Convergence Between the Real and the Augmented: Experiences and Perceptions in Location-based Games

Abstract

Location-based augmented reality (AR) games have recently become massively popular, generating billions of dollars in revenue during the past five years. These games augment geographical areas with playful content, which makes the playing experience dependent on both the game and the playing location. Existing games have employed various methods for increasing the connection between the game and the physical world, such as (1) an AR mode that lets players see virtual objects in the physical world through the lens of their mobile device; and (2) connecting the game’s virtual points of interest (PoIs) to physical world objects. To explore how these influence the playing experience, we surveyed players (N = 74) across four popular location-based AR games. We analyzed the data using a thematic clustering approach, which resulted in five central themes. Among our findings was that only 7% of the surveyed players regularly used or appreciated AR features that made use of the mobile device’s camera. The most often given reason for this was that they slow down progression. By contrast, players appreciated location-based features and the augmentation of digital content on a map interface. Connecting the virtual content to physical world objects was seen to have the benefits of (1) supporting social meetings; (2) enabling learning about the real world; and (3) increasing the meaningfulness of the virtual content.

Full text

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
Available online 20 September 2021
0736-5853/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Convergence between the real and the augmented: Experiences
and perceptions in location-based games
Samuli Laato
a
,
c
,
*
, Nobufumi Inaba
b
, Juho Hamari
a
a
Gamication Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland
b
School of Language and Translation, University of Turku, Finland
c
Department of Computing, University of Turku, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keyword:
Location-based games
Geo games
Point of interest
Augmented reality
AR
ABSTRACT
Location-based augmented reality (AR) games have recently become massively popular, gener-
ating billions of dollars in revenue during the past ve years. These games augment geographical
areas with playful content, which makes the playing experience dependent on both the game and
the playing location. Existing games have employed various methods for increasing the
connection between the game and the physical world, such as (1) an AR mode that lets players see
virtual objects in the physical world through the lens of their mobile device; and (2) connecting
the game’s virtual points of interest (PoIs) to physical world objects. To explore how these in-
uence the playing experience, we surveyed players (N =74) across four popular location-based
AR games. We analyzed the data using a thematic clustering approach, which resulted in ve
central themes. Among our ndings was that only 7% of the surveyed players regularly used or
appreciated AR features that made use of the mobile device’s camera. The most often given
reason for this was that they slow down progression. By contrast, players appreciated location-
based features and the augmentation of digital content on a map interface. Connecting the vir-
tual content to physical world objects was seen to have the benets of (1) supporting social
meetings; (2) enabling learning about the real world; and (3) increasing the meaningfulness of the
virtual content.
1. Introduction
Location-based AR games, also referred to as location-based games (LBGs), combine location features and augmented reality (AR)
to bring about a game world that is connected to the real world (Hamari et al., 2018; Rauschnabel et al., 2017). LBGs emerged in the
early 2000’s due to technological developments in mobile devices, internet infrastructure and location sensors (Leorke, 2018). Today,
LBGs have reached an enormous player market, with the currently most popular LBG Pok´
emon GO surpassing 3.6 billion USD in
revenue during its rst four years after launch (Chapple, 2020). Besides booming monetary success, LBGs have been reported to have a
positive impact on players, for example, on their social well-being (Lee et al., 2021; Ruiz-Ariza et al., 2018) and physical activity (Lee
et al., 2021; Khamzina et al., 2020). Subsequently, health practitioners have been interested in LBGs and their potential for increasing
the well-being of individuals (Althoff et al., 2016; Hino et al., 2019). LBGs have also shown potential in teaching players about real
world places and environments (Oleksy and Wnuk, 2017). This has attracted the attention of educators who have investigated ways to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: samuli.laato@tuni. (S. Laato).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Telematics and Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101716
Received 31 May 2021; Received in revised form 9 August 2021; Accepted 14 September 2021

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
2
make use of LBGs in primary, secondary and tertiary education (e.g. Fonseca et al., 2020; Mozelius et al., 2017; Mozelius et al., 2019;
Remmer et al., 2017).
The benecial aspects of exercise and social interaction in LBGs are tied to the physical playing location, and in particular to the in-
game points of interest (PoIs) to which the LBG players are prompted to navigate. This makes investigating the role and impact of PoIs
in LBGs important from both a theoretical and practical perspective, as they have a holistic impact on the playing experience. In cases
where the virtual PoIs are tied to existing real world objects, the games can facilitate learning about the physical world environment
better than with PoIs disconnected from the real world (Laato et al., 2019). However, studies have shown that linking PoIs to important
real world objects causes rural areas to have less PoIs, thus- potentially discriminating against people living in low-income areas
lacking cultural hotspots (Juh´
asz and Hochmair, 2017). Scholars have proposed several solutions to address this situation, including
the use of different PoI criteria for rural areas (Tregel et al., 2017).
Recent work has argued that PoIs corresponding to real world locations are generally safer and afford more immersive gameplay
than randomly placed PoIs (Laato et al., 2019). However, the importance of linking in-game PoIs to physical world locations remains
unexplored from the perspective of game enjoyment and a sense of meaningfulness of playing. Furthermore, it remains open whether
LBG design should aim for as fastidious a fusion between reality and the game world as possible. While several LBGs provide players
with an AR-mode to support their imagination and to increase the link between the game and reality, little research has been conducted
on this topic from the players’ perspective. Furthermore, recent work has suggested that AR has the potential to start replacing physical
objects in the near future (Rauschnabel, 2021), but whether AR content can already “feel real” for LBG players remains unanswered. To
address these research gaps, we propose the following research questions that guide this study:
RQ1. What is the role of the AR-mode in LBG players’ imagination, enjoyment and overall experience?
RQ2. How important is the linkage between virtual PoIs and physical world objects for LBGs players’ experience?
To address these research questions we conducted interviews and an online survey with players across four currently popular LBGs:
Pok´
emon GO, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite (HPWU), The Walking Dead: Our World (WDOW) and Orna. We asked about the players’
perceptions, thoughts and ideas related to the thematic areas indicated by the research questions. The remainder of this study is
structured as follows. First, we review previous literature on our research topic. We then present the research methodology of the
current study followed by our ndings. We discuss our results and their implications before presenting limitations, conclusions and
directions for future work.
2. Previous work
Research on the connection of LBGs to the real world has been conducted on several levels. On a broad level, research on AR user
experiences has focused on aspects of AR design that make it emotionally rewarding for players (Dirin and Laine, 2018; Irshad and
Rambli, 2014). Dirin and Laine (2018) stressed the importance of AR-technologies having (1) spatial correspondence; (2) tolerance to
movement; and (3) object detail. In other words, AR-technologies should aim for a seamless usability and integration with the real
world. In the context of LBGs, there are several ways for designers to reach this goal. These include the opportunity to take AR-photos
and share them online (Alavesa and Xu, 2020), connecting LBG play content to real world places (Laato et al., 2019), providing in-
terfaces that are intuitive to use (Dirin and Laine, 2018), and involving other people in the game to create shared social experiences in
the real world (Bhattacharya et al., 2019). Furthermore, one of the reasons players play LBGs is to enjoy outdoor activity (Hamari et al.,
2018), which also speaks of the benets of interlinking the gameworld with aspects of the real world.
A high level of convergence between LBGs and the physical world can lead to the game inuencing player movement in the real
world, even permanently (Colley et al., 2017). Furthermore, players may grow attached to virtual territory to the extent that they are
willing to obsessively defend it in the game world (Papangelis et al., 2017; Papangelis et al., 2020). It is not only virtual territory that
players grow attached to, but also the corresponding real world places (Oleksy and Wnuk, 2017). But while LBGs have this capability to
inuence player behavior and movement with PoI placement, the topic is still understudied. Recent work suggests that players enjoy a
wide variety of PoIs that are linked to the real world, including technical and cultural PoIs (Wolf et al., 2020), but further work is
needed on how the quality of PoIs inuences players’ playing experiences (Laato et al., 2019).
Jensen et al., (2019) conceptualize LBGs as additional layers of reality which could invoke in players ruminations that the virtual
world is present and can be accessed. As the human brain is attuned to remembering locations of food sources (Nairne et al., 2009), it
can be suggested that LBG players would be more likely to remember real world locations where they nd virtual goods. As a
consequence of playing the LBG Ingress, more than 96% of players reported to have experienced automatic mental processes related to
the game outside the immediate playing context (Sifonis, 2019). Due to the minimal focus on music in the game, unsurprisingly,
players did not hear Ingress music outside the game, nor did they have altered visual perceptions (Sifonis, 2019). Rather, the most
common automatic game-linked thoughts related to urges to play or think about the game (Sifonis, 2019). This nding on its own does
not yet differentiate LBGs from other games, and in fact, the lack of altered visual perceptions suggests that LBGs might not be able to
inuence players’ perceptions of reality outside the game context any more than other video games. However, the study of Sifonis
(2019) was carried out in the context of Ingress which does not have an AR mode. Thus, one important question to investigate is
whether the AR mode that enables visualizing LBG content in 3D has an impact on players’ altered visual perceptions of reality.
From the perspective of creating positive emotions (Dirin and Laine, 2018; Oleksy and Wnuk, 2017) and engaging players (Sifonis,
2019; Papangelis et al., 2017; Papangelis et al., 2020), the literature suggests that LBG design should aim for as holistic an integration
with the physical world as possible. This is also explicitly suggested by early scholars in the eld (Waern et al., 2009). However, several
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
3
research questions and gaps remain. Overall, there is a need to study how the connection of PoIs and real world places inuences the
playing experience. Another unexplored area relates to the use of the AR-mode in LBGs, and Alavesa and Xu (2020) recently showcased
how players bring the game world into social media through sharing AR-mode screenshots. But whether LBG players feel that the AR-
mode is either a gimmick or a central important part of gameplay remains unexplored. Both these questions connect to the overarching
theme of the importance of connecting LBGs to the physical world.
3. Methodology
3.1. Interview protocol and survey design
In-depth interviews are a suitable approach for collecting qualitative information such as stories, facts, opinions, and participant’s
experiences regarding a topic or phenomena (Coombes et al., 2009). The strength of this approach is that the in-depth interview format
leaves room for participants to introduce thoughts and ideas about which the researchers had no preconceptions (Coombes et al.,
2009). This serves the aim of this study, which was to explore phenomena related to the connection between location-based AR games
and the physical world. Accordingly, the data collection was designed to produce material to primarily answer the question of what is,
rather than how much or how many (Morse, 2007).
Based on the authors’ experience of playing LBGs, as well as prior research discussing aspects of the connection between LBGs and
the physical world (e.g. Laato et al., 2019; S¨
obke et al., 2017; Papangelis et al., 2017), we wrote down LBG design elements related to
the connection between the game and the real world. These included PoIs (Juh´
asz and Hochmair, 2017; Laato et al., 2019), AR-features
(Rauschnabel, 2021), real world events and gatherings related to the game (S¨
obke et al., 2017), and a story that encourages players to
pretend as if the game world was real (Waern et al., 2009). We identied relevant research questions from the literature and from our
experiences regarding these aspects, and created a skeleton of questions around these phenomena. Upon the second iteration of the
questionnaire, we divided the questions into two overarching topics: (1) AR, story and imagination; and (2) PoIs and playing locations;
matching the research questions of this study. These two topics and the related survey questions are shown in Appendices 1-4. In order
to leave room for further topics and remarks, we also asked the participants to share stories, opinions and ideas related to the two
research questions of the study. Accordingly, following guidance from the literature on in-depth interviews, we used a semi-structured
interview approach and asked follow-up questions based on the participants’ responses (Coombes et al., 2009).
As we were limited by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, we were left with two options: either to carry out a portion of the
interviews online, or to ask participants to respond to the survey asynchronously. Ultimately, we prioritized gaining a more diverse set
of responses and created an asynchronous online survey to supplement the interview data collection. This online survey was a copy of
the semi-structured interview form with minor edits to make the questions understandable. We decided to interview and survey
players across four LBGs, and consequently, the exact questions were edited slightly to match the game in question. For example, the
survey on Pok´
emon GO asked whether players imagined the pok´
emon creatures in the real world, while the survey for WDOW asked
whether they imagined zombies or in-game buildings in the real world. The forms for the semi-structured questionnaires used for the
games in this study are available in Appendices 1-4.
3.2. Participants and data collection
To obtain data from a variety of viewpoints and to reduce the impact of sampling bias, we formulated three criteria for participant
recruitment, which are displayed in Table 1. The aim of these criteria was to ensure a broad coverage of LBG players, living locations,
games and playstyles in order to ensure the possibility for a broad spectrum of observations to emerge. Consequently, this enabled us to
identify overarching phenomena related to the two research questions and themes of the study which are universal across LBGs, in-
dividual differences and playing locations. We recruited players of Pok´
emon GO which has been shown to engage players in the long-
term (S¨
obke et al., 2019), but also three newer LBGs: HPWU, Orna and WDOW to obtain supplementary viewpoints from less popular
but still widely played games. All of these games connect slightly differently to the real world. For example, in Pok´
emon GO and HPWU
static PoIs correspond to real world objects, while in Orna and WDOW they do not. Participants were recruited from online
communication channels, primarily Telegram and Facebook, as well as from meeting players physically during LBG play.
Two researchers independently conducted semi-structured face to face interviews (Coombes et al., 2009) with LBG players in
Southern Finland between June 2020 - September 2020. During the rst round of invitations, 12 participants joined us in interviews
and gave their consent to use their responses in the research. The duration of the face to face interviews varied between 15 mins to 1 h
Table 1
Participant recruitment criteria and explanation.
