7 ms·

This comment totally needs to be higher. Every other comment on this thread makes little to no mention of "Skinner Box Design", when design tactics like these

This comment totally needs to be higher. Every other comment on this thread makes little to no mention of "Skinner Box Design", when design tactics like these are almost certainly the #1 factor for creating video game addicts. The issues we're discussing in this thread start with the game designer. Cognitive flow is a real thing, and game designers have learned through decades of research and testing how to put players into a state of cognitive flow. They've only recently (within the last 5 or 10 years) begun learning how to monetize your cognitive ability, bringing players to the brink of a flow state only to hide reward behind a paywall. The player is psychologically conditioned into a purchase by simply playing the game. Nearly everything else being discussed in this thread is a secondary issue stemming from the game designer's desire to increasingly monetize their game. This desire to monetize has given rise to the use of tactics that permeate the gambling industry. These tactics are designed to do little more than CREATE addicts - players who will return to your game and continually spend money. This, I believe, is the root cause of this issue - game designers who do not respect their players or their time. Designers who have specifically chosen to abuse and extort the emotions of their players in order to increase profits. These designs are evil, and as a game designer myself, I find the practice abhorrent. If you are a game designer reading this post, and you build games that fall into this category, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

kerbalspacepro 10y ago
I think what you are describing might be called 'Weaponized Flow State'. Flow states that arise while [acting, playing music, playing sports, programming] are really hard to generate. You have to develop those skills without "dynamic difficulty setting" that the author refers to. But when your basic skills are enough for you to do well, you can get drawn into a flow state much quicker.
- soverance 10y ago
  I disagree that these flow states are difficult to generate. While they are extremely more common within designed experiences (such as video games), they can and have been applied with great effect to more "common" tasks, such as acting, playing music, or sports. The very best article I've found on the subject is here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_the_psychology_of_.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_... Highly recommended reading.
  - kerbalspacepro 10y ago
    What I'm saying is that 'common' tasks that generate flow states take much longer than video games to generate the same cognitive effect. For example, when I play guitar I _must_ deliberately practice. I play the same 30 second melody half as slow, then only a quarter slow, and then finally i try really hard to play it at the right rhythm, and after a little more practice I'm playing it mechanically. I now can enter a flow state much easier. Looking at your link- I start out with low skill, but with something that has high difficulty. I wratchet my skill upwards until I enter flow state. Video games, on the other hand, use dynamic difficulty settings to change the difficulty to my skill. They generate the flow state programmatically. Nice article though.
  - Malician 10y ago
    I've never been able to replicate the flow states I used to have from Starcraft/Civilization elsewhere (I've played very few games in the last couple years.) I don't miss the time spent playing them, but my life is much emptier without them. Sort of exception is when everything breaks down at once and I have a ton of stuff to fix/do in emergency style. That's comforting.
cableshaft 10y ago
Also a game designer here (and programmer). I think you should be clear that a game designer is not always the one who makes the decisions on how to monetize a game. Often it's the people who are in charge of financing the game's development, i.e. publishers or executives. In fact, often game designers would rather not do this pay to win crap, although it's hard to ignore that it does seem to be the primary way people are willing to give you money in certain markets nowadays (mobile especially), and they would like to keep making games for a living, instead of making one game while ignoring current market trends, the game failing spectacularly, and the company shuts down as a result (I've worked for three game studios which have done basically exactly that, although two of them did try making free to play games eventually and still failed). I would love to make mobile games where I just charge $1-3 and still see success, but the stats just do not back it up. Yes, there are people who have successes that way, but they are either much larger, much more networked in the industry and know how to get a ton of media coverage (Just getting 'some' coverage is not enough. I've worked on games that have gotten 'some' media coverage. They've done poorly), or have worked on something so beautiful and compelling people feel they have to share it with others (Monument Valley comes to mind). I've actually mostly given up on video games right now and I'm focusing more on board games, where it's much easier to actually charge money for what you produce, since there's a physical component to it. That industry has exploded in the last 5 years also and it's starting to get harder to find success there as well, but I'm more passionate about that right now. Plus there's the bonus that you can make a video game version of your board game and existing fans would be willing to pay money for your app, as well as some cross-promotion between the two. Personally I don't think there's a problem trying to make your game as fun as possible (and fun and addiction are very closely linked) as a designer, you almost have to in order to get people to talk about and share your game. It's when you actively try to snare people into giving you a constant feed of money for virtual benefits that I think is a bit dodgy, but again the public has already voted with their wallet and said they won't download a mobile game unless it's free, so game developers/publishers have to get money for the game somehow.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  As an avid board game player to a board game designer: Please make sure that the chance to win isn't determined purely by random chance (die rolls), or at the very least enough rolls to average out for the players, or, in the worst case, some way to optimize for the most probable die rolls (like Catan) Losing a game from a critical success or critical failure from a die roll makes me never want to play the game again.
intended 10y ago
This issue gets little traction, and has been going on for way too long. I argue that this problem be posed as one of collective action as opposed to individual responsibility. As comments have already shown, people will point out that if they don't do it, the competition will. IF the larger group uses abhorrent systems, people will just say its normal, and do nothing. Individual responsibility will only get us as far as comments on social media. There is instead a larger coalition of people ranging from devs, non dev coders, game houses, parents who will be able to collectively push for changes and organizations to manage this. This will require legal frameworks and legal recourse. Private incentives are not aligned to create a healthy environment. It is also possible that the entire industry can soon get sued, which I suppose is one way of attempting to deal with it.

