; Chen et al., 2009 |
Provide a competitive advantage | Polese, 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2007; Letaifa & Rabeau, 2013 |
Development of employees’ competences and shaping their attitude | Lingo & Tepper, 2013; Kourtit et al., 2014 |
Increase effectiveness | Hite, 2005; Yang et al., 2011; Vilana & Monroy, 2010 |
Enable the starting of a business or staying on the market | Men & Chen, 2017; Turner, 2007 |
Enhance trustworthiness between business actors, which helps in day-to-day business activity | Jordan et al., 2016; Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a |
Improve the image of the company or its products/services | Hoang & Antoncic, 2003 |
Facilitate cooperation | Bai et al., 2021; Blatt & Camden, 2007; Chassagnon & Audran, 2011; Sun et al., 2016; Ahmed et al., 2015; Rooks et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2016 |
Enable the building of different communities (wide networks of connections), including new teams (which, thanks to SR, is easier, faster, more enjoyable, and brings satisfaction) | Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009; Tomkins, 2001; Sousa, 2005; Bapna et al., 2017 |
Support in crisis situations | Leimeister et al., 2008; Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a |
Knowledge creation, development, and sharing | Allen at al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2010; Ahmed et al., 2015; Watson, 2008; Lingo & Tepper, 2013; Kourtit, et al., 2014 |
Stimulate innovations and innovativeness | Doh & Kim, 2014; Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018; Styvén et al., 2022 |
Source: Own elaboration.
These benefits, being complementary to one another and concerning different areas of business activity, create our conceptual framework for further considerations and analysis of benefits of SR in VGI.
In the strategic management, SR are shown as impacting firm performance (Gulati et al., 2000). This finding has also some empirical support in the case of VGI (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011). It is claimed that long-term success of game developers is increasingly determined by SR (Balland et al., 2013), and that maintaining different external relationships – mainly with individuals – is of significant value (Kourtit et al., 2014). Among the actors discussed so far as relevant in the context of SR, there are mainly gamers and their communities (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet 2011; Garcia et al., 2022; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014), but there are also game developers and game developers’ employees (Balland et al., 2013; Cardoso et al., 2018; Marchand & Hennig-Thurau, 2013; Poor, 2013). Although VGI brings together various entities (e.g., developers, publishers, and creative specialists) between which there are continuous and multidirectional social relationships (Ewing, 2022), the research on the role of such SR has not been carried out so far.
So far, most interest has been given to customers, namely gamers as well as their communities (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Kleer & Kunz, 2022; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014; Poor, 2013; Tong, 2021). When it comes to gamers, there is emphasized their role in game ideation (Tschang, 2005), game development and improvement (e.g., when launching patches or even fixing bugs and glitches [de Prato et al., 2014]), game promotion (Zackariasson & Wilson, 2010), and fund-raising via crowdfunding actions (Cha, 2017; Wachs & Vedres, 2021). Moreover, gamer communities can function as online innovation communities capable of contributing not only to product development but also to co-creation and strategy processes, constituting an external dynamic capability (Orelj & Torfason, 2022).
The relevant communities of gamers include not only typical gamer or players (note that there is a difference in terms of engagement into gaming [Balland et al., 2013]) but also more engaged ones like moders (gamers able to change the gameplay or technical issues), hackers (Poor, 2013; Münch, 2013), game testers (Gidhagen et al., 2011), amateur developers (Cardoso et al., 2018), and fans of specific technologies/platforms/game genres (Klimas & Czakon, 2022). As shown in previous studies, gaming communities are based on strong SR and well-developed social norms covering a “
Additionally, although gaming communities are linked with game developers through loose, social, informal relationships, they are claimed to have a significant impact on a firm’s innovativeness in the long-term perspective (Orelj & Torfason, 2022; Parmentier & Gandia, 2013; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014). SR among gamers are claimed to appear within gaming communities but are also maintained with game developers. These relationships, based on a level of emotional engagement, feeling a sense of community, identity, and support within communities (Kwon, 2022), can be divided into three categories: membership, partnership, friendship (Boyd et al., 2015). Regarding innovativeness, social communities of gamers share ideas and knowledge, and thus are acknowledged as engaging in innovation processes (Orelj & Torfason, 2022; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014) at their different stages, including co-discovery, co-development, co-deployment, and/or co-delivery (Klimas & Czakon, 2022).
Regarding establishing and exploiting SR among game developers themselves (Klimas, 2018; Tschang, 2007; Zackariasson & Wilson, 2010), as indicated by de Prato and co-authors (2014), SR are built due to the disintermediation of the value chain, leading to the decline (and even elimination of) publishers and retailers, and later on even distributors. Game developers usually create a highly hermetic business environment based on a specific type of professionals who are simultaneously passionate about what they do (Klimas, 2017) and value highly the creative integrity of game developers (Golding et al., 2022; Styhre & Remneland-Wikhamn, 2019), reflecting a high level of mutual, intra-industry trust and thus a belief in knowledge sharing (including ideas of new products [Klimas & Czakon, 2022]).
When it comes to the intra-industry competition, it is worth adding that the recent studies point at the huge role (if not a success factor) of cooperation of competing game developers (Abanazir, 2022; Klimas & Czakon, 2018; Le Roy et al., 2022). It seems that video game developers can gain from such benefits in a coopetition context, as it is suggested that they share knowledge, ideas for new games, and even complementary technologies among themselves mainly on informal base (Klimas & Czakon, 2018). It seems that informal and interpersonal linkages of coopetitors in VGI (i.e., between game developers) may be important, as it has been proven in other industry contexts (Kallmuenzer et al., 2021).
Alongside the gamers at individual level of consideration, are employees shown as relevant in the context of exploitation of SR. Within the VGI, employees act as “
The paper presents the findings of qualitative research conducted using an interpretative paradigm (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This kind of research enables new concepts or relations to be identified, which can be particularly useful when existing knowledge is not sufficient to explain a particular issue (Graebner et al., 2012). Taking into account the limited knowledge about the importance of SR in the VGI and simultaneously the complexity of this issue, it was assumed that qualitative research of an exploratory nature would be the proper choice – as it enables to identify the various benefits of maintaining and developing SR for the activities of the research entities in its specific context (i.e., VGI) and from different perspectives, that is, different interviewees (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
The
So far, the focus in VGI research has been placed on large, global development studios (e.g., Cohendet et al., 2020) or the most valuable national industries (i.e., the dominant focus on American and Japanese markets e.g., Aoyama & Izushi, 2003; Izushi & Aoyama, 2006), leaving the game industry in countries where VGI is fast-developing and promising in a global scale (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020) under-researched (Del Bosco et al., 2020). Poland and its game developers, presented in this paper, are one such example (Klimas & Czakon, 2018; 2022).
To achieve the aim if the paper, we have purposefully chosen the representatives of Polish gaming companies, which would meet the following conditions: (1) they are well-known companies belonging to VGI; (2) they are members of associations/ groups linking actors in this sector (which was important to select firms experienced in cooperation thus potentially gaining benefits from SR) – here we used several databases available to the public and owned by one of the members of the research team who has been conducting research in this sector for years; and (3) actors are characterised by diversity in terms of the time they have been present on the market, type of product, location, number of employees, and the legal form of the business – this was intended to capture possible features of VGI actors that may affect SR built by the company’s employees and owners. Those criteria allowed us to meet the purposeful sampling requirements according to Miles and Huberman (1994), assuming that: (1) the sample is related to the research problem; (2) the phenomenon (i.e., SR), that is, the subject of the study may occur in the studied sample; (3) the selection of interlocutors will increase analytical generalizations due to the theoretical power; (4) that reliable descriptions and explanations that accurately reflect reality can be created (in the last two cases, it was ensured by the selection of important game developers operating in Poland); (5) sampling is practically feasible due to the resources of the research team and the sampling plan is ethical (e.g., all interviewees selected for the study have agreed to participate in the study and record the interview).
The research was done in two stages. In the first one (between February and March 2020), IDIs with 17 developers (mostly), but at the same time also publishers and distributors of VGI, were conducted. In the second stage (in June 2021) a FGI with six developers, but at the same time being also publishers and distributors, was conducted.
Most of research entities (in IDIs and FGI) is located in cities that are enclaves of the games industry in Poland (Wrocław, Łódź, Katowice, Kraków or Poznań). The majority of the interviewees were company owners, while some functioned as game designers or animation directors, publishing directors, senior developers, or company presidents. The oldest of companies was established in 1991, and the youngest in 2020; however, most of the companies have operated on the market usually for at least several years. The vast majority of companies were private enterprises. Most companies were micro-firms, but at the same time, there were also firms of global reach as VGI is borderless (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020) See Table A in the supplementary materials.
IDI and FGI interviewees characteristics
IDIs | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Code | Position | Year of company establishment | Locationcity | Company size (no. of employees) | Form of ownership | Range of activity | Type of activity |
1. | G1 | owner | 2007 | Katowice | middle | priv. comp. | global | GD |
2. | G2 | owner | 2012 | Katowice | middle | priv. comp. | global | GD |
3. | G3 | game designer | 2010 | Wrocław | middle | priv. comp. | global | GD |
4. | G4 | owner | 2005 | Łódź | micro | private sole | global | GD |
5. | G5 | owner | 2015 | Łódź | micro | private sole | global | GD |
6. | G6 | owner | 2005 | Kamionki | micro | private sole | global | GD |
7. | G7 | animation director | 1991 | Wrocław | Big | priv. comp. | global | GD & GP |
8. | G8 | owner | 2014 | Łódź | micro | private sole | global | GD |
9. | G9 | owner | 2014 | Poznań | micro | priv. comp. | global | GD |
10. | G10 | game designer | 2007 | Poznań | micro | private sole | global | GD |
11. | G11 | owner | 2018 | Łódź | micro | private sole | global | GD |
12. | G12 | owner | 2013 | Plewiska | micro | private sole | global | GD |
13. | R1 | owner | 2011 | Wrocław | middle | public company | global | GD |
14. | R2 | senior developer | 1999 | Wrocław | Big | priv. comp. | global | GD |
15. | R3 | senior developer | 2011 | Bielsko- Biała | small | private sole | Europe | GDS |
16. | D1 | publishing director | 2012 | Warsaw | small | priv. comp. | global | GD, GP & GDS |
17. | D2 | company president | 2015 | Warsaw | small | priv. comp. | global | GD |
FGI | ||||||||
1. | R1 | owner | 2012 | Katowice | micro | private sole | global | GD |
2. | R2 | owner | 2020 | Katowice | small | priv. comp. | global | GD |
3. | R3 | owner | 2019 | Kraków | micro | priv. comp. | global | GD |
4. | R4 | developer | 2004 | Kraków | micro | private sole | global | GD |
5. | R5 | board member, managing director | 2001 | Wrocław | small | priv. comp. | global | other |
6. | R6 | owner | 2016 | Toruń | micro | spin off | global | GD & GDS |
Abbreviations: GD – game development / GP – game publishing / GDS – game distribution Source: Own elaboration.