Criterion Explanation
#1 Playing experience of over a
month.
We estimated that with less than one month of playing experience, players would have an inadequate understanding of the
nuances of the game. However, we did not want to limit participants too much by requiring them to have played the game
for longer. We also felt that the opinions of relatively new players could provide valuable insights.
#2 Players from both urban and
rural areas.
Past work has shown that players from rural and urban areas experience LBGs quite differently (Juh´
asz and Hochmair,
2017). We wanted to obtain viewpoints from both perspectives.
#3 Players from four independent
LBGs.
While Pok´
emon GO is the most popular LBG, focusing on other games as well supports the generalizability of the
observations and ndings. Viewpoints from other games can further serve to conrm or contrast the ndings.
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
4
depending on the participant. The authors either took notes during the interviews or recorded them and later transcribed the re-
cordings for analysis. The amount of notes totalled on average 500 words per interview. Due to restrictions brought by the COVID-19
pandemic, we expanded the interviews in August 2020 to an online format. At this stage, we opted for an asynchronous online survey
form to support the interviews. This online data collection garnered 62 full responses.
The participants’ demographic information across both data collection instances is displayed in Table 2. We consider the sample to
be representative of the active LBG players in Finland, but the self-selection bias should still not be overlooked. We gained the most
participants from WDOW, followed by Pok´
emon GO, Orna and HPWU. We asked participants to reply as representatives of the primary
game they played. However, more than half of the players reported playing multiple LBGs. This can be considered a strength, as the
participants could have viewpoints beyond those specic to an individual LBG. All participants were living in Finland at the time of the
interviews and the survey.
On average, the face to face interviews produced three times as much material compared to the online survey. However, in
asynchronous data collection, participants have time to carefully conceptualize and craft their responses. Upon preliminary data
investigation and interview transcription, the authors scanned the interview and survey data for any notable differences. The interview
material was generally richer, but otherwise the responses were similar across both datasets. This is likely due to the questions being
the same, albeit that the online survey lacked the follow-up questions presented in the interviews. Based on this analysis, there was no
need to analyse the two datasets independently. Accordingly, the online (n =62) and face to face interviews (n =12) were combined
for analysis as a single data set (N =74).
3.3. Data analysis
The data analysis consisted of three phases: (1) familiarization with the data; (2) formation of thematic clusters (Guest et al., 2011);
and (3) qualitative coding of the raw data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In the rst step, the authors shared their notes of the face-to-face
interviews with one another, and had discussions relating to the overall trends in the interviews to familiarize themselves with the
material. Information related to the research questions was already sorted due to the interview structure, but some cleaning of the data
was done with the interview data. At this stage, any information completely unrelated to the research questions was discarded.
In the second step, we proceeded to identify and elucidate central themes that arose during participants’ responses related to the
two main themes and research questions of the study. These arose naturally from clustering the data based on the topic it concerned,
but some minor iteration was done on the clusters between the rst two authors until the thematic framework adequately described the
data (Guest et al., 2011).
In the third step, the coding process, participants’ viewpoints were placed into preliminary categories by the author coding the
data. During this stage we also picked up interesting or particularly well-formulated quotes from the participants. All participants were
interviewed in Finnish, meaning the authors translated the quotes from Finnish to English. While two researchers formulated the
thematic framework, only a single researcher carried out the coding. This was not seen as a problem in our case, as our focus was on
nding out ‘what is’ through discovering ideas and issues, instead of quantitative conrmation of the frequency of the themes (Morse,
2007). However, for a few key questions with straightforward and unambiguous responses we also counted the responses for all four
games. The results are displayed in Table 3. We discuss the ndings of Table 3 and the thematic analysis in depth in the next section.
4. Findings
4.1. AR through the mobile device camera was irrelevant to most players
From the LBGs whose players we interviewed, only Orna was missing an AR-mode. With players from all other games, we asked
whether the players used the camera based AR-mode. An overwhelming majority of players (93% across all three games) reported to
rarely or never use AR-features. In games such as Pok´
emon GO where players were at times encouraged to use the AR-features by other
game mechanics, for example, when feeding candy to the buddy Pok´
emon, players stated that in these situations the AR-mode was
more of a gimmick than an interesting game mechanic.
“I don’t think the AR -mode brings any added value [to Pok´
emon GO]”
Some participants reported sometimes taking pictures of rare Pok´
emon using the AR-mode. For example, one respondent said:
Table 2
Demographic information of participants.
Age Gender
18–29 n =6 Male n =43
30–49 n =61 Female n =30
Over 50 n =7 Other n =1
Education Primary game
Primary education n =1 Harry Potter: Wizards Unite n =12
Secondary education n =22 Orna n =13
Bachelor n =31 Pok´
emon GO n =18
Master n =19 Walking Dead: Our World n =31
PhD n =1 Overall N =74
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
5
“I take a lot of pictures when I complete research tasks, and if I encounter a new shiny Pok´
emon I might take pictures of it.”
One of the explanations for these ndings comes from Alha et al., (2019) who found progression to be a major reason for players to
play LBGs. As the AR-mode takes considerable time, players prefer to play the game without it. This was brought up by participants in
all three games with AR features. Participants further expressed that even if they used AR features at the beginning of their playing
career, they no longer did so. One participant explained as follows.
“I used the AR mode rst, but as it is slower to use I prefer not to.”
While the lag of the AR-mode was the primary reason for players to not use it, some also stated that they saw it as pointless or
having little value to them personally. Upon asking whether the mode supported their imagination, the overwhelming majority of
responses stated the opposite. A recent study showed Pok´
emon GO players enjoy sharing AR-screenshots on social media (Alavesa and
Xu, 2020), but in our sample, only one player reported doing so.
4.2. Players rarely imagined the game content in the real world
Pok´
emon GO is based on the ctional narrative of what if Pok´
emon were real, HPWU is based on what if wizards and magic were
real and WDOW is based on what if our world had zombies. Orna is the only exception as it is not based on any prior franchise. The
approaches in Pok´
emon GO, HPWU and WDOW follow the game design suggestion of Waern et al., (2009) who argued that to engage
players, LBGs need to pretend that the game world is real. However, in our data, the majority (85%) of players surprisingly responded
as rarely or never imagining in-game content in the real world. In contrast, players across all games expressed that they imagined
virtual content on the map interface of their mobile device instead, which can be seen as a 2D visualization of reality. In general,
players accepted the 2D map visualization as the playground in LBGs, but not the 3D real world. However, the lack of 3D visualization
of AR content does not mean it is not desirable, as some participants expressed they were looking forward to technology better
supporting their imagination. For example, one Pok´
emon GO player explained as follows:
“I don’t imagine pok´
emon in the real world at the moment, but I am looking forward to technology developing to the point where this
would be better supported, for example through 3D glasses or other technology.”
