Jim Sterling brought to my attention yet another video by YongYea about some studies done with Electronic Arts data. In these papers, they are trying to discover what makes a player more likely to continue playing a game. This in itself does not come off nefarious. Trying to optimise a type of gameplay is not a bad thing but this isn't as simple as that.
I fully admit I have not read the full papers and I am basing this on the abstracts and what was in the videos. The papers have also not been liberated in a way I can find them. If we start seeing a lot of examples of exactly what this paper's abstract is indicating I might drop the $15 to give it a good read. Until then I am just going to go off what I have.
While studying gameplay is something that I assume all large developing companies are doing in order to understand the type of content that players are enjoying, EA, like Activision, is taking another approach by using their understanding of the player psychology to keep them playing. Since both these companies have formed the model "games as a service", more game time means a greater chance that players will spend money on in-game content. The one idea around EA that caused me to raise an eyebrow is called Engagement Optimized Matchmaking. (If you want to be a little pissed, read the abstract)
EOMM is basically creating a gaming experience for a player that would optimize the amount of game time they spend playing a game. They do this by controlling matchmaking that would best be engaging to a player. It sounds great until you start getting to the underlying idea of the study. Instead of allowing fair play, they would create an optimize situation based on how you are playing. For instance, they found that when a player fluctuates between winning and losing they are much more likely to play than those who are constantly losing. Their proposal is to take a losing player, set them in a match with far worse players, in order to allow them a win. Conversely, they would take a winning player, place them in a higher bracket, in order for that player to lose.
This method would strategically take out and a real sense of competitiveness or ability in the game. You could never really know whether you had won a match because your gameplay has improved or you were purposefully dropped into a match with really bad players. It takes away from what could be an even playing field all to keep you playing the game longer. To make you spend more money.
These papers are not new and we have seen implementations of some like Activision having loot crates, as YongYea showed, visible to everyone causing other players to desire an item. They are trying to create in-game scarcity, which will drive people to desire an object more. EA could take it even further and just change the game around it.
I think what has happened here is a complete breakdown in trust between a lot of us who care and what we see as bad practices in an industry we enjoy. It's becoming more and more apparent titles by these companies are becoming more about manipulation then actual gameplay. Manipulation in social psychology is not meant as a negative term as long as there is an ethical benefit from both parties. If what is going on is a lie is being sold to one party in order to garner more profits for another, that is unethical. Especially since it will most likely affect those who are ignorant of these practices and/or young.
The gaming industry really needs to take a good look at itself and start to ascertain what they ought to do before they are told what they can do.
I fully admit I have not read the full papers and I am basing this on the abstracts and what was in the videos. The papers have also not been liberated in a way I can find them. If we start seeing a lot of examples of exactly what this paper's abstract is indicating I might drop the $15 to give it a good read. Until then I am just going to go off what I have.
While studying gameplay is something that I assume all large developing companies are doing in order to understand the type of content that players are enjoying, EA, like Activision, is taking another approach by using their understanding of the player psychology to keep them playing. Since both these companies have formed the model "games as a service", more game time means a greater chance that players will spend money on in-game content. The one idea around EA that caused me to raise an eyebrow is called Engagement Optimized Matchmaking. (If you want to be a little pissed, read the abstract)
EOMM is basically creating a gaming experience for a player that would optimize the amount of game time they spend playing a game. They do this by controlling matchmaking that would best be engaging to a player. It sounds great until you start getting to the underlying idea of the study. Instead of allowing fair play, they would create an optimize situation based on how you are playing. For instance, they found that when a player fluctuates between winning and losing they are much more likely to play than those who are constantly losing. Their proposal is to take a losing player, set them in a match with far worse players, in order to allow them a win. Conversely, they would take a winning player, place them in a higher bracket, in order for that player to lose.
This method would strategically take out and a real sense of competitiveness or ability in the game. You could never really know whether you had won a match because your gameplay has improved or you were purposefully dropped into a match with really bad players. It takes away from what could be an even playing field all to keep you playing the game longer. To make you spend more money.
These papers are not new and we have seen implementations of some like Activision having loot crates, as YongYea showed, visible to everyone causing other players to desire an item. They are trying to create in-game scarcity, which will drive people to desire an object more. EA could take it even further and just change the game around it.
I think what has happened here is a complete breakdown in trust between a lot of us who care and what we see as bad practices in an industry we enjoy. It's becoming more and more apparent titles by these companies are becoming more about manipulation then actual gameplay. Manipulation in social psychology is not meant as a negative term as long as there is an ethical benefit from both parties. If what is going on is a lie is being sold to one party in order to garner more profits for another, that is unethical. Especially since it will most likely affect those who are ignorant of these practices and/or young.
The gaming industry really needs to take a good look at itself and start to ascertain what they ought to do before they are told what they can do.
Comments
Post a Comment