In the first stage (IDIs), a semi-structured interview questionnaire containing 17 questions was used. The questions concerned the way interviewees understand SR, their importance for the company’s activity and for the whole industry, SR components, and sources. In this paper, we focus on benefits of SR in VGI, including VGI features as factors stimulating SR building and development. The average interview lasted about 90 minutes.
In the second stage (FGI), the interview scenario was used. It contained instructions for a moderator and open questions asked to six FGI participants. At this stage, the aim was to deepen knowledge obtained after conducting IDIs and their analysis. The FGI lasted 2 hours and 7 minutes.
All IDIs and FGI were run in Polish, recorded, and then transcribed. IDIs analysis from the research material, consisting of several hundred pages, was coded and analyzed (under three related activities: data reduction, display and verification) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First, IDI material was analyzed. Regarding the coding process, an inductive analysis was performed with the reference to: (1) the features of the game industry as favoring the establishment of SR; and (2) the importance of SR for economic activity in the VGI. See the codebook in Table 2.
Inductive codes emerged in coding procedure of IDIs and FGI – the codebook
No. | Code in IDI | Code in FGI | Features of VGI important from the point of view of SR identified in the research | |
---|---|---|---|---|
X | Product specificity – creating products that require the building of relationships | |||
X | Creativity as being very important and stimulating SR | |||
X | X | VGI actors characterised by specific values, interests, and in particular passions | ||
X | X | VGI being small industry – people know each other | ||
X | A lack of distance, loose atmosphere in the industry | |||
X | Virtual world (online contacts) | |||
X | Building community | Gamers (including influencers) | ||
X | Building the credibility of the product and the company | |||
X | Game release | |||
X | Promotion and sale of the game | |||
X | Building the image of the company/product | |||
X | Motivating to work | |||
X | Giving feedback when the game is not satisfying gamers | |||
X | Stimulating the company’s innovation | |||
X | Finding employees | |||
X | Continuing the financial involvement of investors/shareholders | Business partners | ||
X | Increasing the sales volume | |||
X | More advantageous offers/larger assortment than contractors | |||
X | Certain services for free or in barter | |||
X | Knowledge transfer (including tacitly) | |||
X | X | Help in crisis, unusual or problem situations | ||
X | Faster, more direct contact | |||
X | Staying on the market | |||
X | X | Starting cooperation, making it easier, realizing it at a lower cost | ||
X | Creating a network of contacts for the future | |||
X | Finding employees | |||
X | Limiting inappropriate behaviour | |||
X | Possibility of doing business | Employees (previous and current) | ||
X | Building a team and ensuring the employment of valuable employees in the future, thanks to a good working atmosphere that motivates to work | |||
X | Easier, cheaper, faster, and more effective recruitment process | |||
X | Increase of work efficiency | |||
X | An easier way to communicate and work | |||
X | Greater transparency, easier way to control what is happening in the company by employees | |||
X | X | Increase of innovativeness | ||
X | Reliable performance of painstaking work | |||
X | Maintaining good relationships for the future | Competitors | ||
X | Sharing knowledge | |||
X | Mitigating tensions among competitors |
Source: Own elaboration.
In this way, two groups of factors, that is, the features of the game industry as favoring the establishment of SR and SR benefits in VGI, were identified. Afterward, FGI material was analyzed in order to develop those two lists of elements. As deductive codes to code the FGI transcript, there were used codes that we obtained inductively from the IDIs analysis. Some of those codes, after the coding process, appeared in FGI transcript, which means that FGI allowed to confirm some particular features of VGI important for SR and SR benefits with gamers, business partners, and employees – see Table 2 with codebook. However, FGI was done not only in order to confirm or deepen our IDIs findings, but also to shed new light on the researched phenomenon, that is, to identify factors that could not be discovered during IDI. FGI allowed to reveal some new benefits of SR (e.g., codes no. 2.9., 3.10., 3.11.), including benefits with a new group of entities, that is, competitors (codes no. 5.1.-5.3.). Table 2 shows which codes occurred during which research stage. The findings of both stages made it possible to obtain a coherent picture of the issue under study, which allowed the authors to better and more fully understand it. Finally, the identified SR benefits in the VGI were put together with the more general benefits of SR in other sectors of the economy (as identified in the Table 1) and either detailed those benefits – but in the context of VGI – or extended the list if specific groups of SR benefits, which were not previously identified in the literature.