Other respondents also mentioned glasses similar to Google Glass as being necessary for a realistic fusion between LBGs and the
physical world in a 3D perspective. The usability issues of having to view the world through the mobile device camera was seen as
immersion-breaking. When pressing participants about what they were thinking while playing, participants rarely admitted to
imagining themselves as zombie hunters, pok´
emon trainers, or wizards. The story of the games was acknowledged by players, but most
commonly players were thinking about specic goals within the game while playing, such as I need to catch 5 more pok´
emon, or I need
to get 1200 more experience points. In our sample, players obtained a sense of meaningfulness from strict rules and the social com-
munity, rather than the narrative story world of the games. Some Pok´
emon GO players said they had imagined pok´
emon in the real
world more at the beginning of their playing career, but over the years, the use of imagination has faded away. They described their
feelings as follows:
“Early on in 2016 I used to think of myself more as a Pok´
emon trainer, and intentionally imagine pok´
emon here in the real world, but
currently I do it very rarely.”
Another respondent described their feelings in the following way:
“Sometimes [I imagine pok´
emon in the real world]. Yes I feel the anime series better supports my imagination [than Pok´
emon GO]. Also,
I think it is easier to imagine pok´
emon in new places in the real world, than in familiar places.”
Based on the ndings connected to this theme, the four LBGs observed in this study do not manage to converge the game and the
physical world in the way that players would continuously or automatically imagine virtual content in the real world. This nding is in
line with Sifonis (2019) who looked at whether LBG players would spontaneously have altered visual perceptions about the game and
reality, and found this not to be the case. From another perspective, it can be summarized that the AR-features were unsuccessful at
supporting players’ imagination in the four LBGs. The play taking place through a 2D map directed players to view the LBG world
through the 2D map, instead of in 3D. The two dimensional bird’s eye view conceptualization of the game world therefore created a
disconnect between the game and the physical world. Comparing our ndings with previous literature, Jensen et al., (2019) viewed
LBGs as layers of reality which can be accessed at will. But in the eyes of LBG players, these appear two dimensional and clearly
distinguishable from reality.
Table 3
Depicting numerical information of players’ responses to key questions. Note that while the numbers provide insight into how players’ perceived the
phenomena, they should not be viewed as statistically signicant evidence.
Pok´
emon GO HPWU Orna WDOW Cumulative
Players regularly use AR features based on the mobile device camera. 2/18 (11%) 0/12 (0%) N/A 2/31 (6%) 4/61 (7%)
Players imagine in-game content in the physical world. 5/18 (28%) 3/12 (25%) 1/13 (8%) 2/31 (6%) 11/74 (15%)
Players want in-game PoIs to be linked with physical world objects. 16/18 (89%) 8/12 (67%) 5/13 (38%) 4/31 (13%) 33/74 (45%)
Players want different PoI criteria for urban and rural areas. 6/18 (34%) 7/12 (58%) N/A 4/31 (13%) 17/74 (23%)
Players want the LBG to fuse with the physical world. 2/18 (11%) 4/12 (34%) 1/13 (8%) 8/31 (26%) 14/74 (19%)
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
6
4.3. Linking virtual PoIs to real world locations is a double edged sword
Substantial differences were observed between the players on whether virtual PoIs should be linked to real world places in LBGs.
These differences may be explained by two trends. First, players living or playing in areas with fewer PoIs reported that they would
enjoy it if there were more “places to play” in their neighbourhood. Unsurprisingly, in games where players are driven by a desire to
progress (Alha et al., 2019), having enough playing locations was seen as important. In contrast, players living near cultural hotspots
with several PoIs argued that it is essential that virtual PoIs are linked to real world objects. Second, players of the Niantic games
Pok´
emon GO (89%) and HPWU (67%) generally favoured having virtual PoIs linked to real world places, whereas players of games
with algorithmically generated PoIs, Orna (38%) and WDOW (13%), enjoyed the fact that the game could also be played in rural areas.
However, there were some individual differences. For example, one Pok´
emon GO player stated:
“I think generally yes [they should be linked], but it is a bit problematic that rural areas have so few places to play. The Niantic Wayfarer
system is also currently not working well and my submissions are getting jammed, so obviously the current system does not work either.”
The player in question clearly had the opportunity to travel to the city where there were more playing locations, but this was not an
option for all the players. Many also saw a trade-off between linking PoIs to real world places. The arguments for the linkage were (1)
they encourage socializing by directing players to the same areas; (2) they teach players about their local surroundings; (3) they are
safer. The arguments given against the linkage were mostly concerned with the lack of PoIs in certain areas such as sub-urban and rural
areas. The positive and negative aspects of connecting PoIs to real world places that arose in the data are summarized in Table 4. One
participant (a Pok´
emon GO player) arguing for linking the virtual PoIs to real world locations explained:
“The accurate connection of real world places and stops and gyms are part of the game. You learn new things and get to know places. It’s
especially useful if you’re travelling.”
Most players expressed in some way or other that they felt linking PoIs to real world places would increase a sense of immersion
while playing. To support the connection between PoIs and real world places, participants suggested, for example, to name in-game
areas based on their real world location (e.g. Central Park in New York) but stated that a more specic connection to the real world (e.
g. some statue being identied as a PoI) was unnecessary. The least support for making virtual PoIs match real world objects was
among WDOW players, of whom only 13% felt a connection to real world places would increase the value of playing. While not
statistically signicant, this nding gives preliminary evidence towards game mechanics playing a major part in the level of
convergence between the real and augmented content that players wish to see. This is further supported by the viewpoints of Pok´
emon
GO and HPWU players, of whom the overwhelming majority (87%) enjoyed or mostly enjoyed the connection of virtual PoIs to the real
world. Alternatively and simultaneously, however, PoI coverage in the players’ area may be one of the factors that determines which
LBG (if any) players end up playing.
4.4. PoI interaction radius needs to be large enough to allow seamless walking while playing
The PoI interaction radius can be dened as the physical distance from which the player can interact with a specic PoI. Depending
on the game it can be 10 m or 15 m. The general consensus between respondents with regards to the PoI interaction radius was that it
needs to be small enough to motivate travel to places as well as walking, but large enough to avoid the requirement to move right next
to a PoI, which could hinder the ow of the playing experience. A recent study on Pok´
emon GO players, for example, reported that
players overwhelmingly appreciated the increased PoI interaction radius that was implemented in the game due to COVID-19 (Laato
et al., 2020). In the present study, the small interaction radius was perceived problematic only in HPWU and Pok´
emon GO where PoIs
correspond to real world locations. The reasons given were that occasionally PoIs were situated in inaccessible areas and for some, the
GPS signal was not accurate enough for playing with precise PoIs. One participant explained as follows:
“A large interaction radius allows me to play while walking in a straight line, and I don’t have to keep intruding on private residential
playgrounds all the time. But I understand that to keep the game location-based the radius cannot be hundreds of meters.”
