#Player Behaviour

[milijanakomad]

Product design and psychology: The Role of Grinding in Video Game Design

Keywords: Grinding, Video Gaming, Game Design, Player Engagement, Psychological Manipulation

Abstract:

This paper scrutinizes the utilization of "grinding" as a technique in video game design, particularly as a method of psychological manipulation that affects player engagement and behaviour. Case studies are explored to deliver a comprehensive understanding of the practical application of grinding and its implications, all from a product design viewpoint.

Introduction:

The design principles governing video games frequently incorporate mechanisms intended to stimulate player engagement and prolong interaction time. One such prevalent mechanism is "grinding," defined as the practice of executing repetitive tasks within the game environment to achieve specific objectives. While grinding can evoke a sense of achievement, it also carries the potential to induce exhaustion and frustration among players. This study endeavours to explore the intricacies of grinding, its role in game design, and its influence on player experience.

Explanation:

Coined from the concept of persistently "grinding away" at a task, the term "grinding" in the gaming context implies the undertaking of repetitive actions by a player to attain certain results or to advance within the game. In numerous instances, such actions may not directly correlate with the game's primary storyline or objectives but are aimed at accumulating experience points, in-game currency, or specialized items.

Grinding is an omnipresent component across a vast array of game genres, with its prominence notably manifested in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). In these games, the player's progression and performance are often gauged based on their character's level, skills, and available equipment.

From the standpoint of game design, grinding assumes several roles. It serves to extend the game's lifespan by instituting goals that necessitate substantial time investment. Additionally, it fosters a sense of accomplishment and progression and can encourage social interaction in multiplayer environments. Despite these advantages, critics contend that grinding can lead to monotonous and ungratifying gameplay experiences. The considerable time commitment required by grinding may propel some players towards purchasing in-game enhancements using real-world money, thereby generating additional revenue for game developers.

Further, there is an ongoing discourse concerning the psychological implications of grinding. Its repetitive and rewarding nature might precipitate addictive behaviours and excessive consumption of time, mirroring the effects typically associated with gambling disorders. Through the exploration of these aspects, we aim to shed light on the complex dynamics of grinding in the context of modern video gaming.

Grinding in Gaming: Conceptualization and Design

Grinding typically refers to the act of performing repetitive actions in a game to attain a specific goal, often associated with levelling up, obtaining items, or advancing in-game skills. Although it can give players a sense of progression, it can also serve as a roadblock, encouraging players to consider alternative paths to progress, such as microtransactions.

Case Study: World of Warcraft

Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft (WoW) extensively employs grinding. Players often engage in repetitive tasks like fighting the same enemies, repeatedly battling against non-player characters (NPCs), or completing the same quests to increase their character's level, to gain experience points, in-game currency, or rare items. This grind contributes to a sense of achievement but has also been criticized for sometimes leading to a tedious gameplay experience.

Case Study: Candy Crush Saga

King's Candy Crush Saga uses grinding as a monetization strategy. As players progress and levels become harder, the option to grind through the game becomes more attractive. Alternatively, players can buy power-ups and boosters to surpass the grind, effectively translating grinding mechanics into revenue for the game developers.

Case Study: Destiny 2

This game provides an example of a 'loot grind.' Players repeatedly complete activities like strikes, raids, or public events to earn 'engrams' – randomized gear drops. The goal is often to collect more powerful gear to increase a character's power level.

Case Study: Old School RuneScape 

In this MMORPG, players might grind by repetitively performing tasks like mining, fishing, or woodcutting. These actions, though monotonous, boost the player's skill levels, enabling them to perform new tasks, quests, or create new items.

Implications for Game Design

Grinding, while a tool to extend game playtime and potentially drive monetization, must be thoughtfully implemented to avoid player fatigue or burnout. Game designers should strike a balance between meaningful progression and repetitive grind, ensuring the game remains engaging and satisfying.

Conclusion

Grinding, as a mechanism of psychological manipulation in video game design, can greatly impact player behaviour and engagement. Striking a balance between challenge, satisfaction, and repetition is vital to ensure a rewarding gameplay experience. As the video game industry advances, it will be intriguing to observe the evolution and refinement of grinding mechanisms and their psychological impact on players.

References:

Sicart, M. (2013). Grinding in Games: Understanding the Appeal. Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, 8-11.