In order to increase the trustworthiness of the research (Guba, 1981), certain activities were undertaken, including organizing meetings in places proposed by the interviewees, thus assuring them conditions to speak freely (IDIs were conducted face-to-face, since they were done prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and FGI was carried out remotely); presenting a thick description of the phenomenon through collection and analysis of field notes and preparing full transcriptions; setting up a detailed protocol; creating and checking the full transcripts and codes in order to assure dependability; and using triangulation of interviewees in order to ensure different views on the issue being analyzed. The findings, along with quotes from the interviews that provide the thick description (Geertz, 1973) being crucial in qualitative research, are presented in the next section of this paper.
For the presentation of the research findings, quotations from the research were used, which enrich the discussion and conclusions from the research and allow the reader to put a voice to the interviewees and understand them better (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The research findings are presented in two main parts. The first one entitled “
Based on our research findings, it can be said that SR appear as indispensable element of business activity in VGI to a large extent because of the characteristics of the industry itself. The six features of VGI, determining the relevance of SR for business activities, identified in our research, are connected to the: (1) VGI product specificity; (2) key role of creativity in VGI; (3) specific values, interests, and passions of VGI actors; (4) relative small size of VGI; (5) informal atmosphere among close-knit VGI community; and (6) a virtual contact domination. In the following considerations, we refer to each of the six VGI characteristics.
The VGI creates products that require the building of relationships as the development process is implemented through projects. Moreover, games are less and less able to be made independently without technological or artistic support from experts; thus, the projects are run by interdisciplinary teams:
Key role of creativity in VGI VGI is one of the creative industries. In our study, it was emphasized that SR are the source of creativity underlying the dominant logic of game developers:
All of the actors in the industry are characterised by specific values, interests, and in particular passions, which are a way of life and at the same time connect people in the form of SR:
VGI when compared to other high-tech industries is small; hence, people in it know each other, which may lead to SR:
VGI is characterised by a lack of distance, with the atmosphere in the industry (including inside individual companies) most often loose, and with contacts informal – often using first names at work is based on merit, and it is not formal authority that decides, all of which favors contact based on SR:
[Relations]
Because the product developed in VGI are digital, they are developed in a cyberspace, and a large part of the relations of the project teams takes place in the virtual world, for example, with the use of Skype, Slack, Zoom, Google Meets, Tips, Discord, or Messenger and phone. In virtual communication channels, it is easier to blur the line between project-related and everyday matters. Thus, in the online network that numerous SR are built and developed:
Our research has shown that for the developers’ business activity there are four key groups of actors with which SR are maintained: (1) gamers (including influencers), (2) competitors, (3) employees (current and previous) and (4) business partners (e.g., cooperators, investors, and contractors). Below we present our findings in relation to each group of identified actors. Please note that more descriptive details of these findings, along with relevant direct quotations of interviewees ensuring thick description of qualitative data (Geertz, 1973), are included in the supplemental online materials within Table B.
Benefits of SR in the VGI
Type of entity | Result of SR building | Quotes from interlocutors |
---|---|---|
Gamers (including influencers) | ||
Business partners | ||
Employees – previous and current | ||
Competitors | ||
Source: Own elaboration.
Research has shown that SR with gamers are crucial. They serve to build a community of gamers around a company and its games, and the existence of such a community was perceived by gamers as a value in itself. The interviewees pointed out also that their relationships with the gamers enabled them to build the credibility of a product/game and the company, for example, through ongoing contact with gamers, especially before a game’s release, in order to assure them that the game will be released on the market. The process of its development is long and risky, and before the game is released, companies keep in touch with gamers to inform them about the progress of the game and assure them the game will be released on the market and when (more details in Table B).
Next, social contacts with gamers are also relevant in the field of game development. Gamers test the games at different stages of development but also can make game corrections and improvements if the code is open (i.e., domain of game modders [Klimas & Czakon, 2022]), thus reducing the risk associated with the release of a game that would not find a sufficient number of fans. This is confirmed by the words of one of the interlocutors talking about how, thanks to the support of gamers who pointed out cultural differences, the problem of game acceptance by the audience was eliminated:
The very important role of SR with gamers can be identified also after the game launch. First, they can be intensively exploited in promoting and selling games. These relationships make it possible to reach a wider audience, mainly thanks to the use of the player’s network of contacts:
Second, SR with gamers can be a good source of honest feedback, especially if the game does not satisfy gamers. This problem was signaled by many interlocutors, for example, one of them said:
Last but not least, SR maintained with gamers can be used to internally strengthen particular game developer. As mentioned, one of our interviewees can be seen as solid external motivation to keep the promises and thus reach the company’s goals.
Moreover, they can also serve to build the image of a company and a product. Some interviewees emphasized that thanks to ongoing contacts with gamers, taking into account their comments, corrections, or suggestions, they create the image of a company that is open to its community and for which gamers’ opinions are very important.
Finally, the interviewees also emphasized that the purpose of their SR with gamers is to stimulate the company’s innovativeness. Often it is the gamers, thanks to their high expectations and creativity, who are the source of the innovation. Moreover, informal meetings with gamers in pubs often allow us to find – among gamers – new employees.
FGI research also allowed us to identify three groups of benefits of SR maintained with competitors, that is, with other game developers. Interestingly, this group of actors has not been identified in our IDIs.
First, the interviewees declared that maintaining SR with competitors is often useful in various, unexpected situations, also for the potential activities in the future; therefore, such relationships are treated as an organization’s resource:
Some, as another demonstration of the positive results of SR for business operations, claimed that SR favor knowledge sharing with business rivals. The interlocutors emphasized that the community of players is so large that game developers often do not even perceive themselves as competition, despite the fact they are competitors regarding their activities:
At the same time, it was emphasized that the smaller the company, the easier it is to share knowledge with the competition, because the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) applies to large companies:
The third group of benefits of SR with competitors in the form of mitigating tensions in relations with them was also indicated:
The interviewees also strongly emphasized the significance of maintaining SR with employees, interestingly, not only with current employees but also with the former ones. In general SR with both types of employees are used to create a good image of the company but also determine relationships with potential, future employees.
First, developers pointed out that thanks to SR with current employees, it is possible to conduct their business at all, as game development requires informal links with creative workers. They stressed that the gaming industry is specific – if only because of the product that requires constant interaction with others, as well as the creativity and involvement of different employees. Second, the role of SR in building a team and ensuring employment was emphasized thanks to a good working atmosphere that motivates current employees in their work, or thanks to the image of an employee-friendly company, which is intended to motivate future employees (of particular importance taking into account hypercompetition for employees in the industry). This is what one of the interviewees said about it:
A similar opinion was expressed by another interlocutor:
Third, another key role identified regarding to SR with employees – interestingly with both current and former ones – was in the process of recruiting new employees. It was emphasized that this recruitment is easier, cheaper, faster, and more effective when it is not necessary to search for employees through official channels, but through one’s own employees and their social contacts:
It was emphasized that a person recommended in this way wants to prove themselves, not only for their own reputation, but also for the reputation of the person who recommended them. This means that often people employed in this way turn out to be good, loyal employees. This form of looking for employees is important, especially when a person with specific predispositions (e.g., with experience, appropriate skills) is needed for the work at hand. It was also pointed out that SR with employees also result in employment of people with values similar to those represented by the company.
One of the interviewees also said that by hiring employees from France, it is easier for him to hire other people representing this community, not only through contacts of current employees, but also because for potential employees, cooperation with people representing a specific community/cultural circle may constitute information that the company is open to this community and knows its needs.
Fourth, an increase in work efficiency can be achieved thanks to SR with current employees. This results mainly from trust in the employees, and therefore, there being no need to check or correct their actions, and the possibility of talking to employees in a free and direct way to communicate goals, explain expectations, and to call an employee’s attention to when they have done something wrong. It was emphasized that these benefits are especially visible in long-term relations.
Fifth, the interviewees also emphasized that communication and teamwork was easier thanks to SR with employees. It was said that it was easier to reprimand such an employee, and even, as one interviewee put it, easier to conduct a conversation about the dismissal of an employee, due to their understanding (although it was emphasized that at the same time, a close relationship with an employee also makes such a conversation difficult).
Sixth, thanks to SR with employees, there is greater transparency, it is easier for employees to monitor what is happening in the company, and employees feel jointly responsible for the company.
Seventh, according to our interviewees, SR with employees make it possible to increase the company’s innovativeness:
And finally, thanks to SR, employees are encouraged not only to be more creative or innovative but also to perform tedious, time-consuming tasks, which, apart from innovative activities, also have to be carried out in the gaming industry (e.g., programming work).
In the next type of key actor in terms of exploited SR by video game developers, there are business partners, that is, contractors, and various types of cooperating companies, as well as partners, investors, and other external shareholders, so far mostly beyond empirical analysis.
In the context of relationships with external shareholders, one of the interviewees emphasized that it was thanks to SR that some shareholders decided to continue their financial involvement in the company when the sales results of its products were falling:
SR with contractors also make it possible to increase sales volumes:
The third aspect that was raised in the context of the importance of game developers’ SR with contractors was also more advantageous offers received from friendly contractors or the possibility to choose products from a wider range.
Additionally, the interviewees indicated numerous forms of providing services either free of charge, in the form of a barter, or also deferred (a favor for a favor at an unspecified date).
SR with business partners in the gaming industry in the field of knowledge transfer play an important role. In this context, it was emphasized above all that this transfer – thanks to interpersonal relationships – is first of all possible, while second, it is often faster and more effective. It was also pointed out that it is often the transfer of tacit knowledge (including private contacts) access to which without SR would be impossible, because it is prohibited by law. One of the interviewees talked about it in a very interesting way:
Such knowledge transfer as emphasized above reduces the risk of making the wrong decisions and actions. One of the interviewees also emphasized that thanks to SR, he often gains a new/fresh perspective on certain issues or problems. It was also indicated that thanks to SR it was possible to mentor, lead, or introduce a given company to a specific area of activity in the industry.