This quote exemplies the participants’ diverse opinions on the positive and negative aspects of small and large PoI interaction
radii. However, a few of the interviewed players went further to suggest that it is a good idea to create multiple game mechanics
regarding PoI interaction. One participant, for example, came up with the following suggestions:
Table 4
The costs and benets of linking PoIs to real world locations or objects in LBGs.
Primary
Stakeholder
Benets Costs
Players Enables players to learn about their local environment while playing. Will cause an uneven distribution of PoIs, which depending on
selected criteria for accepting PoIs, can end up discriminating against
specic groups of players.
Players Players perceive in-game PoIs as more meaningful when they have
historical or cultural value, a unique name, pictures, and a backstory.
Can motivate players to play the game.
Will direct player movement to places with PoIs, and away from
optimal work routes and potentially beautiful scenery.
Developers Provides the developer with better control over PoIs. Helps ensure
legal compliance i.e. that unsafe, illegally placed and harmful PoIs are
removed.
Major monetary and practical costs of creating and maintaining such
a database.
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
7
“Basic mechanics [playing while moving] should have a large interaction radius −30 m +or so. But raids [in Pok´
emon GO] where
players hang together for a longer time can have a smaller interaction radius”
Thus, while some forms of playing (exercise, moving to a specic location) benet from a large interaction radius, other forms
(socializing, getting to know the local environment) benet from a small interaction radius. In practise, this can be implemented by
ensuring that game mechanics that require movement, have a large PoI interaction radius, and game mechanics that require stationary
social play have a small interaction radius.
4.5. Participants did not wish for a higher level of convergence between the game and the real world
Regarding the convergence between LBGs and the physical world, several closely related and overlapping concepts emerged in the
data, including entanglement, fusion, connection, linkage and intertwinement of the two worlds. Surprisingly, the majority of all
players stated that they did not wish for any stronger convergence between the real and the augmented than what was already
implemented in the LBGs, as seen in Table 3. Players felt satised with the game in question being placed on real maps, and the avatar
location being matched with their physical location. Among HPWU players, 34% desired a higher level of convergence between the
real and the augmented, which was the most out of all the four games. For example, one HPWU player who was positive about
increasing the connection between the game and reality explained their thoughts as follows:
“Yes [I would wish for a more intense level of connection]. The places we visit should be introduced with some real world game related
objects so that instead of seeing the place only in the game we would actually nd something cool there.”
Only 8% of Orna players wanted a more accurate fusion between the physical world and the game. The reasons given were that it
would not add any value to the game, and that not all games have to be like Pok´
emon GO. One participant reected on the matter as
follows:
“Some games can and others don’t have to. There are many stones left unturned in AR-games and I am sure developers should continue
experimenting. But not everyone needs to go with as realistic and cinematic a design as possible. I think gameplay is more important.”
While the Pok´
emon GO players in our study were generally satised with the connection between the game and the real world (only
11% wishing for a higher level of convergence), two respondents felt there were missed opportunities in linking the LBG with the real
world. Participants mentioned that while in the main series Pok´
emon games such as Red and Blue pok´
emon creatures appear based on
the area they belong to (e.g. water pok´
emon live near bodies of water and grass type pok´
emon can be found near grass), this was not
well implemented in Pok´
emon GO. One participant explained as follows:
“If I go to an industrial area I want to nd poison pok´
emon or if I go to a forest I want to nd grass and bug pok´
emon. Now [the
developer] just switches which pok´
emon are available and no such immersion exists. I no longer need to travel anywhere to nd a rare
pok´
emon. I just wait for [the developer] to bring it to me.”
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical and practical implications
Our ndings contribute to the research on playful approaches to urban space by focusing on the importance of the playing locations
and imagination. While a signicant body of academic literature and industry attention has been directed on AR-features working
through a mobile device’s camera (Diegmann et al., 2015; Rauschnabel, 2021; Yung and Khoo-Lattimore, 2019), we show that in
contemporary LBGs these were not valued or appreciated by our sample of players. One of the reasons for this was that AR-features
were perceived to be slow and they disturbed rather than helped progression, which has been identied as one of the main reasons for
players to play games like Pok´
emon GO (Alha et al., 2019). The desire to progress in the game also inuenced players’ attitudes to-
wards in-game PoIs. While a connection between PoIs and real world objects was generally appreciated, players who lived in areas
with only a few PoIs wished there were more of them. With these ndings, we extend the work of Alha et al., (2019) who showed that
progression was the main reason for LBG players to continue playing. The connection between PoIs and the real world has in the worst
cases led to cartographic vandalism (Juh´
asz et al., 2020) and to players abusing the Niantic crowdsourcing platform through which in-
game PoIs are created. Thus, disentangling PoI creation from the desire to progress, where players see quantity as more important than
quality, is a promising avenue to explore as a solution to these issues.
Regarding linking PoIs with real world places, both benets and costs were identied (as displayed in Table 4). While PoIs can be
regarded as the backbone of LBGs (Laato et al., 2019; S¨
obke et al., 2019; Tregel et al., 2017), the importance of PoI interaction radii and
overall game mechanics were highlighted in our ndings. For example, the benet of linking PoIs to real world locations seemed to be
less relevant in HPWU where territorial conict and control of PoIs was not implemented through the game mechanics. Orna players
did not wish the controllable areas in the game to be linked to specic locations and preferred the larger areas currently implemented
in the game. Some players suggested having different PoI criteria in rural and urban areas to x the issue of geographical dicrimination
(see Juh´
asz and Hochmair, 2017; Tregel et al., 2017). Previous work has shown that PoI locations coupled with a game design that
emphasises fast progression and enables playing while driving can lead to a statistically observable population-level increase in trafc
accidents (Faccio and McConnell, 2020). Thus, while linking virtual PoIs to real world objects has several benets, developers need to
be careful in their game design to avoid negative real world outcomes.
Ultimately, by answering the two RQs posed in this study we contribute to (1) the understanding of the role of PoIs in player
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
8
experience in LBGs; and (2) other ways LBGs can connect the game world to the physical world such as through AR-features. Our
ndings indicate that among the options LBG developers have for scaffolding a connection between reality and the game world, the
game map corresponding to the real world is important. In practice this means that roads and buildings on the game map interface
should correspond to roads and buildings in the physical world. As the player moves around in the real world, their avatar follows in
the game world. In contrast, AR-features which superimpose digital content on top of the real world through the mobile devices’
camera were not seen to be equally important. Thus, regarding AR features, multimodal possibilities of implementing AR that go
beyond mobile device camera technology are needed (Rauschnabel, 2021). Finally, upon exploring the role of imagination while
playing, we found AR-features to be unhelpful in creating an illusion of the game world being real. The overall theoretical implications
of this study are summarized in Table 5.