Hamari, J., Alha, K., Järvelä, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Koivisto, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2017). Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 538-546. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.045

Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft [Video Game]. Blizzard Entertainment.

King. (2012). Candy Crush Saga [Video Game]. King.

Bungie. (2017). Destiny 2 [Video Game]. Activision.

Jagex. (2013). Old School RuneScape [Video Game]. Jagex.

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772-775. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772

Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J. (2019). The impacts of live streaming and Twitch.tv on the video game industry. Media, Culture & Society, 41(5), 670-688. doi:10.1177/0163443718818363

King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90-106. doi:10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". MindTrek '11: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9-15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040

[mohntilyet]

i have to be so real. sometimes you have to outright not give a shit what the author thinks. i’m not saying to disregard how a character is portrayed and give into fanon characterisations but sometimes i will see fans be like “(head writer) omggg do you think this character is a good person?” “how would this character react if xyz happened?” as though that’s not a question you can and have to answer for yourself.! any character can contain multitudes and if you keep limiting your perception of them solely on word of god its not fun for the writer or even yourself anymore. THINK FOR YOURSELF. INVENT NEW WAYS TO FUCK YOUR FAVORITE CHARACTERS OVER

[theo-throne]

[puckbunny34]

i’d take him right there in the locker room ngl

i joke, i joke…unless 😏

[nicorobinphd]

stg, being an enjoyer of jane twdg is like being forced into an expert-level course on the way misogyny manifests in video game spaces.

god forbid a woman be complex or difficult or provably mischaracterized (see tags) at the end of her arc to service the culmination of a man’s storyline.

[victorianpuckbunny]

Jack really lives rent free in their heads

source: tiktok/the game day

[milijanakomad]

Product design and psychology: Exploring Gacha Mechanics in Video Game Design

Keywords: Gacha Mechanics, Gaming Industry, Psycho-Manipulation, Player Behavior, Case Studies

Abstract:

This research paper delves into the intricate relationship between game design and psychology, with a concentrated focus on 'Gacha' mechanics prevalent in the gaming sector. Originating from Japanese toy vending machines, the Gacha system has grown to be a powerful tool in shaping player behaviour. The paper illuminates the conceptual framework underlying Gacha mechanics, emphasizing its capabilities in manipulating player actions and decisions. Through an exhaustive examination, this study presents a detailed understanding of its psycho-manipulative attributes and supports its findings with specific case studies from the gaming industry. The work serves as a comprehensive exploration of the influence and ramifications of Gacha mechanics in contemporary game design.

Introduction:

The Gacha system, inspired by Japanese toy vending machines, stands as a hallmark strategy in the contemporary gaming industry. Fundamental to its design is the 'loot box' principle, where players invest financially with hopes of securing a randomized item, the allure of which varies in rarity. Beyond mere chance-based rewards, this mechanic intriguingly intersects with deep-rooted psychological tendencies, captivating human desires for unpredictable outcomes and rewards. Such mechanics are not mere playful inclusions; they strategically bolster player retention and significantly influence revenue streams. As the following sections will expound upon, the Gacha system is much more than a gaming novelty; it carries potent psycho-manipulative attributes. Through a detailed exploration, this paper seeks to unravel the underlying psychological tenets that grant Gacha mechanics their notable efficacy, further enriching the discourse with industry-specific case studies that spotlight its transformative impact.

Theoretical Foundation of Gacha Mechanics:

Gacha mechanics, now pervasive in the gaming industry, find their roots in the foundational theories of behavioral psychology, particularly the principles outlined by B.F. Skinner concerning operant conditioning. Delving deeper into the theoretical underpinnings of Gacha mechanics, we encounter an alignment with Skinner's variable-ratio schedule—a schedule of reinforcement wherein responses are reinforced after an unpredictable number of responses. This unpredictable nature of reinforcement, as Skinner posited, leads to high rates of response, which persists even in the sporadic or even absent delivery of rewards.

Such a system bears stark resemblance to the operations of Gacha mechanics in games. For instance, in "Fire Emblem Heroes," players use virtual currency—either organically accrued within the game or procured through real-world monetary transactions—to obtain randomized characters. The exhilaration associated with acquiring a rare and formidable character, with its inherent unpredictability, mirrors the principles of gambling, a pursuit universally acknowledged for its addictive qualities. Drawing a parallel, "Genshin Impact" deploys a similar methodology, allowing players to utilize Primogems, the in-game currency, to secure weapons or characters, each acquisition bearing its own element of unpredictability and potential reward.

