I came across an interesting article about World of Warcraft a few days ago. Blizzard CEO Mark Morhaime revealed, in an interview, that only about 30% of players in World of WarCraft actually go past the level 10 mark in the game. In fact, directly quoting him from the article:
"Our research shows that trial players who play World Of Warcraft past level 10 are much more likely to stick with the game for a long time. Currently, only about 30% of our trial players make it past this threshold. So anything we can do to improve the new player experience is a huge opportunity for us," he said.
Since this blog is about research and that claim is about research, I thought it might be worthy of comment. That is an interesting statistic and I don't doubt that it is true. But is it research? And what can you do with it?
First, on the question of "is it research", I would say no. It is not research. Earlier in this blog I referred to a concept introduced by Francis Bacon called Idols of the Marketplace. It is the common place usage of terms that have more precise definitions in the advancement of knowledge. Research is one of those terms. In common place usage, we might say, "I did a lot of research before I bought my car." In common place meaning that is perfectly acceptable. We understand it to mean that we gathered information before making a decision. However, in the world of research this term has a very different meaning. Research must advance knowledge. Typically, this means a well defined claim, based upon well defined concepts where the claim is either supported or refuted advancing our understanding of the concepts involved.
Since this is not research, it is unclear what should be done, if anything, about the derived number.
What Blizzard has done is some data analysis which yielded a parameter the meaning of which is entirely unclear. The quote suggests that the problem can be addressed by improving new player experience. But is that the case? Is there really a problem? Let's say the 70% who don't make it to level ten are regular players who download the trial version to amuse themselves while they are in a lab, or when their regular server is down, or for a class, or a demo. If that is the case, nothing needs to be done. What if the 70% include people who use trial version to get used to the game. So, they set up a trial account, use it for ten days, set up a new one and so on. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that each player does this three times before achieving a level 10 and converting to a regular account. If this is the case then the trial period should be extended. Finally, let's say that the 70% are people who play some other game and are trying WoW just so they can say they tried it. If this is the case then nothing should be done.
The point here is that we think the 30% parameter is meaningful information and it is not. We don't know what it means and we don't know what was measured. Hence, we really do not know what to do. If Blizzard were worried about retention, ease of use or some other factor then it would be possible to set up a research study to get to the bottom of it. But as it is, they don't have research. They only have a number, the meaning of which is entirely unclear.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Video Games as Social Interaction Technology
I came across an article about a Professor in Indiana using World of Warcraft as a means of communicating with his students.I found this interesting from two perspectives. First, thinking of a video game as a social interaction technology has potentially profound implications.
As we spend more an more time in virtual worlds and video games, people know where they can find us. Certainly, if someone carries a cell phone you always know where to find them as well. But there is a cultural difference. A cell phone call is an interruption where as an IM in a virtual world is not. When you call someone, you have no idea what you might be interrupting. However, if you find someone in a virtual world, they are most likely just hanging out. They may be building something, or writing a script, or slaying a monster, or talking to friends. But the culture of virtual worlds has evolved very differently from the culture of cell phones. And it seem to facilitate informal communications.
This is significant because an earlier technology, email, had a tendency to flatten out organizations. Whereas before you might have to make an appointment to see someone a level or two above you, with email you could just shoot them a note. Video games provide a common gaming experience that may flatten things out even more.
On the other hand, it further dilutes the meaning of "video game" and makes the possibility of studying video games in their entirety even more remote.
As we spend more an more time in virtual worlds and video games, people know where they can find us. Certainly, if someone carries a cell phone you always know where to find them as well. But there is a cultural difference. A cell phone call is an interruption where as an IM in a virtual world is not. When you call someone, you have no idea what you might be interrupting. However, if you find someone in a virtual world, they are most likely just hanging out. They may be building something, or writing a script, or slaying a monster, or talking to friends. But the culture of virtual worlds has evolved very differently from the culture of cell phones. And it seem to facilitate informal communications.
This is significant because an earlier technology, email, had a tendency to flatten out organizations. Whereas before you might have to make an appointment to see someone a level or two above you, with email you could just shoot them a note. Video games provide a common gaming experience that may flatten things out even more.
On the other hand, it further dilutes the meaning of "video game" and makes the possibility of studying video games in their entirety even more remote.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Conceptual Bleeding
I started this blog attempting to provide some philosophical grounding for video game research. I discussed concept analysis and how it applied to the concept of games. I explored the notion of play and how it is one of the few, if not the only, activity that we pursue for its own sake. I took that a step further and introduced the concept of flow and explained how video games are a quintessential flow activity. So far so good. But then my focus began to drift. This is not a lament, only an observation. You can't ignore all the other things that are going on. At the same time you cannot be too distracted by them. Video games can be seen as art. They can be used for education. The can provide channels for advertising. They can provide critical commentary. In fact, video games are useful for a whole lot of things.