5.2. Implications for location-based game design
Our study has implications on LBG design which deserve to be discussed separately from the theoretical and practical implications.
Here we summarize three design implications arising from the thematic analysis, which we feel are relevant to LBG designers for
creating more engaging and enjoyable playing experiences.
Design implication 1: motivating the use of AR-features. To better motivate players to use AR-features, LBG designers should
try to make it equally fast or even faster to use AR rather than to not use it. Especially when progression is the primary motivation for
continuing to play (Alha et al., 2019), the slowness of AR features is a major inhibitor for players to use them.
Design implication 2: optimal PoI interaction radius. Playing that is done by moving, and related game mechanics, should have
a large interaction radius to enable smooth travelling while playing. However, game mechanics where players are in the same place for
a longer time period should have a shorter interaction radius, in order to enable players to socialize and learn about the real world PoI
that they are located in.
Design implication 3: attention to PoI criteria Rural players wished for loose PoI criteria or some other means to obtain more
playing locations where they lived. Following Tregel et al., (2017) LBG designers should look into creating virtual PoIs that are
connected to real world objects, but nd remedies to compensate players who live in areas with little to no signicant real world
objects.
5.3. Limitations
Due to the difculty of recruiting and reserving players for interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic, we only interviewed 12
players face to face while the rest responded to the same questions asynchronously online. The richness of the responses in the face-to-
face interviews was higher, but as the themes in both data collection approaches were similar, we did not consider this to be a problem
in our data. The limitations regarding participant sampling also need to be discussed. We contacted group moderators in the player
communities that were familiar to us. One such community had little gender diversity (Orna, where all participants were male), which
can be either due to the game being attractive to a male-only audience or a bias in our sampling. In the case of other games, no such bias
was identied. However, the representativeness of the sample may still be called into question due to it being sourced from a culturally
Table 5
The main theoretical contributions of this study.
Previous ndings What this study adds
Players share screenshots and AR-photos of their playing on social media, which
further blends LBGs to reality (Alavesa and Xu, 2020).
The sharing of achievements is generally much more important for players
than the photos. The AR-mode can at times be used to impress other players,
but only a few regularly use it.
LBGs should aim to scaffold the make-believe of ’what if the game was real’ to
engage players (Waern et al., 2009)
Progression was a major motivation for players to play, and too accurate a
fusion with the physical world was at times in conict with this goal as it
slowed down progression.
PoI placement can dictate which geographical areas LBG players perceive as
meaningful and where they play (Colley et al., 2017; Papangelis et al., 2020)
The connection of PoIs to the real world increased players’ perceptions of the
meaningfulness of the location. In general for players motivated by
progression, the quantity of PoIs was more important than their quality.
Linking PoIs to real world locations enables players to learn about their
surroundings while playing (Oleksy and Wnuk, 2017)
Players appreciated a small interaction radius with PoIs and a connection to
the real world in particular in three cases: (1) when players get together at a
specic place for a longer period of time to play; (2) where players want to
learn about their local environment; or (3) where they are required to socialize
with other players.
Linking PoIs to real world locations enables safer playing (Laato et al., 2019) PoIs linked to real world locations can also be more dangerous in cases where
they are coupled with a shorter interaction radius, demanding players to go to
extremely close proximity to the PoI.
When connecting PoIs to real world locations rural areas and areas inhabited by
minorities end up having less PoIs, making playing less fun and optimal (
Juh´
asz and Hochmair, 2017)
Players gravitate to specic LBGs based on how many PoIs their living areas
have in those games.
An uneven distribution of PoIs and having a poor playing environment can in
worst cases motivate players to destructively modify existing map services
such as OpenStreetMaps (Juh´
asz et al., 2020)
As popular LBG players are motivated by progression and a larger quantity of
PoIs enable faster progression, players are incentivized in worst case scenarios
to even vandalize Niantic’s crowdsourced PoI database or OpenStreetMaps.
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
9
heterogeneous area.
Our study also has limitations with regards to data analysis. We conducted a thematic analysis on the respondents’ replies regarding
connecting LBGs to the real world. We focused in particular on material related to the two research questions of the study. This was
made easier by the employed structured survey format (see Appendices 1-4), where responses were already connected to higher level
topics. However, due to author bias, some information or viewpoints may still have been omitted or misinterpreted in the data. As a
remedy, we attempted to mitigate such issues by familiarizing ourselves with the data prior to the analysis. The initial thematic
framework was created and iterated by the same authors who interviewed the participants. Inevitably, some researcher interpretation
was present during the interviews, and also in the data analysis and construction of the thematic framework. Only a single author
coded the participants’ responses, and some selection bias could also have been present in the selection of the presented quotes from
participants in Section 4. Finally, the data was cross-sectional, meaning the status quo regarding the identied themes may have
changed over time. For example, AR features may have been more relevant for players during the beginning of their career, but not
later on. As we surveyed primarily experienced players, this may show in our results. However overall, given the continuity of themes
within the data and the correspondence of our ndings with external literature, we assume that any inherent bias had no meaningful
effect on the research outcomes.
6. Conclusions and future work
In this study we qualitatively investigated the convergence between LBGs and the physical world. To this end, we conducted semi-
structured face-to-face interviews (n =12) and repeated the survey online (n =62) to players across four LBGs. One of the surprising
ndings was that only a small number of participants (7%) regularly used or enjoyed the AR-features of the LBGs. The most common
reasons for this were that: (1) they slow down playing and consequently progression; and (2) they are unrealistic and do not provide
value to players. A few participants exclusively mentioned that AR could work better through smart glasses, which is a promising
future direction to explore with regards to 3D AR in LBGs. Generally, the surveyed players also expressed a wish that the game and real
world would be distinguished from one another, and only 19% wanted a higher level of convergence between the game and the real
world. However, there were substantial differences in this regard between games, which warrants further research on the topic.
Our ndings also revealed three design considerations for LBGs. The rst was related to AR-features working through the mobile
devices’ camera. While players expressed AR features to be at times unrealistic and to provide a little additional value, the main reason
players in our sample stated they did not use them was their slowness. The second design consideration was about the potential to vary
the PoI interaction radius depending on whether playing occurs while moving (large radius) or when standing still (small interaction
radius). Future experimental work could examine whether different interaction radii leads to confusing playing experience, or whether
it works as suggested in the interviews. The third and nal design recommendation was about the criteria by which LBGs select virtual
PoIs in their game. Here, based on previous work (Laato et al., 2019; Tregel et al., 2017) and the current empirical study, LBG designers
should integrate virtual PoIs with real world objects, but they need to look for ways to compensate rural players for the lack of static
real world PoIs in their area. We therefore encourage LBG designers to consider these changes, in order to create more engaging and
meaningful playing experiences for their players.
In summary, the convergence between LBGs and the physical world contains various aspects and trade-offs, and it is by no means
clear that LBG design should aim for as high a level of connection between the augmented and the real as possible. We also found
evidence of individual differences in desires and preferences regarding LBG design, related to connecting the game with reality.
Connecting the virtual PoIs of LBGs to the real world can have the benets of (1) facilitating social meetings; (2) teaching about the real
world; and (3) increasing the meaningfulness of playing. But this can also replicate geographical imbalances by discriminating against
rural areas and poor areas and by extention, the players in them (Juh´
asz and Hochmair, 2017). While AR features using the mobile
devices’ camera were not widely used by players, the surveyed players expressed hopes that future technological advances could
rekindle their interests in the technology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the Academy of Finland Flagship Programme under Grant No. 337653 (Forest-Human-Machine
Interplay (UNITE))
Appendix 1. The core set of questions for Pok´
emon GO players
Background questions: Research permission, demographic information and playing experience.
(continued on next page)
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
10
(continued)
Part 1. AR, story and imagination:
(1) Do you use the AR features in-game? Why/why not? How could they be improved?
(2) What goes on in your mind while playing? What specic game-related thoughts do you have?
(3) Do you ever imagine pok´
emon here in the real world? In what kinds of situations do you do so?
(4) Do you have prior experiences with the Pok´
emon franchise? Tell us about these experiences.
(5) What makes Pok´
emon GO interesting to you?
(6) How meaningful is social interaction with other players to you? Why/why not?
(7) Do you feel collecting Pok´
emon and achievements is a meaningful activity? Why/why not?
(8) Does the story and imagination while playing make the playing experience feel more meaningful
to you? Why/why not?
Part 2. Points of interest and the playing locations:
(1) Do you care whether stops and gyms (the virtual PoIs) correspond to real world objects? Why/why
not?
(2) Should urban and rural areas have different criteria for PoIs? What advantages do you see in doing
this? What is your personal preference? Why?
(3) Do you feel the connection between the virtual PoIs and real world objects increases the
meaningfulness of playing? What about immersion? Do you feel they make playing feel more real?
(4) Should LBGs similar to Pok´
emon GO aim to fuse with the real world? Why/why not? Do you
personally wish Pok´
emon GO to be more entangled with reality?
(5) How do you feel about the interaction radius to PoIs? Should the doubled interaction radius that
was introduced to Pok´
emon GO during COVID-19 be made permanent? Why?
Appendix 2. The core set of questions for Harry Potter: Wizards Unite players
Background questions: (–)
Part 1. AR, story and imagination:
(1) Do you use the AR features in-game? Why/why not? How could they be improved?
(2) What goes on in your mind while playing HPWU? What specic game-related thoughts do you
have?
(3) Do you ever imagine game content such as fortresses, green houses, inns or traces here in the real
world?
(4) Have you read the Harry Potter books, watched the movies or played other Harry Potter -themed
games?
(5) What do you nd interesting or meaningful in HPWU?
Part 2. Points of interest and the playing locations:
(1) Do you care whether the inns, fortresses and greenhouses correspond to objects or buildings in the
real world?
(2) Does the connection between real world objects and inns, fortresses and greenhouses increase the
immersiveness of the game or a sense that the game is part of the real world?
(3) Should LBGs such as HPWU aim to integrate with the real world as strongly as possible?
(4) Should rural areas have different PoI criteria than urban areas? Why/ why not?
Appendix 3. The core set of questions for Orna players
Background questions: (–)
Part 1. AR, story and imagination:
(1) Do you wish for more realistic graphics for Orna? Why/ why not?
(2) Would you like the game to have an AR mode that works through the mobile device’s camera?
(3) When playing Orna, how do you perceive the world around you and do you care where you play?
(4) Do you ever imagine Orna’s buildings or creatures in the real world?
(5) Do you have experience from other games similar to Orna? Which ones? How do they differ?
(6) What do you nd meaningful or engaging in Orna?
Part 2. Points of interest and the playing locations:
(1) Should dungeons and other buildings in Orna correspond to objects in the real world? Why/why
not?
(2) Do the xed dungeon locations increase a sense of immersiveness of playing or a sense that the
game is part of the real world?
(3) Should games such as Orna aim for as fastidious fusion between the real world and the game as
possible?
(continued on next page)
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
11
(continued)
(4) Do you feel that a connection between real world objects and objects in the game world would
open up new game design opportunities for Orna?
(5) Should the changes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic such as the boost “It’s still
dangerous out there” be made permanent?
Appendix 4. The core set of questions for the Walking Dead: Our World players
Background questions: (–)
Part 1. AR, story and imagination:
(1) Do you use the AR features that work through the mobile device’s camera? Why? Why not?
(2) What are you generally thinking when playing WDOW?
(3) Do you view and imagine the game through the map interface or otherwise?
(4) Do you ever imagine zombies here in the real world?
(5) Have you watched the Walking Dead series or played other games based on the franchise?
(6) What do you nd meaningful or interesting in WDOW?
Part 2. Points of interest and the playing locations:
(1) Do you care whether infestations, encounters and rescue missions are connected to objects in the
real world or not?
(2) Should games such as WDOW aim for as fastidious fusion between the game and the real world as
possible?
(3) Should central cultural locations and hotspots have more playing locations than other areas?
Why/why not?
(4) Should the added features implemented during COVID-19 to compensate for lockdowns be left in
the game?
References
Alavesa, P., Xu, Y., 2020. Unblurring the boundary between daily life and gameplay in location-based mobile games, visual online ethnography on Pok´
emon GO.
Behav. Inform. Technol. 1–13.
Alha, K., Koskinen, E., Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., 2019. Why do people play location-based augmented reality games: A study on Pok´
emon GO. Comput. Hum. Behav.
93, 114–122.
Althoff, T., White, R.W., Horvitz, E., 2016. Inuence of Pok´
emon Go on physical activity: study and implications. J. Med. Internet Res. 18 (12), e315. https://doi.org/
10.2196/jmir.6759.
Bhattacharya, A., Windleharth, T.W., Ishii, R.A., Acevedo, I.M., Aragon, C.R., Kientz, J.A., Lee, J.H., 2019. Group interactions in location-based gaming: A case study
of raiding in pok´
emon go. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12.
Chapple, Craig, (2020) Pok´
emon GO Surpasses $3.6 Billion in Lifetime Revenue as It Celebrates Four-Year Launch Anniversary, [ONLINE], available at: https://
sensortower.com/blog/pokemon-go-revenue-year-four, accessed 26th of September, 2020.
Colley, A., Thebault-Spieker, J., Lin, A.Y., Degraen, D., Fischman, B., H¨
akkil¨
a, J., Wenig, D., 2017. The geography of Pok´
emon GO: benecial and problematic effects
on places and movement. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1179–1192.
