Advertisement

What is a Minimum Viable (Video) Game?

Towards a Research Agenda
  • Sami HyrynsalmiEmail author
  • Eriks Klotins
  • Michael Unterkalmsteiner
  • Tony Gorschek
  • Nirnaya Tripathi
  • Leandro Bento Pompermaier
  • Rafael Prikladnicki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11195)

Abstract

The concept of ‘Minimum Viable Product’ (MVP) is largely adapted in the software industry as well as in academia. Minimum viable products are used to test hypotheses regarding the target audience, save resources from unnecessary development work and guide a company towards a stable business model. As the game industry is becoming an important business domain, it is not surprise that the concept has been adopted also in the game development. This study surveys how a Minimum Viable Game (MVG) is defined, what is reported in extant literature as well as present results from a small case study survey done to nine game development companies. The study shows that despite popularity of minimum viable games in the industrial fora, the presented views on the concept are diverged and there is lack of practical guidelines and research supporting game companies. This study points out research gaps in the area as well as calls for actions to further develop the concept and to define guidelines.

Keywords

Minimum viable product Minimum viable game Game business 

References

  1. 1.
    Björk, J., Ljungblad, J., Bosch, J.: Lean product development in early stage startups. In: Hyrynsalmi, S., Wnuk, K., Daneva, M., Mäkilä, T., Herrmann, A. (eds.) Proceedings of From Start-Ups to SaaS Conglomerate: Life Cycles of Software Products Workshop (IW-LCSP 2013), vol. 1095, pp. 19–32. CEUR-WS.org (2013). CEUR Workshop Proceedings ISSN 1613–0073Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bjork, S., Holopainen, J.: Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media Game Development Series. Charles River Media, Newton (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blank, S.: The Four Steps to the Epiphany: Successful Strategies for Products that Win. Cafepress.com, Louisville (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blank, S., Dorf, B.: The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-By-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. K&S Ranch, Seattle (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blank, S.: Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(5), 63–72 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Böhmer, M., Hecht, B., Schöning, J., Krüger, A., Bauer, G.: Falling asleep with angry birds, facebook and kindle: a large scale study on mobile application usage. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI 2011, pp. 47–56. ACM, New York (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037383
  7. 7.
    Bosch, J.: Speed, Data, and Ecosystems: Excelling in a Software-Driven World. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch, J., Holmström Olsson, H., Björk, J., Ljungblad, J.: The early stage software startup development model: a framework for operationalizing lean principles in software startups. In: Fitzgerald, B., Conboy, K., Power, K., Valerdi, R., Morgan, L., Stol, K.-J. (eds.) LESS 2013. LNBIP, vol. 167, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44930-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, S., Meyer, C.: Blur: The Speed of Change in the Connected Economy. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giardino, C., Paternoster, N., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Software development in startup companies: the greenfield startup model. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 42(6), 585–604 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2015.2509970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Paternoster, N., Gorschek, T., Abrahamsson, P.: What do we know about software development in startups? IEEE Softw. 31(5), 28–32 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2014.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodwin, R., Ball, B.: Closing the loop on loyalty. Mark. Manag. 8(1), 24–34 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hakonen, H., Mäkilä, T., Smed, J., Best, A.: Learning to make computer games: an academic approach. Technical report 899, Turku Centre for Computer Science (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hokkanen, L.: From minimum viable to maximum lovable: developing a user experience strategy model for software startups. Doctoral dissertation, Tampere University of Technology, vol. 1483. TUT Publication, Tampere, Finland (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hokkanen, L., Kuusinen, K., Väänänen, K.: Minimum viable user experience: a framework for supporting product design in startups. In: Sharp, H., Hall, T. (eds.) XP 2016. LNBIP, vol. 251, pp. 66–78. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33515-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hyrynsalmi, S.: Letters from the war of ecosystems – an analysis of independent software vendors in mobile application marketplaces. Doctoral dissertation, University of Turku, Turku, Finland, December 2014.  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4076.4484. TUCS Dissertations no. 188
  18. 18.
    Hyrynsalmi, S., Suominen, A., Mäkilä, T., Järvi, A., Knuutila, T.: Revenue models of application developers in android market ecosystem. In: Cusumano, M.A., Iyer, B., Venkatraman, N. (eds.) ICSOB 2012. LNBIP, vol. 114, pp. 209–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30746-1_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Järvi, A., Mäkilä, T., Hyrynsalmi, S.: Game development accelerator – initial design and research approach. In: Hyrynsalmi, S., Wnuk, K., Daneva, M., Mäkilä, T., Herrmann, A. (eds.) Proceedings of From Start-Ups to SaaS Conglomerate: Life Cycles of Software Products, Ceur Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1095, pp. 47–58. CEUR-WS (2013).  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1354.0167
  20. 20.