I mention this because it is a good example of the kind of conceptual bleeding that plagues researchers. We begin by trying to develop a crisp essential concept of the phenomenon that we are trying to study. Over time that phenomenon begins to bleed into other areas. If we stick to our essential definition then, over time, we begin to appear irrelevant. If we expand the scope of our phenomenon to include new uses or applications the concept begins to appear somewhat fuzzy over time which ultimately threatens our rigor.
As I said, this is not a lament. Only an observation. It is a good example of a conceptual problem that many researchers encounter. So, what am I going to do about it? Well, probably nothing. I intend to keep looking at new uses of video games and I intend to keep trying to nail down the essential concepts. And I intend to keep reflecting on what I am doing. I am probably not going to write the book on video games nor am I going to have the last word. This is a blog and the best I can hope for is to make a few interesting observations along the way.
I mention this because it is a good example of the kind of conceptual bleeding that plagues researchers. We begin by trying to develop a crisp essential concept of the phenomenon that we are trying to study. Over time that phenomenon begins to bleed into other areas. If we stick to our essential definition then, over time, we begin to appear irrelevant. If we expand the scope of our phenomenon to include new uses or applications the concept begins to appear somewhat fuzzy over time which ultimately threatens our rigor.
As I said, this is not a lament. Only an observation. It is a good example of a conceptual problem that many researchers encounter. So, what am I going to do about it? Well, probably nothing. I intend to keep looking at new uses of video games and I intend to keep trying to nail down the essential concepts. And I intend to keep reflecting on what I am doing. I am probably not going to write the book on video games nor am I going to have the last word. This is a blog and the best I can hope for is to make a few interesting observations along the way.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Video Games versus Porn
I came across an interesting article in my Google Alerts for World of Warcraft that says World of Warcraft is one of the five top reasons for a decline in the fortunes of the porn industry. Actually, the linked article links to another article but both are worth a look. The original article gives the "Top 5 reasons why it is harder than ever before to make a living selling porn" and reason number 4 is Online Gaming. Specifically it says "One of the strangest challenges porn faces is competition from online games like World of Warcraft". If you are sensitive to crude language, you may wish to just take my word for what the articles say. Nonetheless, the notion that online video games could threaten the porn industry economically while any number of other advocacy groups have failed to do so socially or legally is a thought provoking idea. Why is this the case?
First, I should say that this may not be the case or it may be. We just don't know. It is a claim made in an online newspaper. It is the opinion of a person who is involved in the industry. It is not a well know industry analyst with a reputation for accuracy in his reporting. And it does not cite numbers from a credible source. I do not mean to diminish the credibility of the source in any way. Nor do I wish to diminish the veracity of the claim. I am merely saying that more evidence would be required before we simply accept this claim. Nonetheless, it is, at least, plausible. And if it is true it bears explaining.
From a research perspective, this raises many interesting questions. Do all kinds of video games threaten all kinds of porn? Or is it limited to specific genres? For example, it is hard to imagine that Free Cell has enough pull to keep prospective visitors off of adult sites. And it is hard to imagine that Wii tennis provides senior citizens with an alternative to prurient browsing. Are all kinds of porn affected equally? I am not familiar enough with porn to discuss the genres and probably would not admit it if I were. But, you can see, intellectually, how the impact may be uneven. Are certain demographics more likely to be affected by the lure of video games? This seems likely as the demographic of males under 25 seems to be an important market for both industries.
Once we figure out who and what are affected, the next question is - why? Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing games such as World of Warcraft can be seen as Flow experiences as discussed earlier in this blog. But, they are also social experiences, learning experiences, and, for some, economically or professionally beneficial. Which of these or what combination of these draws the audience away from alternatives?
These are not frivolous questions. If video games can lure players away from porn, they can lure them away from school, work, family, and social engagements just to name a few. It may also be able to lure them away from anti-social activities such as gangs, petty crime, violence or just hanging out. Yes, this gives us much to think about.
First, I should say that this may not be the case or it may be. We just don't know. It is a claim made in an online newspaper. It is the opinion of a person who is involved in the industry. It is not a well know industry analyst with a reputation for accuracy in his reporting. And it does not cite numbers from a credible source. I do not mean to diminish the credibility of the source in any way. Nor do I wish to diminish the veracity of the claim. I am merely saying that more evidence would be required before we simply accept this claim. Nonetheless, it is, at least, plausible. And if it is true it bears explaining.