Another area that was emphasized was that SR with contractors or other cooperating entities often make it possible to obtain help in crisis, unusual or problem situations:
Meanwhile, contact with contractors is facilitated by SR, which, thanks to these relations, is faster and more direct, and one can, for example, relatively freely present one’s own expectations to the other party:
Another issue interviewees mentioned concerning the importance of SR with business partners was the possibility of staying on the market, resulting from, for example, getting new contacts and contracts:
One of the most important roles of SR in contacts with contractors and other cooperating entities also relates to enabling cooperation, facilitating its course, stimulating its development, and as FGI has shown stimulating future cooperation. It was emphasized in particular that SR are conducive to establishing oral cooperation without a formal contract, and that SR increase the chance of choosing a friendly actor as a business partner, and even facilitate the termination of cooperation:
Thanks to trust in a given person, SR enable access to a wider group of proven actors, encourage many of them to cooperate (e.g., when it is to be cooperation in the form of networks/larger groups), offer greater flexibility of action (thanks to the fact that there is no need to have written contracts every time or – if necessary because of the legal regulations – they can be written down during the service provision), and opens the “
The last element to the manifestations of the positive impact of game developers’ SR with business partners on the activities of developers was the creation of a network of contacts that can be very useful for business activities, if not immediately then in the future:
FGIs allowed also to claim that private contacts with universities’ employees allow to search employees. FGI research has also shown that SR with business partners can reduce inappropriate behaviour, which is due to the fact that the industry is small and it is easy to lose a good reputation. It was also emphasized that SR are useful when it is necessary to act outside the box.
The study fills identified research gaps, as it shows the relevance of SR in the VGI while simultaneously taking into account the specific character of the industry analyzed. Indeed, we present the role of SR in VGI, putting emphasis on very different types of actors of this industry. The main contribution of this research is presented in Table 3.
Research contribution to knowledge development
PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE | RESEARCH ADDED VALUE | ||
---|---|---|---|
General SR benefits | Author(s), year | Specific SR benefits in VGI | Main actors |
Access to resources (e.g. information, tacit knowledge, experience accumulated inside informal communities) | Watson, 2008; Wright et al., 2001 | Game release Giving feedback when the game is not satisfying gamers | Players Gamers |
Enhance business performance (e.g., sales volume) | Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018; Chen et al., 2009 | Promotion and sale of the game | Gamers |
Increasing the sales volume | Business Partners | ||
More advantageous offers/larger assortment than contractors | |||
Provide a competitive advantage | Polese, 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2007; Letaifa & Rabeau, 2013; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014 | ||
Development of employees’ competences and shaping their attitude | Lingo & Tepper, 2013; Kourtit et al., 2014 | Motivating to work | Gamers |
Reliable performance of painstaking work | Employees (current) | ||
Increase effectiveness | Hite, 2005; Yang et al., 2011; Vilana & Monroy, 2010 | Certain services for free or in barter | Business partners |
Increase of work efficiency | Employees (current) | ||
An easier way to communicate and work | |||
Enable the starting of a business or staying on the market | Men & Chen, 2017; Turner, 2007 | Staying on the market | Business partners |
Possibility of doing business | Employees (previous and current) | ||
Enhance trustworthiness between business entities, which helps in day-to-day business activity | Jordan et al., 2016; Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a | Greater transparency, easier way to control what is happening in the company by employees | Employees (current) |
Limiting inappropriate behaviour | Business partners | ||
Improve the image of the company or its products/ services | Hoang & Antoncic, 2003 | Building the image of the company/product | Gamers |
Facilitate cooperation | Bai et al., 2021; Blatt & Camden, 2007; Chassagnon & Audran, 2011; Sun et al., 2016; Ahmed et al., 2015; Rooks et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2016 | Faster, more direct contact | Business partners |
Easier cooperation, realized at a lower cost | |||
Enable the – faster and easier – building of different communities (wide networks of connections), including new teams | Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009; Tomkins, 2001; Sousa, 2005; Bapna et al., 2017 | Building gamers community | Gamers |
Creating a network of contacts/good relationships for the future | Business partners | ||
Competitors | |||
Building a team and ensuring the employment of valuable employees in the future, thanks to a good working atmosphere that motivates to work | Employees (current and previous) | ||
Mitigating tensions | Competitors | ||
Easier, cheaper, faster, and more effective recruitment process | Employees (current and previous) | ||
Business partners | |||
Gamers | |||
Support in crisis situations | Leimeister et al., 2008; Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a | Continuing the financial involvement of investors/ shareholders in difficult time | Business partners |
Help in crisis, unusual or problem situations | |||
Knowledge creation, development, and sharing | Allen at al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2010; Ahmed et al., 2015; Watson, 2008; Lingo& Tepper, 2013; Kourtit, et al., 2014 | Knowledge transfer (including tacitly) | Business partners |
Competitors | |||
Stimulation of innovations and increasement of innovativeness | Doh & Kim, 2014; Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018; Klimas, 2018 | Stimulating the company’s innovation | Gamers |
Increase of innovativeness | Employees (previous and current) |
Source: Own elaboration.
We compared the inductively identified during data analysis the benefits of SR in VGI (“research added value” column in Table 3) with the previously identified in the literature – in relation to various sectors – more general benefits of SR in business (“previous knowledge” column in Table 3). This enabled identification of completely new VGI-specific benefits of SR in business. All in all, we see our contribution to the relational view as multi-threaded. First, the field research was conducted on SR in the gaming sector as one within creative industry (Clare, 2013; Tschang, 2007). Until now, research on SR relatively seldom concerned the creative sector (Boyd et al., 2015; Klimas, 2017; Lingo & Tepper, 2013), although theoretically it was claimed to be relevant (Clare, 2013; Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018; Oakley, 2006).