In essence, these game designs intricately weave the principles of operant conditioning into their fabric, utilizing the powerful allure of unpredictable rewards to foster player engagement. Such mechanisms, grounded in well-established psychological theories, underscore the reason for the profound addictiveness and wide-reaching success of Gacha-based games in contemporary gaming culture.

The Psychological Framework of Gacha Mechanics:

Gacha mechanics can be analysed through the lens of operant conditioning, specifically Skinner's variable-ratio reinforcement schedule. This schedule, characterized by delivering rewards after an unpredictable number of responses, results in a high response rate and resistance to extinction. This parallels the randomized reward mechanism in Gacha systems, which fosters a sense of persistent anticipation and engagement in players.

The Psycho-Manipulative Dimension:

The realm of Gacha mechanics, deeply entrenched in the gaming industry, employs an array of psychologically manipulative strategies designed to maintain player engagement and promote continued monetary investments. Central to this design are mechanisms such as the 'near-miss effect and the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which, when operationalized, tap into core human cognitive tendencies.

The 'near-miss effect is particularly intriguing. It is inextricably tied to the psychological construct of cognitive dissonance, a state wherein players, upon achieving an outcome tantalizingly close to the desired result, experience a tension between expectation and reality. This tension acts as a catalyst, driving players towards further attempts in the game with the hope of reconciling their near victories with an eventual success. The result is an increased commitment, both in terms of time and financial resources.

Complementing this is the 'sunk cost fallacy.' Here, players, having already invested significant amounts into the game, feel compelled to continue their engagement and expenditure to justify their prior commitments. Rather than cutting losses and ceasing further investment, the players become ensnared in a self-perpetuating cycle, driven by the rationale that prior investments must not be rendered futile.

In synthesizing these observations, it becomes evident that Gacha mechanics do not operate in isolation. Instead, they deftly intertwine with key psychological processes, cultivating an environment where players are subtly steered towards continued engagement and, more critically, perpetual investment.

Further Psychological Aspects:

The Zeigarnik effect, where people remember uncompleted tasks better than completed ones, also fuels Gacha mechanics. Incomplete character collections or unachieved rarities compel players to persist. Moreover, the endowed progress effect, where players are more motivated if they perceive they've made some progress, is strategically utilized by Gacha games, often providing a few free pulls or easy-to-earn currencies early on.

Ethical Considerations and Policy Implications:

Gacha mechanics, while undeniably advantageous for bolstering the financial health of gaming companies, stand at the crossroads of significant ethical dilemmas. At the heart of this quandary is their inherent resemblance to gambling paradigms, a feature that holds the potential to cultivate and reinforce addictive tendencies. Such mechanics, with their random reward structures, might not only be captivating but also perilous, especially when considering vulnerable demographics such as minors. Given these potent implications, it is imperative to not only recognize but also proactively address these ethical challenges. As underscored in this paper, there emerges a pressing necessity for the formulation and enforcement of comprehensive regulations and industry-wide norms. Such initiatives would not only safeguard the interests of players but also act as a bulwark against the possible misuse and overextension of these mechanics. In framing these policies, special emphasis should be placed on mitigating potential harm, with particular attention directed towards safeguarding vulnerable populations like minors from the more deleterious influences of Gacha systems.

Case Studies from the Gaming Industry:

Case Study 1: Fire Emblem Heroes

In "Fire Emblem Heroes," the use of the Gacha system has resulted in a highly engaged player base. Players use virtual currency to summon random heroes, with rarer heroes having lower chances of being pulled. The uncertainty of outcomes has been linked to elevated dopamine levels in the brain, thereby creating a pleasurable feedback loop that reinforces the purchase behaviour.

Case Study 2: Genshin Impact

"Genshin Impact" applies Gacha mechanics through its 'Wish' system. The game periodically introduces limited-time banners that allow players to 'wish' for specific characters or weapons. This scarcity principle, combined with the randomized outcomes, effectively exploits the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and the desire for exclusivity.