From a research perspective, this raises many interesting questions. Do all kinds of video games threaten all kinds of porn? Or is it limited to specific genres? For example, it is hard to imagine that Free Cell has enough pull to keep prospective visitors off of adult sites. And it is hard to imagine that Wii tennis provides senior citizens with an alternative to prurient browsing. Are all kinds of porn affected equally? I am not familiar enough with porn to discuss the genres and probably would not admit it if I were. But, you can see, intellectually, how the impact may be uneven. Are certain demographics more likely to be affected by the lure of video games? This seems likely as the demographic of males under 25 seems to be an important market for both industries.
Once we figure out who and what are affected, the next question is - why? Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing games such as World of Warcraft can be seen as Flow experiences as discussed earlier in this blog. But, they are also social experiences, learning experiences, and, for some, economically or professionally beneficial. Which of these or what combination of these draws the audience away from alternatives?
These are not frivolous questions. If video games can lure players away from porn, they can lure them away from school, work, family, and social engagements just to name a few. It may also be able to lure them away from anti-social activities such as gangs, petty crime, violence or just hanging out. Yes, this gives us much to think about.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Some Thoughts on Casual Play
I finished reading and reviewing the book on Casual Play that I mentioned last week. The author argues his point well that casual players outnumber hard core gamers and that this may represent a revolution of sorts in video game design. However, despite the increasing use of casual games, I don't think hard core games are going anywhere. That is to say that I think this segment of the industry will continue to thrive and continue to grow. At the same time I would also acknowledge that the casual segment may well thrive more and grow faster. I think a couple of analogies are in order to explain this.
The first analogy which I used in the review said that you cannot judge the audience for performing art simply by considering those who attend Broadway plays. There is also an audience for shows like Everybody Loves Raymond and while the later audience may not be as lofty as the former it dwarfs the former in terms of numbers and revenue generation. One end of the market is where the art is advanced. The other end of the market is where it is exploited. Both ends are important to a vital industry. So designers who serve the hard core audience will continue to advance the state of the art while casual game designers will continue to broaden the audience.
The second analog which I mentioned in the review but did not explore was the comparison between hard core gamers versus casual players on one hand and command line users versus those who prefer graphical user interfaces. There is still a use for command line interfaces and there is stil a hard core audience who prefers them. However, graphical user interfaces expands the audience and makes computers available to a large number of people who would never use them if they had to learn how to use the command line. I think this comparison is apt because, overwhelmingly, most potential video game players will not invest the time and intellectual energy required to play hard core games. They will, however, play games that are effortless to play and represent diversion and entertainment.
On one hand it is exciting to see the field of video games grow and expand and become more complex. However, from a research perspective, it becomes increasing more difficult to make any statements that are true for all video games. We may get back to Wittgenstein's family resemblances and see video games as collection of overlapping concepts that do not have any attributes in common across all categories.
The first analogy which I used in the review said that you cannot judge the audience for performing art simply by considering those who attend Broadway plays. There is also an audience for shows like Everybody Loves Raymond and while the later audience may not be as lofty as the former it dwarfs the former in terms of numbers and revenue generation. One end of the market is where the art is advanced. The other end of the market is where it is exploited. Both ends are important to a vital industry. So designers who serve the hard core audience will continue to advance the state of the art while casual game designers will continue to broaden the audience.
The second analog which I mentioned in the review but did not explore was the comparison between hard core gamers versus casual players on one hand and command line users versus those who prefer graphical user interfaces. There is still a use for command line interfaces and there is stil a hard core audience who prefers them. However, graphical user interfaces expands the audience and makes computers available to a large number of people who would never use them if they had to learn how to use the command line. I think this comparison is apt because, overwhelmingly, most potential video game players will not invest the time and intellectual energy required to play hard core games. They will, however, play games that are effortless to play and represent diversion and entertainment.
On one hand it is exciting to see the field of video games grow and expand and become more complex. However, from a research perspective, it becomes increasing more difficult to make any statements that are true for all video games. We may get back to Wittgenstein's family resemblances and see video games as collection of overlapping concepts that do not have any attributes in common across all categories.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Casual Play
I am reviewing yet another book on video games for ACM Computing Reviews. This one is entitled A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and Their Players by Jesper Juul. I am only a bit into it. So I cannot comment in depth. But it did make me think about some of the problems that are emerging in video game research. The premise of the book is that the demographic characteristics of the 'typical' video game player are changing. Instead of the hard core gamer in their teens or early twenties, the typical video game player is beginning to look a lot like a normal person. This is largely because there is an endless variety of games available for free download, for phones or just for idle players such as solitaire games. And there are whole new genres of games such as the physically active games for Wii.
