Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 4981–5000 | Cite as

An ontology for videogame interoperability

  • Janne Parkkila
  • Filip Radulovic
  • Daniel Garijo
  • María Poveda-Villalón
  • Jouni Ikonen
  • Jari Porras
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez


During the last 20 years, video games have become very popular and widely adopted in our society. However, despite the growth on video game industry, there is a lack of interoperability that allow developers to interchange their information freely and to form stronger partnerships. In this paper we present the Video Game Ontology (VGO), a model for enabling interoperability among video games and enhancing data analysis of gameplay information. We describe the creation process of the ontology, the ontology conceptualization and its evaluation. In addition, we demonstrate the applicability of the Video Game Ontology in action with three example games that take advantage of the created ontology. Also, we demonstrate the use of the VGO in enabling interoperability among the example games.


Video game ontology Video game interoperability Ontology evaluation 



This paper has been supported by the FPU grants (FPU2012/04084 and AP2010-1393) of the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. In addition, the research has been supported by TEKES, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation.


  1. 1.
    Blackett T, Boad RW (1999) Co-branding: the science of alliance. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter M, Gibbs M (2013) ESports in EVE Online: Skullduggery, fair play and acceptability in an unbounded competition. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp 47–54Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan JT, Yuen WY (2008) Digital game ontology: Semantic web approach on enhancing game studies. In: 9th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual DesignGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Entertainment Software Association (2013) Essential facts about the computer and video game industry: 2013 sales, demographic and usage data. Entertainment Software AssociationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gulati R, Garino J (1999) Get the right mix of bricks & clicks. Harv Bus Rev 78(3):107–114Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juul J (2012) A casual revolution: reinventing video games and their players. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lisboa MTCAG, Corruble RV, Santos ALM, Freitas F. Helping developers to look deeper inside game sessionsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newzoo. Global report: US and Chinae take half of $113bn games market in 2018, 2015. available at
  9. 9.
    Parkkila J, Hynninen T, Ikonen J, Porras J, Radulovic F (2015) Towards interoperability in video games. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter, CHI- taly, pages 26–29, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACMGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poveda-Villalón M, Gómez-Pérez A, Suárez-Figueroa MC (2014) Oops!(ontology pitfall scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10(2):7–34Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prata W, de Moraes A, Quaresma M (2012) User’s demography and expectation regarding search, purchase and evaluation in mobile application store. Work 41(Suppl 1): 1124–1131Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sotamaa O, Karppi T (2010) Games as services-final report TRIM Research Reports 2, O. Sotamaa and T. KarppiGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suárez-Figueroa MC, Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M (2015) The NeOn Methodology framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development. Appl Ontol, (Preprint), 1–39Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang T, Newton GD, Wang X (2007) Does synergy work? an examination of cross-promotion effects. Int J Media Manage 9(4):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl Eng Rev 11(02):93–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Buskirk RE, Wright DL (2010) Virtual worlds seamless object drop integration. US Patent App. 12/756, 505Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Washburn J, Till B, Priluck R (2000) Co-branding: brand equity and trial effects. J Consum Mark 17(7):591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zagal J, Bruckman A (2008) The game ontology project: supporting learning while contributing authentically to game studies. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences ICLS 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zagal JP, Bruckman A (2008) The game ontology project: Supporting learning while contributing authentically to game studies. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2, pages 499–506. International Society of the Learning SciencesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janne Parkkila
    • 1
  • Filip Radulovic
    • 2
  • Daniel Garijo
    • 2
  • María Poveda-Villalón
    • 2
  • Jouni Ikonen
    • 1
  • Jari Porras
    • 1
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Business and Management, Innovation and SoftwareLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.Ontology Engineering Group MadridUniversidad Politecnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations