Thoughts on Pokémon Go as a Location Based Game

The news today (11 July 2016) is full of dramatic numbers documenting the success of Nintendo's Pokémon Go. The game was released in Australia and New Zealand on the 6th July and in the US on the 7th. A weekend later and Nintendo was worth US$11 billion more, their servers had been brought down repeatedly by excessive load, the game had a similar daily activity profile to twitter, one player had discovered a dead body and 4 accusations (so far) have been made of armed robbers using the game to lure the vulnerable.

It is that latter item that gives rise to speculation about where this could go wrong (pun intended). This game is not the first AR (Augmented Reality) game, nor is it the first location based game (think of geocaching and urban games like Pac-Manhattan for example). Location based games have been around for at least 11 years. But with the Pokémon Go uptake in the meteoric scale, there is reason to look more closely at the consequences of many people playing a location based game.

1. What if people meet each other ? Games almost inevitably involve some kind of fighting and when they become multi-person games, the players are often competing with one another. Even single player location based games have the unique ability to guide people to places where other gamers are. Games nowadays are played with a persistence and focus that's scary. With aggression fueled by that intensity, it seems inevitable that "bad things" might happen if players physically encountered each other. Perhaps the clever way to do this is to write the game such that the physical interaction that is set up is at least friendly. Imagine a spatial algorithm where the game deliberately keeps players from colliding or competing for the same token but still permits them a friendly recognition as they pass. There would be rules such that players are not competing in the same location but can encounter one another. Its an interesting algorithm when there are 5 players but becomes quite fascinating when there are 100,000 in the same city.
2. Along the same lines as 1, how long before there are first person shooters as an AR game in the real world ? That seems to me to be fraught with danger. Some folks already have difficulty distinguishing between reality and virtual reality. With guns and ammunition readily available one has to think that "bad things" could happen.
3. What happens to the tracking data ? The predecessor to Pokémon Go (Ingress) was built by a Google spin-off and predictably was designed to accumulate and aggregate data. Its not clear whether Pokémon Go is similarly designed but it seems like a pretty safe assumption. With this many users willingly traversing the countryside, the location data accumulated will be very useful. Better still, by strategically placing the beasts to be captured, a clever strategist can fill in doubtfully mapped areas. There's another interesting algorithm to think about - how do you draw your users through areas that need better mapping without detracting from the game experience by sending them to Knockturn Alley or getting them lost. Once collected, this data would set Nintendo up as a rival for foursquare for example. And when the camera is on in the phone for the AR aspect, is this also recorded ? One has to imagine that there are potential privacy issues both with the tracking data and the video imagery.
4. How long before there is advertising ? While the game encourages users to wander, the close range guidance to bring a user to the target has wonderful opportunities for advertisers. Local facilities could pay to draw users by their profile to them as they are passing and in the extreme case could pay Nintendo to direct users to their offerings. And of course with AR readily available, passing users could see into facilities as they pass them (for example to see what a bar looks like inside as they are passing it).

And as a closing thought, how could we as spatial specialists help make the game safer ? We could help Nintendo (or parents ?) understand areas that players at a vulnerable age probably should not frequent. Tracking information for the players could be provided to authorized guardians.

Its a brilliant move by Nintendo and a successful location based game has to be good for our industry but I suggest we also have a duty to do our best to prevent spatial blunders in the design and use of the game.