Conclusion:

The Gacha mechanics, deeply rooted within the gaming industry, provide a captivating examination of the confluence of gaming, psychology, and consumer tendencies. This intricate interface goes beyond mere game dynamics, delving into potent revenue-generation avenues while simultaneously raising poignant questions about ethical dimensions and the need for considered regulations within game design. Through an in-depth exploration encompassing theoretical frameworks, real-world applications, and pertinent case studies, this paper has furnished a comprehensive panorama of the Gacha system. Notably, its psycho-manipulative capabilities underscore the dynamic's capacity to both enthral and influence player behaviour. As the research suggests, while the Gacha mechanics illuminate potential avenues for substantial profitability, they concurrently evoke urgent deliberations on the ethical frontiers of game design. Thus, a profound understanding and judicious navigation of these mechanics remain pivotal, ensuring a harmonious reconciliation of business imperatives with paramount player welfare.

References:

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviour in the laboratory and in life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), 772.

King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90-106.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gaming addiction: A systematic review of empirical research. International journal of mental health and addiction, 10(2), 278-296.

Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Murayama, K., Lynch, M. F., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The ideal self at play: The appeal of video games that let you be all you can be. Psychological Science, 23(1), 69-76.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. University of Toronto Press.

Hamari, J., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game mechanics create demand for virtual goods. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 5(1), 14-29.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60.

Zhang, P., & Ren, J. (2019). How gacha design influences the player experience in mobile games. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings.

Hamari, J. (2019). Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0213194.

Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 344-353.

Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0206767.

[vinesandbones]

Anyone else hated how the manhwa changed the conversation between Lee Hoyeol and Senios/Cenios, where Senios asked to be the one to execute Karimzeva?

In the novel, the conversation basically boiled down to this.

Senios: Permission to kill Karimzeva.

Lee Hoyeol: Why?

Senios: It's my lifelong dream to. Kill. Fire Dragon. :)

Lee Hoyeol: Alright. (*internally* What is wrong with you?!)

The manhwa version:

Senios: Permission to kill myself alongside Karimzeva.

Lee Hoyeol: What?

Senios: The mages of the Magic Tower whom I love like my grandchildren would never approve of my sacrifice. As an outsider with no feelings for me, you're the perfect candidate to ensure my death not be in vain.

Lee Hoyeol: Alright. (*internally* Not sure if this is the right decision but whatever.)

This little change affects the story and characters more than the manhwa writer probably intended, and not in a good way.

And if the manhwa writer did fully intended it be read this way, then that WORSE.

Spoilers and rants below.

This change carries on to later when they're dispatched to clear the rifts that Karimzeva created.

In the novel, no one knows at which rift Karimzeva can be found. Hoyeol partnered himself with Senios because he is the weakest and Senios the strongest. They encounter Karimzeva by chance.

Meanwhile in the manhwa, they are able to trace Karimzeva's whereabout, Hoyeol knowingly accompanied Senios to fight Karimzeva(stronger than Senios) while sending all the other mages away to deal with different rifts.

As I was reading the manhwa, I found myself thinking, if it was Novel Hoyeol, he would point out to Senios that sacrificing himself would only hurt the people who cherished him. He would deploy more mages to accompany Senios instead of the weakest(Lee Hoyeol). He might abuse his authority and get Yugweed to join them as well. He might even go as far as to ban Senios from joining the battle. All the while denying that he cared about his allies and shit talking himself.

How am I supposed to see the Lee Hoyeol that believed the only meaningful victory is where no one dies, and the Lee Hoyeol that approved of and is compliant to Senios' plan to sacrifice himself, as the same character?

How are the Lee Hoyeol that never overestimate himself and is overtly aware of his own shortcomings, and the Lee Hoyeol that sent himself-the weakest of all 22 candidates-as backup to assist Senios in fighting an enemy he knew very well is stronger than both of them, the same character?

This is much more subjective than the rest of my argument, but I felt like this Arc is important to establish mages as selfish assholes who would do anything-even take their own lives-to prove a point. Following the obvious changes to Senios' personality, this manhwa failed to that.

To put it crudely, the death of Senios in the novel is a tragedy that Hoyeol was unable to prevent because he was not acquainted with a mage's temperament. While Senios' death in the manhwa is basically assisted suicide.

[ferremc3]

https://youtu.be/G70qDieE7gc?si=KsUvCZuxe7iYGixC

3:39 :)

Clown was also setting people on fire constantly but that starts a bit earlier

THANK YOU ANON I LOVE THEM SILLEYS

[honourablepranksinatra]

Maple Leafs discourse on their team social medias makes me lose brain cells because wdym they're first in their division and coming off a 5 game win streak & people are commenting that the top players are only in it for the money and have no drive, that particular players are useless and need to be traded asap, that they're a garbage team, that they'll never make it past the first round just because they lost one game.