This is an interesting point and I am eager to see where the author takes it. However, it poses an interesting problem for video game research. Clearly, the game playing experience of a hard core gamer playing a massively multiplayer online role playing game and the gaming experience of someone idling time away on a cell phone game are very different. Both of these are different, in turn, from the physical experience of one playing a tennis or bowling game on Wii. Since the variety of games produces a variety of gaming experiences, can anything be said which is true of all video games? Or, does the variety of social, gaming, cognitive and physical experiences preclude that?
And, if the variety precludes this, can the variety be organized into genre for which general statements can be made? And if it can, what should those genre be? Shoud we group based upon price, demographics, social expereince, gaming experience, media, game design features or other criteria.
It is truly wonderful that such a wide variety of gaming options are being developed and enjoyed. But if we are ever going to be able to say anything intelligent about video games we are going to have to get our thoughts organized.
This is an interesting point and I am eager to see where the author takes it. However, it poses an interesting problem for video game research. Clearly, the game playing experience of a hard core gamer playing a massively multiplayer online role playing game and the gaming experience of someone idling time away on a cell phone game are very different. Both of these are different, in turn, from the physical experience of one playing a tennis or bowling game on Wii. Since the variety of games produces a variety of gaming experiences, can anything be said which is true of all video games? Or, does the variety of social, gaming, cognitive and physical experiences preclude that?
And, if the variety precludes this, can the variety be organized into genre for which general statements can be made? And if it can, what should those genre be? Shoud we group based upon price, demographics, social expereince, gaming experience, media, game design features or other criteria.
It is truly wonderful that such a wide variety of gaming options are being developed and enjoyed. But if we are ever going to be able to say anything intelligent about video games we are going to have to get our thoughts organized.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Video Games as Transformative Art
I reviewed a book recently for ACM Computing Reviews entitled Critical Play: Radical Game Design, by Mary Flanagan. It was a fascinating book that brought forth two important points about video games. First, video games can be through of as a form of artistic expression. And, second, as a form of artistic expression, video games can, potentially, be seen as transformative.
Seeing video games as a form of art is not that controversial. The background scenery and characters have graced posters and drawn the attention of graphics artists for years. But, it is much more than that. Consider the following progression... Imagine standing in your favorite art gallery viewing an oil painting of a landscape scene. Next imagine putting characters in that scene and having them work through some sort of archetypal human conflict. Now you have a movie. Next, imagine having that movie be interactive where the viewers actually interact with the characters in the story. Now you have a video game.
Returning to the landscape painting, it can be viewed on several levels. It can just be something nice to look at. It can inspire deeper reflection and aesthetic appreciation. Or, if it touches us deeply enough, it can be transformative. Similarly, a video game can simply be fun to play. If it is more engaging we may learn from it. For example, we might learn how to work in groups, solve problems, develop strategies, or manage resources. If it touches us deeply enough, it may be transformative.
These are compelling ideas and also somewhat problematic. I have been thinking of video games as play, serious play. I was starting to get a net over my ideas in this area. Now, having to consider the role of video games as transformative play has torn a big hole in my net.
Sigh!
Seeing video games as a form of art is not that controversial. The background scenery and characters have graced posters and drawn the attention of graphics artists for years. But, it is much more than that. Consider the following progression... Imagine standing in your favorite art gallery viewing an oil painting of a landscape scene. Next imagine putting characters in that scene and having them work through some sort of archetypal human conflict. Now you have a movie. Next, imagine having that movie be interactive where the viewers actually interact with the characters in the story. Now you have a video game.
Returning to the landscape painting, it can be viewed on several levels. It can just be something nice to look at. It can inspire deeper reflection and aesthetic appreciation. Or, if it touches us deeply enough, it can be transformative. Similarly, a video game can simply be fun to play. If it is more engaging we may learn from it. For example, we might learn how to work in groups, solve problems, develop strategies, or manage resources. If it touches us deeply enough, it may be transformative.
These are compelling ideas and also somewhat problematic. I have been thinking of video games as play, serious play. I was starting to get a net over my ideas in this area. Now, having to consider the role of video games as transformative play has torn a big hole in my net.
Sigh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
