Understanding Change in a Dynamic Complex Digital Object: Reading Categories of Change Out of Patch Notes Documents

  • Ayse GursoyEmail author
  • Karen M. Wickett
  • Melanie Feinberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11420)


Digital games are complex digital objects that straddle the line between leisure and work, and offer a unique source for contextualizing the role of change in engaging with digital objects. Understanding how complex digital objects evolve over time and how such objects are framed as changing objects allows us to develop a more nuanced model for how different kinds of changes function in the lives of complex digital objects. This paper analyzes several years of patch notes for the digital game League of Legends through the methodology of reading to construct categories of kinds of changes and interpret the different roles of those categories. We propose a taxonomy of changes to a key part of the game ecosystem and describe how the categories in this taxonomy limn a perspective on dynamic, complex digital objects that can lead to more nuanced and robust preservation efforts.


Digital preservation Digital games Complex digital objects 


  1. 1.
    Hedstrom, M., Lee, C.A.: Significant properties of digital objects: definitions, applications, implications. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum, pp. 218–227, Barcelona (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swalwell, M.: Towards the preservation of local computer game software challenges, strategies, reflections. Convergence 15(3), 263–279 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDonough, J., Kirschenbaum, M., Reside, D., Fraistat, N., Jerz, D.: Twisty little passages almost all alike: applying the FRBR model to a classic computer game. Digital Humanit. Q. 4(2), 1869–1883 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newman, J.: Ports and patches: digital games as unstable objects. Convergence 18(2), 135–142 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor, T.L.: Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Witkowski, E.: On the digital playing field: how we “do sport” with networked computer games. Games Cult. 7(5), 349–374 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nardi, B.A.: My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paul, C.A.: Process, paratexts, and texts: rhetorical analysis and virtual worlds. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 3(1), 8 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Švelch, J.: Resisting patches and errata: motivations and tactics. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG. DiGRA and FDG, Dundee (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDaniel, R., Daer, A.: Developer discourse: exploring technical communication practices within video game development. Tech. Commun. Q. 25(3), 155–166 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sirlin, D.: Game balance. In: Lowood, H., Guins, R. (eds.) Debugging Game History: A Critical Lexicon, pp. 169–175. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dappert, A., Farquhar, A.: Significance is in the eye of the stakeholder. In: Agosti, M., Borbinha, J., Kapidakis, S., Papatheodorou, C., Tsakonas, G. (eds.) ECDL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5714, pp. 297–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hedstrom, M., Lee, C.A., Olson, J.S., Lampe, C.A.: “The old version flickers more”: digital preservation from the user’s perspective. Am. Archivist 69, 159–187 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker, C.: Metaphors we work by: reframing digital objects, significant properties, and the design of digital preservation systems. Archivaria 85, 6–36 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDonough, J.P., et al.: Preserving Virtual Worlds Final Report (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayse Gursoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karen M. Wickett
    • 2
  • Melanie Feinberg
    • 3
  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.School of Information SciencesUniversity of IllinoisChampaign-UrbanaUSA
  3. 3.School of Information and Library ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations