4 ms·

Empty, derivative Facebook games are not any more "skinner box" than anything else we either enjoy or do out of necessity. Almost any game ever created could be

by pekk 13y ago

Empty, derivative Facebook games are not any more "skinner box" than anything else we either enjoy or do out of necessity. Almost any game ever created could be described as a "skinner box." Completing work units for a salary could be described as a "skinner box." If there is something especially bad or manipulative about Facebook games, it isn't that they are a "skinner box."

jbooth 13y ago
Chess isn't a skinner box, neither is Solitaire or Skyrim. Even poker is less of a skinner box than the games we're talking about.
boot 13y ago
Hm. I'm not talking scientifically here or anything, but I've always felt the lack of any kind of depth in most Zynga games makes them feel very skinner box with little pretense beyond that. Most games have complicated stories or game play mechanics. Many Zynga games seem to be "Fill up these three bars by clicking these buttons. Watch them fill. It feels good doesn't it." Personally I couldn't say that about many other games/work.
angersock 13y ago
No, they very much are a skinner box. Read any good tutorial or paper in the field (say, http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf ). The revenue model depends on base applied behaviorialism.
- benregenspan 13y ago
  And indeed, that's why they've hired at least one behavioral psychologist. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940668,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940668,00....)
shardling 13y ago
Perhaps you're unaware that Zynga explicitly treats games like skinner boxes? Their whole deal was using metrics to manipulate the feedback loop to maximize profit. Even the most mainstream traditional games were designed to be fun -- they might aim for the lowest common denominator, they may artificially inflate the game length, but the goal was still entertainment. Because all they wanted you to do was buy the game. That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. That means their goal is getting you addicted to the skinner box. The mechanics of such a game are all built to reinforce this goal. Zynga took this to its logical conclusion by A/B testing the various game parameters. As Tim Rogers said, such games are "a love letter from a computer virus." http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 (Warning: long but insightful article (But if you recognize the author's name you'd already know that.))
- aeturnum 13y ago
  >That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to play the game, to feel a need to play the game. Zynga focuses on mechanics that promote habits, but to say that's the only approach incentivized by F2P is a pretty myopic view of the market. The F2P model incentivizes addictive gameplay more than other genres, but it's not like building an addicted game was a bad thing pre-F2P. Valve's DOTA 2, for instance, has largely identical gameplay to its 100% free Warcraft 3-based ancestor (tangentially, Team Fortress 2 isn't much of a skinner box either).
- saraid216 13y ago
  > That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. This is actually more true for subscriptions than for F2P. With F2P they need you to have a reason to actively buy things. With subscription, they need you to play enough to find the next month worth paying for. Whereas one-time box sales the way you're talking about is all about getting you to make the purchase at all.

by pekk 13y ago

jbooth 13y ago

Chess isn't a skinner box, neither is Solitaire or Skyrim. Even poker is less of a skinner box than the games we're talking about.

boot 13y ago

Hm. I'm not talking scientifically here or anything, but I've always felt the lack of any kind of depth in most Zynga games makes them feel very skinner box with little pretense beyond that. Most games have complicated stories or game play mechanics. Many Zynga games seem to be "Fill up these three bars by clicking these buttons. Watch them fill. It feels good doesn't it." Personally I couldn't say that about many other games/work.

angersock 13y ago

No, they very much are a skinner box. Read any good tutorial or paper in the field (say, http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf ). The revenue model depends on base applied behaviorialism.

benregenspan 13y ago
And indeed, that's why they've hired at least one behavioral psychologist. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940668,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940668,00....)

shardling 13y ago

Perhaps you're unaware that Zynga explicitly treats games like skinner boxes? Their whole deal was using metrics to manipulate the feedback loop to maximize profit. Even the most mainstream traditional games were designed to be fun -- they might aim for the lowest common denominator, they may artificially inflate the game length, but the goal was still entertainment. Because all they wanted you to do was buy the game. That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. That means their goal is getting you addicted to the skinner box. The mechanics of such a game are all built to reinforce this goal. Zynga took this to its logical conclusion by A/B testing the various game parameters. As Tim Rogers said, such games are "a love letter from a computer virus." http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 (Warning: long but insightful article (But if you recognize the author's name you'd already know that.))

aeturnum 13y ago
>That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to play the game, to feel a need to play the game. Zynga focuses on mechanics that promote habits, but to say that's the only approach incentivized by F2P is a pretty myopic view of the market. The F2P model incentivizes addictive gameplay more than other genres, but it's not like building an addicted game was a bad thing pre-F2P. Valve's DOTA 2, for instance, has largely identical gameplay to its 100% free Warcraft 3-based ancestor (tangentially, Team Fortress 2 isn't much of a skinner box either).
saraid216 13y ago
> That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. This is actually more true for subscriptions than for F2P. With F2P they need you to have a reason to actively buy things. With subscription, they need you to play enough to find the next month worth paying for. Whereas one-time box sales the way you're talking about is all about getting you to make the purchase at all.