Apparently because they are being payed handsomely the players must be mindless automatons who perform perfectly every night. It drives me absolutely nuts how quickly alleged fans will completely turn on their own team.

[ladyofthebookcase]

i saw this theory on here the other day that said smth like "what if outis knew dante before they lost their memory and that's why she was sucking up to them so much initially, was because they were someone with a lot of power (over her?) and she used to hate them and wanted to get into their good graces while she could?" really good theory, i like it a lot and will be adopting it now. wish i'd reblogged the post when i saw it.

[alcappacino]

pfp change never really in the cards even throughout the course of the playoffs but i was deeply moved by the spite resulting from how mean spirited some ppl have been after this loss

[puckpocketed]

aihl handing down multiple suspensions of key players, including a starting goalie, and a player from a team looking to close in on a playoffs spot (hence, “important” games) for incidents that weren’t penalised in-game but WERE submitted for review afterwards… making out with my glorified beer league sloppy style i love you aihl department of player safety . not perfect but probably better than whatever the fuck they got going on over there (gestures at north america)

[forcedhesitation]

I definitely do not have the time for a full essay's worth of commentary on the Casting of Frank Stone, but I definitely could give you that if I did. There is...a lot to take apart there. I am certainly...fascinated...by some of the writing & gameplay choices they made, to summarise my thoughts somewhat vaguely.

A few spoilery comments under the cut.

Like I said, I don't really have the time to offer extensive analysis (a full paper) of the game, but I do want to say a few things.

First and foremost: Do not purchase this game. In the words of Mr. Otzdarva himself: Go and watch someone play it instead. Your play through will be 95% the same as theirs. It is not worth your 50 dollars. If you still want it after you've viewed someone else's playthrough, that is your own right.

I honestly became annoyed with the writing much faster than Mr. Otzdarva did, and at first I thought it was because I was spoiled by BG3's infinitely better writing. But no, it's rather that he was being very patient. He finished with a rather negative opinion of the game, after thoroughly going through it to test just how much control you as the player really have.

I will be fair-- It is certainly a visually stunning game, as far as Supermassive titles go. Much better looking than The Devil in Me. The music is also incredible. And some of the voice acting was well done and added much needed life to otherwise bland characters.

But good grief is the writing utterly nonsensical!! Even if you respect the "a multiverse exists, so anything is possible" fact which is canon to Dead by Daylight itself, it still doesn't make any damned sense. I mean, is it ever explained why there is time travel involved? Or how it is even possible? Did they simply expect people to just assume that Augustine figured out time travel in a certain timeline? Does it have something to do with the Entity, since it can clearly traverse time? If so, why was Sam able to voluntarily time travel to Madi & elder Linda's timeline? Why and how the FUCK is Frank Stone first bound to the mill and then camera using what is clearly the same magic as the horologium, when we know the Entity has not yet been brought to that timeline??

And playing the "anything is possible" card would be fine to explain certain things, I will concede, but it really starts to feel meaningless when you realise just how many massive plot elements are never explained and that none of your choices really have any impact on the ending of the game. The story literally ends the same no matter what you do. And to be fair, I do not think it is a bad ending at all. Barring the corny "trial starting" sound that they jammed in at the last second, I thought the ending was one of the better parts of the game. It works great to make you feel hopeless, and like there is truly no escape from the Entity. I just feel that this format of a "your choices impact the outcome of the story" game was the incorrect format for the story they wanted to tell. Because it truly doesn't even matter if you get everyone killed, or you save everyone-- everything happens the same way and the world's fate is the same.

There are other things that bothered me, too. I thought having Frank Stone appear as this corny, glitchy spectral monster for most of the game was...a terrible choice, both design wise and writing wise. Now, I do not think killing him in the opening was necessarily a bad decision. I honestly thought it was a bold choice that functioned well to surprise the viewer and urge them to continue, so they might discover how the story plays out after the death of the titular character. But keeping him as this ghoulish creature, that honestly looked as though it were from some solo indie developer's first low budget horror game, was awful. He did not feel threatening whatsoever, just wildly out of place in a visual quality sense. I hate the final design much less, it is certainly much more threatening and much, much more gruesome, but it still does not make sense as to why he looks that way. The Entity still had not taken him, why did he appear as this inhuman monster before his entry into the Fog? They should have kept a more humanlike design until the very end of the game, when the Entity arrives. Then, a transformation sequence where the Entity mutates him should have been restricted to the ending where no one from the cast is seen in the Fog, so players at least get something different in that allegedly "unique" ending. After all, if a cast member does get taken, at least you get to see visions of what followed the 1980s storyline.

Also why did Augustine work alone when she is clearly part of the Black Vale? The excuse of "the cult didn't exist yet" doesn't work here, because she can time travel and is fully aware of the multiverse she exists in. Like... I thought elder Linda's mention of secret passages being for staff "so they are seen as little as possible" was foreshadowing for Augustine having fellow cultists aiding her, but it just went nowhere. Another thing that goes nowhere is the baby that Sam can save at the very beginning. Should the baby live or die has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the story, which feels like an enormous mistake to me. That baby should have grown up to be a character that the cast could have interacted with to gain...oh I don't know, some piece of important knowledge, or an item, that could then later change the fate of the cast. This way, the player's choices in the 1960s segment actually have an impact on later gameplay, rather than meaning absolutely nothing.

I'd also love to know why the hell elder Sam was sent alone to prevent this situation from occurring, when the Imperatti (I think they were called? The parents of the Pariahs, or something, right?) would have surely realised the gravity of this situation? Like, how does this make any sense? And this is far from the only moment that makes no sense at all.

Why do Jaime and Robert have almost no relevance whatsoever after the 1980s segment concludes? Robert is guaranteed survival of this segment, as that part of the game is written so that two characters always survive-- be that Linda and Robert, or Sam and Robert. As annoying as Stan was, I didn't hate him because he had great dialogue that pushed other characters to have different dialogue than what we were used to. But it felt scummy that Robert was just given this sad, offscreen death instead of being included in a lot more meaningful way.

Not going to lie, it reminded me of how in Stranger Things 4, Patrick was the one teenager whose trauma wasn't really explored or given the same respect as the others. It's like the writers went, "Guys, guys! It's okay! We still have the other Black guy! This makes our game Diverse, and therefore no one could possibly complain!" Meanwhile, we get an entire cutscene about Madi's nightmares, and elder Linda's movie career and associated trauma is talked about numerous times. But all we know about 2024 Robert is that Stan took advantage of him, and then he later died, utterly miserable. Also, Sam somehow knows about this and he and Stan know one another, despite this Sam being from a different timeline than elder Linda, Madi, and Stan himself.

And Jaime, poor sweet Jaime, he really just feels like he's there as someone they can conveniently kill to shock the player. The first chance he has to die results in a horrible, very graphic death (although not the most graphic in the game by a long shot) that I feel many players will encounter because they see it as reasonable to visit the curiosities shop first, and then to later attempt to save Chris (even though her fate is the same here, regardless of what you do). And even if you should keep Jaime alive through that first confrontation with the spectral Frank Stone, it's not as though his survival impacts following events. He can die again, when fleeing Frank with Bonnie and an injured Linda. Why they have Linda, who has a gaping hole in her shoulder, attempt to pull Jaime up the platform alone while HIS OLDER SISTER just WATCHES is beyond me. But writing his death, whether it be here, or earlier, to have no impact on Bonnie's fate, or any future events, is plain bad writing.

You cannot save Bonnie, no matter what you do. And this scene makes no sense. When Frank grabs Bonnie, Linda points the camera at him, which should work. There really isn't any reasonable explanation as to why this should not work, or should not even momentarily distract him (Which could have led to a different ending where Bonnie lives and Linda dies instead?), because in the storm drain, so much as yelling at Frank causes him to abandon whoever he's attacking to seek out the new target. I suppose, at the very least, 1980s Bonnie's death does serve some kind of purpose in the 2024 storyline, because it serves as foreshadowing for Madi's potential fate. But just like Robert, 2024 Bonnie is given a sad offscreen death and we never really learn about how she or Jaime survived that night at the mill.

