Cited by 79Digital Games and MediaEducational Games and GamificationInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Playing to Wait: A Taxonomy of Idle Games

Alharthi, Sultan A., Alsaedi, Olaa, Toups Dugas, Phoebe O., Tanenbaum, Theresa Jean, Hammer, Jessica·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Idle games are a recent minimalist gaming phenomenon in which the game is left running with little player interaction. We deepen understanding of idle games and their characteristics by developing a taxonomy and identifying game features. This paper examines 66 idle games using a grounded theory approach to analyze play, game mechanics, rewards, interactivity, progress rate, and user interface. To establish a clearly bounded definition of idle games, we analyzed 10 non-idle games with the same approach. We discuss how idle games move players from playing to planning, how they question dominant assumptions about gameplay, and their unusual use of resources such as player attention and computer cycles. Our work illuminates opportunities for the design of idle games, suggests design implications, and provides a framework for researchers to clearly articulate questions about this genre.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3173574.3174195

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The back-and-forth moments between the user and the tool are similar to how players interact in idle games, where both sides contribute to the final result through small, ongoing steps.

    “These back-and-forth moments between the user and the tool are similar to how players interact in idle games—games that progress without player interaction for some time—where both sides, the player and the game, contribute to the final result through small, ongoing steps (Alharthi et al. 2018; Spiel et al. 2019).”

    From Generative AI in Game Design: Enhancing Creativity or Constraining Innovation? (2025) · cites this paper as Alharthi et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alharthi, S. A., Alsaedi, O., Toups Dugas, P. O., Tanenbaum, T. J., & Hammer, J.
Affiliations
  • New Mexico State University (US)
  • New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-04-21
Pages
1-15
OpenAlex
W2795739371
Cited by
79
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
23.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-1651532)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
game mechanics, game taxonomy, player attention, game rewards, interactivity, user interface, game design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review