Second, the study also characterises SR maintained with different types of actors. Complementary to prior works (e.g., Cardoso et al., 2018; Cohendet et al., 2018; de Prato et al., 2014; Kleer & Kunz, 2022; Le Roy et al., 2022; Wachs & Vedres, 2021), our findings point to both individual actors (e.g., gamers, business partners, etc.) and collective actors (e.g., gaming communities, developer subculture, the indie community, i.e., independent game developers, etc.) as significant recipients of SR exploited by game developers. Nonetheless, in contrast to previous works, this one points at all of those actors together, not selectively at one specific type, thus indirectly revealing the very complex nature of relational social embeddedness (Baggio et al., 2022; Granovetter, 1985) inside VGI.
Our research also allowed us to assess the role of SR regarding internal and external actors in relation to game developers. Thus, regarding internal actors, our research supports prior evidence pointing to social intra-industry networking (e.g., with current employees) as a significant component of developers’ business models (Klimas, 2018). Additionally, our research supports prior conceptual claims (e.g., Ip, 2008; Marchand & Hennig-Thurau, 2013) and evidence (e.g., Klimas & Czakon, 2018; 2022; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014) regarding the role of external actors for game developers, their activity, game development, and value creation. It should be emphasized, however, that external actors are shown here as relevant in a quite new perspective, namely individual, SR that have so far remaining unexplored.
Third, supplementary to prior works (Boyd et al, 2015; Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Cohendet et al., 2020; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014; Styvén et al., 2022; Weststar, 2015), this study goes beyond SR maintained only between and among gamers. Indeed, alongside the evidence related to gamers’ SR with other individuals (employees, investors), are also results relating to SR with organizational actors (business partners including shareholders, contractors so far beyond empirical studies and competitors).
Fourth, in support of existing knowledge (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Klimas & Czakon, 2022; Weststar, 2015), employees are distinguished as crucial in terms of the maintaining of SR. However, an original contribution of this study is to distinguish between the need for handling SR with current and past creative staff. Moreover, our research has also shown that sound social links with these two groups of employees shape SR with the third group, that is, future (potential) employees. From a managerial perspective, this seems to be critically important, as competition for employees has become extremely intense in VGI worldwide (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020).
Fifth, this study provides empirical evidence for six premises for establishing and maintaining beneficial SR, which result from the characteristics of VGI itself. Moreover, it is possible to identify specific recipients of SR resulting in the very specific benefits (as shown in Table 3).
We provide empirical support showing that specific VGI’s characteristics determine the relevance of SR for business activity: (1) game developers create products that require building SR; (2) SR are a relevant source of creativity and innovativeness; (3) there is a wide range of passionate amateurs (gamers, developers, indies) linked by dense networks of social connections; (4) there is a favorable environment for SR, as the industry is quite small (i.e., the small world hypothesis works very well), cohesive, and socially embedded; (5) there is a wide room for SR, as the community is close-knit, the work atmosphere in firms in the industry is usually relaxed, and contacts are rather informal and loose; and (6) the industry makes digital products, which require the building and maintaining of remote relationships (online contacts) mainly in the virtual world.
To date, most of these features have not been identified in empirical research, although some of them were stressed by some authors (also in theoretical/conceptual papers). For example, the fact that the industry is small and people know each other was stressed by Krampus-Sepielak et al. (2020). On the other hand, Tong (2021) emphasized continuous contact with the use of social links via digital platforms and forums, claiming that it is of key importance in the development of games created by “
The contribution of this paper is also the presentation why and how the different types of SR are relevant. Indeed, our study has revealed many benefits of SR (see Table 3 and Table B in supplemental material). In general, they are consistent with the existing more general literature focusing on other sectors; however, most of the benefits are demonstrated for the first time in VGI context. We found support for such benefits as enhancing business performance (Chen et al., 2009; Glińska-Neweś & Karwacki, 2018); increasing effectiveness (Vilana & Monroy, 2010); facilitating cooperation (Ahmed et al., 2015; Bai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016); enhancing trustworthiness between business actors, which helps in day-to-day business activity (Jordan et al., 2016); improving the image of the company or its products/services (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003); building new communities (Bapna et al., 2017; Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009; Sousa, 2005), supporting in crisis situations (Leimeister et al., 2008) applying knowledge creation and sharing (Ahmed et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2010); and stimulating innovations and innovativeness (Doh & Kim, 2014) (c.f. Table 4).
Additionally, through the interviews we identified other, more specific SR benefits divided into different groups of actors, that is, gamers, employees, business partners, and competitors. When it comes to gamers (including influencers to the greatest extent), our study findings support previous exploration, proving the role of social embeddedness of game developers in gaming communities (c.f. four case studies analyzed by Parmentier and Mangematin, 2014). Similarly to that shown by Burger-Helmchen and Cohendet (2011), good SR with gamers and their communities may be valuable at different stages of game creation, that is, in game development, the improvements phase, and after its premiere. Although prior research on video game developers has shown participation in gaming events as crucial for game promotion and player retention (Klimas, 2017), our study suggests that this participation does not end with the preparation and running of a promotional stand at trade fairs. It also includes establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships with, for example, visitors and other exhibitors. Moreover, this study sheds new light on the specific types of gamers and passionate gaming amateurs relevant in the context of SR and developer performance. Our interviews prove the significant role of freelancers and influencers (bloggers, video bloggers, reviewers, and the most popular gamers on Steam, Twitch, YouTube, etc.). So far, impactful individuals were identified as important for (formalized) game development and game promotion (Klimas & Czakon, 2022), whereas this study points to the role of maintaining SR with them. Given our findings (Table 3 and Table B in supplementary materials), communities of passionate amateurs (here this includes gamers but also video game developers) seem to be a highly important source of competitive advantage reached through SR thanks to increasing game sales or by leveraging game retention ratio. This supports prior findings obtained for the music industry (Watson, 2008), considered as another component of the creative industry.