And I will say, it just feels shitty from a player point of view, to make it so you cannot save certain characters. Like, I'm sorry, is that a canon event? Where is Mr. O'Hara? Because Madi must be a god-damned anomaly, being Bonnie's daughter!! And Chris- god- Chris who mysteriously travels through time...I really do hate this part of the story because understanding its purpose can only happen if you manage to get the secret ending where she goes through the projector screen and DOESN'T burn and die. Which would require you to not have taken the pocket mirror or given the "protective" amulet to her. This unlocks a secret ending where she goes back in time to the moment where she, Jaime, and Linda were inintially shooting in the mill, right before Sam interrupted them. I took this as the writers trying to show us that there would be one timeline in which Frank Stone is never released (not sure how he ever was in the first place, really), likely saving them from the Entity. But other than the player somehow luckily getting this ending, I really don't see the point of Chris' time travel, because she can also be sent immediately back in the horologium, which does nothing meaningful. And why does it have to be Chris? Why not write it so it could be her or Jaime, so that maybe the player's choice to have her and Jaime breakup or not actually has some kind of impact on the gameplay?

One of the worst things about the game though, and I cannot stress this enough, is how badly the references to DBD are integrated. I love a good reference-- it can serve to add a little playful flair to a moment, or even go so far as to have the viewer look at the piece from a different perspective they had not previously considered. Buuuut... this is only if the reference is done well. And, well, what this game does could hardly be described as tolerable, even. In was so heavy-handed, it felt almost as bad as product placement in a Michael Bay movie. Many of these "references" felt out of place to the degree that someone with no knowledge of DBD would be likely able to pick them out, because they heavily disrupt either the game's aesthetic or the gameplay itself! One generator was funny, and honestly expected, but THREE of those damn things? Clunky, corny, and honestly? Lazy.

Unfortunately, I feel those three adjectives describe how I feel about the game overall. I feel bad for the people who put hard work into making it, because there is potential there for something great. But it really felt as though they were pushed to release this game as quickly as possible, so BHVR could sell us a 50 dollar, five-to-six-hour advertisement for their next DLC chapter. Hard to think anything else, really, when completion of the game is followed by a a literal ad for it.

All I can say is-- I really hope we get 2024 Linda as a survivor. It seems more likely that it will be Madi, but it is possible we could have a two-survivor chapter (unless they specifically outlined in the roadmap that there are no upcoming 2-survivor chapters?).

Madi and 2024 Linda would be cool though. We have no older women as survivors, despite having more than one older man. I think it's about damn time. And I love the mother/daughter bond that can sort of develop between Madi and 2024 Linda in the game.

[teeto-peteto]

afraid i might be dancing around and twirling while humming silly songs thinking about the league of legends character that occupies the 80% of my brain at 3 am

[milijanakomad]

Product design and psychology: Unpacking the Phenomenon of Loot Boxes in Video Game Design

Keywords: Loot Boxes, Video Gaming, Game Design, Player Engagement, Psychological Manipulation, Gambling Mechanics

Abstract:

This scholarly study explores the deployment of "loot boxes" in video games, seen as a psychological manipulation technique designed to enhance player engagement and monetization. Detailed case studies illuminate the implementation and consequences of loot boxes, providing an exhaustive understanding from a senior product designer's standpoint.

Introduction:

The gaming industry has witnessed various monetization strategies, one of which is the controversial "loot box" system. These virtual grab bags, which provide randomized in-game items, have been a subject of scrutiny due to their similarity to gambling. This paper will delve into the complexities of the loot box system, its use, and its effects on players. The evolution of the gaming industry has introduced an array of monetization tactics, among which "loot boxes" have notably garnered substantial attention and controversy. As part of the intricate fabric of video game design, these virtual containers, alternatively referred to as "loot crates" or "prize crates," furnish a randomized assortment of in-game items. The contents may vary from cosmetic modifications, denoted as "skins," to character enhancements, power-ups, and a plethora of elements poised to amplify the gaming experience. Despite the prevalent use of these systems, the underlying resemblance to gambling activities and potential implications for addictive behaviour has spurred considerable debate. This manuscript seeks to dissect the structural nuances of the loot box system, the reasons behind its usage, and its consequent impact on the gaming community.

Explanation:

At the core of the allure of loot boxes lies the element of uncertainty. The revelation of the enclosed items post-transaction engenders a rush of suspense and exhilaration, analogous to that induced by gambling. These items, classified according to their scarcity, further contribute to a continuum of potential outcomes; players may procure commonplace objects or, less frequently, exceedingly rare and sought-after ones.