kerbalspacepro 10y ago

I think what you are describing might be called 'Weaponized Flow State'. Flow states that arise while [acting, playing music, playing sports, programming] are really hard to generate. You have to develop those skills without "dynamic difficulty setting" that the author refers to. But when your basic skills are enough for you to do well, you can get drawn into a flow state much quicker.

soverance 10y ago
I disagree that these flow states are difficult to generate. While they are extremely more common within designed experiences (such as video games), they can and have been applied with great effect to more "common" tasks, such as acting, playing music, or sports. The very best article I've found on the subject is here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_the_psychology_of_.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_... Highly recommended reading.
- kerbalspacepro 10y ago
  What I'm saying is that 'common' tasks that generate flow states take much longer than video games to generate the same cognitive effect. For example, when I play guitar I _must_ deliberately practice. I play the same 30 second melody half as slow, then only a quarter slow, and then finally i try really hard to play it at the right rhythm, and after a little more practice I'm playing it mechanically. I now can enter a flow state much easier. Looking at your link- I start out with low skill, but with something that has high difficulty. I wratchet my skill upwards until I enter flow state. Video games, on the other hand, use dynamic difficulty settings to change the difficulty to my skill. They generate the flow state programmatically. Nice article though.
- Malician 10y ago
  I've never been able to replicate the flow states I used to have from Starcraft/Civilization elsewhere (I've played very few games in the last couple years.) I don't miss the time spent playing them, but my life is much emptier without them. Sort of exception is when everything breaks down at once and I have a ton of stuff to fix/do in emergency style. That's comforting.

cableshaft 10y ago

Also a game designer here (and programmer). I think you should be clear that a game designer is not always the one who makes the decisions on how to monetize a game. Often it's the people who are in charge of financing the game's development, i.e. publishers or executives. In fact, often game designers would rather not do this pay to win crap, although it's hard to ignore that it does seem to be the primary way people are willing to give you money in certain markets nowadays (mobile especially), and they would like to keep making games for a living, instead of making one game while ignoring current market trends, the game failing spectacularly, and the company shuts down as a result (I've worked for three game studios which have done basically exactly that, although two of them did try making free to play games eventually and still failed). I would love to make mobile games where I just charge $1-3 and still see success, but the stats just do not back it up. Yes, there are people who have successes that way, but they are either much larger, much more networked in the industry and know how to get a ton of media coverage (Just getting 'some' coverage is not enough. I've worked on games that have gotten 'some' media coverage. They've done poorly), or have worked on something so beautiful and compelling people feel they have to share it with others (Monument Valley comes to mind). I've actually mostly given up on video games right now and I'm focusing more on board games, where it's much easier to actually charge money for what you produce, since there's a physical component to it. That industry has exploded in the last 5 years also and it's starting to get harder to find success there as well, but I'm more passionate about that right now. Plus there's the bonus that you can make a video game version of your board game and existing fans would be willing to pay money for your app, as well as some cross-promotion between the two. Personally I don't think there's a problem trying to make your game as fun as possible (and fun and addiction are very closely linked) as a designer, you almost have to in order to get people to talk about and share your game. It's when you actively try to snare people into giving you a constant feed of money for virtual benefits that I think is a bit dodgy, but again the public has already voted with their wallet and said they won't download a mobile game unless it's free, so game developers/publishers have to get money for the game somehow.

antisthenes 10y ago
As an avid board game player to a board game designer: Please make sure that the chance to win isn't determined purely by random chance (die rolls), or at the very least enough rolls to average out for the players, or, in the worst case, some way to optimize for the most probable die rolls (like Catan) Losing a game from a critical success or critical failure from a die roll makes me never want to play the game again.

intended 10y ago

This issue gets little traction, and has been going on for way too long. I argue that this problem be posed as one of collective action as opposed to individual responsibility. As comments have already shown, people will point out that if they don't do it, the competition will. IF the larger group uses abhorrent systems, people will just say its normal, and do nothing. Individual responsibility will only get us as far as comments on social media. There is instead a larger coalition of people ranging from devs, non dev coders, game houses, parents who will be able to collectively push for changes and organizations to manage this. This will require legal frameworks and legal recourse. Private incentives are not aligned to create a healthy environment. It is also possible that the entire industry can soon get sued, which I suppose is one way of attempting to deal with it.