Additionally, we show such SR with gamers as beneficial in different managerial areas: project management, marketing (e.g., development of brand credibility, company image, game promotion and sales, customer relationship management) and human resource management (e.g., improvement of customer relationship management). We also support prior results showing gamers as valuable actors in co-innovation processes (Klimas & Czakon, 2022; Parmentier & Mangematin, 2014), thus impacting innovation performance (Parmentier & Gandia, 2013).
Finally, our research also identified a number of benefits of maintaining and developing SR with employees in VGI. What is interesting and completely new in the literature is that this concerned not only current but also previous employees. Our research supports prior suggestions pointing to the crucial value of informal, intra-industry networks of employees (Burger-Helmchen & Cohendet, 2011; Cohendet et al., 2018, 2020). Interestingly, our research has shown that SR with current and previous employees, due to the fact that the industry is small, are key to building positive relationships with future employees. Moreover, our research is in line with claims that in the creative industries, SR with employees are crucial for the development (Oakley, 2006), innovativeness, and creativity underlying competitive advantage in VGI (Scholz, 2012). Moreover, on the basis of our research, we can conclude that SR with employees, based on the declarations of our interlocutors, were to the highest degree characterised by emotionality, including emotions such as trust or sympathy.
Interestingly, we also identified benefits of SR with business partners previously not mentioned in the literature in VGI context, namely business partners (i.e., investors, shareholders, contractors, partners, and co-operators). These were, for example, the continuing financial commitment of shareholders (who lose their invested capital when the sale of games decreases, but thanks to SR are more inclined to accept this loss and/or wait longer for the company’s market situation to change) or tacit knowledge transfer related to NDAs. Interestingly, those business partners with whom SR were maintained were shown to be a broad group, for example, investors, cooperators, and contractors.
Also benefits of SR with competitors, previously not identified in the literature in the VGI, were identified. These are: maintaining good relationships for the future (i.e., treating SR as a valuable resource in day-to-day activity, sharing knowledge with competitors – especially among small companies) and mitigating tensions between competitors. Our research showed that although developers compete for employees, often they do not treat themselves as competitors and maintain SR allowing for coopetition. Moreover, we found SR as helpful in mitigating tensions when cooperating with competitor(s). We claim it is relevant contribution of this research, as managing tensions is crucial for coopetition effects (Fernandez et al., 2014; Tidström, 2014), while the factors leveling coopetition tensions remain unexplored (Lundgren-Henriksson & Tidström, 2021) also in knowledge-intensive industries (Chiambaretto et al., 2019; Le Roy et al., 2017).
Although VGI brings together various entities between which there are continuous and multidirectional social relationships, so far there have been no studies directly and holistically describing those relations, especially taking into account various groups of actors. Thus, the conducted research is a contribution to the theory in this filed. Our research has shed an explorative light on the significant role of SR for the functioning of VGDs, but also that the role depends on who a relationship is established with, and that its significance can vary both in terms of the level of relationship development and the effects of this relationship. Using our research findings, one can also extract managerial implications. Generally, it can be concluded that maintaining and cultivating SR with a wide range of actors–not only the current employees, but also previous employees, as well as with gamers, competitors, and business partners, including cooperators, investors, and contractors – allows actors to achieve multidimensional VGI business benefits. As the research findings have shown, depending on the type of actor, these benefits may differ.
SR enable benefits to be generated not only in the current activity but also in the future (e.g., building teams, communities, company/product reputation and image among gamers, potential employees and the whole of the VGI, which, as also stressed by our interviewees, is relatively small). From a practical perspective, our findings may be interesting for game developers, as they address current research, namely the importance of SR in the gaming sector in Poland – a country where VGI is fast-developing and highly promising on the global scale (Krampus-Sepielak et al., 2020) and where such research is still very limited (Klimas & Czakon, 2022).
Moreover, some research limitations and future research directions can be formulated. First, our study was country-limited and based on qualitative, not representative research. However, it must be stressed that the games are acknowledged as global products; thus, VGI is considered as boundless (Cohendet et al., 2018; Klimas & Czakon, 2018).
Second, we focused on the positive aspects of SR with different actors in VGI; however, SR also have their “
Fourth, our findings point to one type of internal SR as relevant for game developers, namely those with current employees. Relatively seldom did our interviewees speak about the role of SR among managers. Given that, they play different roles in a firm’s performance, game development, and value creation (Anderson, 2008); also in VGI (Lingo & Tepper, 2013), it would be interesting to find out if and how the remaining roles are also relevant in the context of SR.
Finally, the identified benefits of SR are industry-limited. However, considered under the relational view, they are always seen as industry-dependent. Moreover, all research in the social sciences is highly contextual; thus, possible generalizations are always contextually limited, while single-industry investigations are well reasoned (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010).