The deployment of loot boxes, despite their capacity to enhance the thrill of video games, has ignited significant controversy. This contention primarily originates from the structural similarities between loot boxes and gambling activities, their ability to foster addictive tendencies, and their availability to minors. The psychological underpinnings that fuel the appeal of loot boxes, including the unpredictability linked to 'unboxing,' the thrill derived from acquiring rare items, and the incentive to make in-game purchases, are potent drivers of player engagement. However, these same mechanisms have instigated regulatory interventions in jurisdictions like Belgium and the Netherlands, where legislative measures or outright prohibitions on loot box usage have been implemented, underscoring their intimate relationship with gambling.

In the broader gaming landscape, loot boxes materialize as digital containers purchasable in games, often with real-world currency. They embody the thrill of chance, as their contents remain concealed until post-purchase, paralleling the excitement associated with gambling. The encapsulated items, sorted by rarity, offer gamers the possibility of obtaining either ordinary or exceedingly rare and valuable items.

The use of loot boxes in popular games, though undoubtedly contributing to their allure and enhancing the visual aesthetics, has concurrently kindled considerable debate, attributed to their semblance to gambling, potential promotion of addictive behaviours, and accessibility to a young audience. The psychological dynamics in action, encompassing the exhilaration of unveiling the unknown and the desire to amass rare items, have prompted certain regions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, to enforce regulatory measures or outrightly ban the use of loot boxes in video games.

Loot Boxes in Gaming: Conceptualization and Design

Loot boxes are virtual items that players can buy with real-world currency or in-game achievements, containing randomized rewards. The uncertainty and anticipation surrounding their opening make them a potent tool for psychological manipulation, exploiting the same reward system mechanics found in gambling.

Case Study: Overwatch

Blizzard's team-based shooter Overwatch provides loot boxes that can be purchased or earned through gameplay, containing cosmetic items of varying rarity. Each loot box contains four items which can be player skins, emotes, voice lines, or sprays. The rarity of these items is tiered, with the rarest items being the most coveted. The random nature of the rewards keeps players engaged, instilling a "just one more" mentality similar to slot machines.

Case Study: Star Wars Battlefront II

Electronic Arts’ Star Wars Battlefront II was initially released with a loot box system that had a significant impact on gameplay, prompting extensive criticism and leading to a complete overhaul of the game's progression system. The controversy also spurred legal and regulatory discussions about the ethical implications of loot boxes and their resemblance to gambling.

Case Study: FIFA Ultimate Team

In this mode of the popular FIFA soccer games, players can buy packs of cards (essentially loot boxes) containing random soccer players to add to their team. These packs can be purchased with coins earned in-game or with "FIFA points," which are bought with real-world money. The randomness of pack contents and the potential to pull highly-rated players can make this an addictive, and potentially costly, aspect of the game.

Case Study: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS: GO)

In CS: GO, players can purchase or earn loot boxes called "weapon cases." These cases contain random weapon skins that change the appearance of the player's in-game weapons. The skins are purely cosmetic and do not impact gameplay, but rare skins can be highly sought after by the game's community.

Implications for Game Design

While loot boxes can increase monetization, they also pose ethical and design challenges. Their gambling-like characteristics can lead to problematic gaming behaviours, particularly among younger audiences. Designers need to weigh these considerations carefully, as they might lead to reputational damage and legal issues, as seen in the Battlefront II case.

Conclusion:

The loot box phenomenon, as a method of psychological manipulation in video gaming, presents a complex intersection of design, psychology, and ethics. As video game designers, we must consider these factors and strive for responsible and sustainable monetization models that value player experience and satisfaction. Future research on loot box impact and regulation will undoubtedly continue to shape the gaming industry's landscape.

References:

Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 530–532. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0360-1

Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0206767. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206767

Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). eSports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20-41. doi:10.1177/1461444818786216

Blizzard Entertainment. (2016). Overwatch [Video Game]. Blizzard Entertainment.

Electronic Arts. (2017). Star Wars Battlefront II [Video Game]. Electronic Arts.

Electronic Arts. (2009 - Present). FIFA Ultimate Team in FIFA series [Video Game]. Electronic Arts.

Hidden Path Entertainment, Valve Corporation. (2012). Counter-Strike: Global Offensive [Video Game]. Valve Corporation.

Brooks, G. A., & Clark, L. (2019). Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 26-34. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.009

Li, W., Mills, D., & Nower, L. (2019). The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 97, 27-34. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.05.016

King, D., & Delfabbro, P. (2020). Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. 'loot boxes') and internet gaming disorder. Addiction, 115(6), 1053-1055. doi:10.1111/add.14857