Coombes, L., Allen, D., Humphrey, D., Neale, J., 2009. In-depth interviews. Research Methods Health Social Care 197–210.
Diegmann, P., Schmidt-Kraepelin, M., Eynden, S., Basten, D., 2015. Benets of augmented reality in educational environments-a systematic literature review. Benets
3 (6), 1542–1556.
Dirin, A., Laine, T.H., 2018. User experience in mobile augmented reality: emotions, challenges, opportunities and best practices. Computers 7 (2), 33.
Faccio, M., McConnell, J.J., 2020. Death by Pok´
emon GO: The economic and human cost of using apps while driving. J. Risk Insurance 87 (3), 815–849.
Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., Brazier, F., 2020. Secrets of the south: A location-based game for the development of 21st century social skills and promotion of social
interaction. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E., 2011. Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications Inc.
Hamari, J., Malik, A., Koski, J., Johri, A., 2018. Uses and gratications of pok´
emon go: Why do people play mobile location-based augmented reality games? Int. J.
Human-Computer Interaction 35 (9), 804–819.
Hino, K., Asami, Y., Lee, J.S., 2019. Step counts of middle-aged and elderly adults for 10 months before and after the release of Pok´
emon GO in Yokohama, Japan.
J. Medical Internet Res. 21 (2), e10724. https://doi.org/10.2196/10724.
Irshad, S., Rambli, D.R.B.A., 2014. User experience of mobile augmented reality: A review of studies. In: 2014 3rd International Conference on User Science and
Engineering (i-USEr). IEEE, pp. 125–130.
Jensen, L.J., Valentine, K.D., Case, J.P., 2019. Accessing the pok´
elayer: Augmented reality and fantastical play in Pok´
emon Go. In: Educational Media and Technology
Yearbook. Springer, Cham, pp. 87–103.
Juh´
asz, L., Hochmair, H.H., 2017. Where to catch ‘em all?–a geographic analysis of Pok´
emon Go locations. Geo-spatial Inform. Sci. 20 (3), 241–251.
Juh´
asz, L., Novack, T., Hochmair, H.H., Qiao, S., 2020. Cartographic Vandalism in the Era of Location-Based Games—The Case of OpenStreetMap and Pok´
emon GO.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 9 (4), 197.
Khamzina, M., Parab, K.V., An, R., Bullard, T., Grigsby-Toussaint, D.S., 2020. Impact of Pokemon Go on physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am.
J. Prev. Med. 58 (2), 270–282.
Laato, S., Pietarinen, T., Rauti, S., Laine, T.H., 2019. Analysis of the quality of points of interest in the most popular location-based games. In: Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. 153–160.
Laato, S., Islam, A.K.M.N., Laine, T.H., 2020. Did location-based games motivate players to socialize during COVID-19? Telematics Inform. 54, 101458. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101458.
Lee, J.E., Zeng, N., Oh, Y., Lee, D., Gao, Z., 2021. Effects of Pok´
emon GO on Physical Activity and Psychological and Social Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J. Clinical
Med. 10 (9), 1860.
Leorke, D., 2018. Location-based gaming: play in public space. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
S. Laato et al.

Telematics and Informatics 65 (2021) 101716
12
Mozelius, P., Eriksson Bergstr¨
om, S., Jaldemark, J., 2017. Learning by Walking-Pok´
emon Go and Mobile Technology in Formal Education. In: 10th International
Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain, NOV 16-18, 2017. The International Academy of Technology, Education and Development,
pp. 1172–1179.
Morse, J. M. (2007). Qualitative researchers don’t count. Qualitative Health Research. 17(3).
Mozelius, P., Jaldemark, J., Bergstr¨
om, S.E., Sundgren, M., 2019. Augmented education: location-based games for real-world teaching and learning sessions. In:
Augmented Reality Games I. Springer, Cham, pp. 217–235.
Nairne, J.S., Pandeirada, J.N.S., Gregory, K.J., Van Arsdall, J.E., 2009. Adaptive memory: Fitness relevance and the hunter-gatherer mind. Psychol. Sci. 20 (6),
740–746.
Oleksy, T., Wnuk, A., 2017. Catch them all and increase your place attachment! The role of location-based augmented reality games in changing people-place
relations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76, 3–8.
Papangelis, K., Metzger, M., Sheng, Y., Liang, H.-N., Chamberlain, A., Cao, T., 2017. Conquering the city: Understanding perceptions of mobility and human
territoriality in location-based mobile games. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1 (3), 1–24.
Papangelis, K., Chamberlain, A., Lykourentzou, I., Khan, V.-J., Saker, M., Liang, H.-N., Sadien, I., Cao, T., 2020. Performing the Digital Self: Understanding Location-
Based Social Networking, Territory, Space, and Identity in the City. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 27 (1), 1–26.
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2017). An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pok´
emon Go. Computers in
Human Behavior, 76, 276-286.
Rauschnabel, P.A., 2021. Augmented reality is eating the real-world! The substitution of physical products by holograms. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 57, 102279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102279.
Remmer, M., Denami, M., Marquet, P., 2017. Why Pok´
emon GO is the future of school education: effects of AR on intrinsic motivation of children at elementary
school. In: Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual 2017, pp. 1–5.
Ruiz-Ariza, A., Casuso, R.A., Suarez-Manzano, S., Martínez-L´
opez, E.J., 2018. Effect of augmented reality game Pok´
emon GO on cognitive performance and emotional
intelligence in adolescent young. Comput. Educ. 116, 49–63.
Sifonis, C.M., 2019. Examining Game Transfer Phenomena in the hybrid reality game, Ingress. Int. J. Human-Computer Interaction 35 (17), 1557–1568.
S¨
obke, H., Hauge, J.B., Stefan, I.A., 2017. Prime example Ingress reframing the pervasive game design framework (PGDF). International Journal of Serious Games 4
(2).
S¨
obke, H., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Stefan, I.A., 2019. Long-term Engagement in Mobile Location-based AR Games. In: Geronimenko, V. (Ed.), Augmented Reality Games I.
Springer, Cham, pp. 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15616-9_9.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tregel, T., Raymann, L., G¨
obel, S., Steinmetz, R., 2017. Geodata classication for automatic content creation in location-based games. In: Joint International
Conference on Serious Games. Springer, Cham, pp. 212–223.
Waern, A., Montola, M., Stenros, J., 2009. April). The three-sixty illusion: designing for immersion in pervasive games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computing systems, pp. 1549–1558.
Wolf, M., Wehking, F., S¨
obke, H., Londong, J., 2020. Location-based Apps in Environmental Engineering Higher Education. Proceedings of DELbA 2020 - Workshop
on Designing and Facilitating Educational Location-based Applications.
Yung, R., Khoo-Lattimore, C., 2019. New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in
Tourism 22 (17), 2056–2081.
S. Laato et al.