    Järvinen, J., Huomo, T., Mikkonen, T., Tyrväinen, P.: From agile software development to mercury business. In: Lassenius, C., Smolander, K. (eds.) ICSOB 2014. LNBIP, vol. 182, pp. 58–71. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08738-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Junk, W.S.: The dynamic balance between cost, schedule, features, and quality in software development projects. Technical report ID 83844–1010, University of Idao (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khanna, D., Nguyen-Duc, A., Wang, X.: From MVPs to pivots: a hypothesis-driven journey of two software startups. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for Startups. ICSOB 2018, Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klotins, E.: Using the case survey method to explore engineering practices in software start-ups. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for Startups, SoftStart 2017, pp. 24–26. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/SoftStart.2017...4
  24. 24.
    Klotins, E., et al.: Exploration of technical debt in start-ups. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE-SEIP 2018, pp. 75–84. ACM, New York (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3183519.3183539
  25. 25.
    Klotins, E., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T.: Software engineering in start-up companies: an analysis of 88 experience reports. Empirical Softw. Eng. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9620-y
  26. 26.
    Koskenvoima, A., Mäntymäki, M.: Why do small and medium-size freemium game developers use game analytics? In: Janssen, M., et al. (eds.) I3E 2015. LNCS, vol. 9373, pp. 326–337. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25013-7_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsson, R.: Case survey methodology: quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Acad. Manag. J. 36(6), 1515–1546 (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: MVP explained: a systematic mapping study on the definitions of minimal viable product. In: 2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 112–119, August 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2016.56
  29. 29.
    Moogk, D.R.: Minimum viable product and the importance of experimentation in technology startups. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2(3), 23–26 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Münch, J., Fagerholm, F., Johnson, P., Pirttilahti, J., Torkkel, J., Jäarvinen, J.: Creating minimum viable products in industry-academia collaborations. In: Fitzgerald, B., Conboy, K., Power, K., Valerdi, R., Morgan, L., Stol, K.-J. (eds.) LESS 2013. LNBIP, vol. 167, pp. 137–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44930-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murphy-Hill, E., Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N.: Cowboys, ankle sprains, and keepers of quality: how is video game development different from software development? In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2014, pp. 1–11. ACM, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568226
  32. 32.
    Nacke, L.E., et al.: Playability and player experience research. In: Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory, DiGRA 2009. Brunel University (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duc, A.N., Abrahamsson, P.: Minimum viable product or multiple facet product? The role of MVP in software startups. In: Sharp, H., Hall, T. (eds.) XP 2016. LNBIP, vol. 251, pp. 118–130. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33515-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Petersen, K., et al.: Choosing component origins for software intensive systems: in-house, cots, OSS or outsourcing? - A case survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 44(3), 237–261 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2017.2677909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ries, E.: The Lean Startup : How Constant Innovation Creates Radically Successful Businesses. Portfolio Penguin, London (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenfield Boeira, J.N.: Mvps: Do we really need them? In: Lean Game Development: Apply Lean Frameworks to the Process of Game Development, pp. 33–48. Apress, Berkeley (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3216-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rouse, R.: Game Design Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Wordware Publishing Inc., Plano (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salen, K., Tekinbaş, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Books \(24\times 7\) IT PRO. MIT Press (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schell, J.: The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses, 2nd edn. AK Peters/CRC Press, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smed, J., Hakonen, H., Centre, T., Science, C.: Towards a definition of a computer game. Technical report 53, Turku Centre for Computer Science (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Unterkalmsteiner, M., et al.: Software startups - a research agenda. e-Informatica Softw. Eng. J. 10(1), 89–124 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.5277/e-Inf160105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang, X., Edison, H., Bajwa, S.S., Giardino, C., Abrahamsson, P.: Key challenges in software startups across life cycle stages. In: Sharp, H., Hall, T. (eds.) XP 2016. LNBIP, vol. 251, pp. 169–182. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33515-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weinschenk, S., Barker, D.: Designing Effective Speech Interfaces. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sami Hyrynsalmi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eriks Klotins
    • 2
  • Michael Unterkalmsteiner
    • 2
  • Tony Gorschek
    • 2
  • Nirnaya Tripathi
    • 3
  • Leandro Bento Pompermaier
    • 4
  • Rafael Prikladnicki
    • 4
  1. 1.Tampere University of TechnologyPoriFinland
  2. 2.Software Engineering Research LabBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  3. 3.University of OuluOuluFinland
  4. 4.PUCRS—Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations