Re:The Anatomy of Addictive Gameplay
by patio11 on Thursday June 10, 2010 @03:47AM
(#1419412)
I am potentially very troubled by it, because I think the capability of a team of capable engineers/marketers to A/B test and measure their way to addictiveness increases much faster than the ability of people to adapt to the stimulus. In particular, I think that there probably exists one or more vulnerable segments of the population who get ROFLstomped by this.
I chuckled with most folks about being "addicted" to WoW, but I play some of the social games on Facebook. One of them has a particular mechanic where you buy a treasure chest. The price is immaterial, and it is obfuscated -- we've learned that people suck at fractions so if you price points at 80 to the dollar sales increase versus pricing them at 100 to the dollar. Anyhow, buying a treasure chest gives you a 5% chance at one of four particular desirable items. It also gives you chances at less desirable items, which are designed to make you feel (like a slot machine) that you just missed getting the good one.
(I'll note that despite being fairly decent with numbers, my ballpark guess for how much you'd probably spend in USD to get one of those items was off by a factor of four.)
There was a long thread on the forum about folks spending hundreds of dollars rolling for that treasure chest.
I have no particular problem with a well-off individual spending hundreds on virtual goods. However, I don't think that 90% of e.g. Zynga's bottom line is coming from folks like me. I think huge portions almost certainly come from people who are relatively poor, less educated, have poor impulse control, and who cannot afford what they're buying. If you look at the AOL ad click data, they found that this is the type of person who clicks -- almost obsessively -- on advertisements. They don't understand that they will not win a million dollars if they punch the monkey.
I'd prefer to see the industry self-regulate to avoid exploiting vulnerable people.
Considerations like this are why I decided against doing a Facebook game -- I was genuinely worried about what my stats would show me.
I chuckled with most folks about being "addicted" to WoW, but I play some of the social games on Facebook. One of them has a particular mechanic where you buy a treasure chest. The price is immaterial, and it is obfuscated -- we've learned that people suck at fractions so if you price points at 80 to the dollar sales increase versus pricing them at 100 to the dollar. Anyhow, buying a treasure chest gives you a 5% chance at one of four particular desirable items. It also gives you chances at less desirable items, which are designed to make you feel (like a slot machine) that you just missed getting the good one.
(I'll note that despite being fairly decent with numbers, my ballpark guess for how much you'd probably spend in USD to get one of those items was off by a factor of four.)
There was a long thread on the forum about folks spending hundreds of dollars rolling for that treasure chest.
I have no particular problem with a well-off individual spending hundreds on virtual goods. However, I don't think that 90% of e.g. Zynga's bottom line is coming from folks like me. I think huge portions almost certainly come from people who are relatively poor, less educated, have poor impulse control, and who cannot afford what they're buying. If you look at the AOL ad click data, they found that this is the type of person who clicks -- almost obsessively -- on advertisements. They don't understand that they will not win a million dollars if they punch the monkey.
I'd prefer to see the industry self-regulate to avoid exploiting vulnerable people.
Considerations like this are why I decided against doing a Facebook game -- I was genuinely worried about what my stats would show me.