Strategies Online Games Use to Keep Players Hooked | MMORPG.com

System

Strategies Online Games Use to Keep Players Hooked | MMORPG.com

In the MMO world, one of the most pressing concerns for many players is the addiction. Nick looks at some of the various ways MMOs, and other gaming genres, use specific strategies to keep players hooked on their game - sometimes to the detriment of their players.

Read the full story here

foxgirl

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

maskedweasel

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

TheRebellion

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

Haven't you ever just re-subbed and then something new comes out and you want to play, or a game you were previously interested in gets a cool update you want to try?

I've had up to 3 subs going at once before, and it's a nightmare.

Scot

Publishing loot box rates is not an answer to casino gambling, loot boxes and all casino gambling need to be removed form gaming. The authors suggest hard caps, limiting players total spend, obviously I think they have no place in a game.

I am not sure Nick has really understood the ramifications of the study which does not show "the real-world effects for the average person should be minimal" or that "but for the typical gamer this isn’t particularly harmful." There is a spectrum of likelihood to gaining a gambling addiction we are not immune or susceptible. The average gamer now starts gambling in games as a preteen or before, gambling when you are young is recognised as making you more likely to develop a gambling addiction.

Nick tells us he was a child when he started playing games, I don't think he grasps how different it is for children now, gambling with loot boxes is a different world.

Nick notes that "Data pulled from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, suggested that (on average) problem gamblers spent approximately $13 (1300%) more a month on loot boxes than non-problem gamblers." Does that not indicate how addictive loot boxes are to you? In fact that rises "to approximately $21 USD per month when outliers were included in the analyses." Those with a gambling addiction are very prone to overusing loot boxes, because this is gambling pure and simple. This needs to be kept out of gaming.

Just read the study where the authors say the likes of:

"The relationships between loot box spending behavior, problem gambling symptomology and risky loot box engagement were all of a size generally interpreted as practically significant."

"We call on all games companies to seriously consider implementing harm minimization techniques such as limit setting to attenuate the potential financial harm that high-risk users may experience from loot box mechanisms."

"People with greater problem gambling symptomology spend more on loot boxes than those without such symptoms, and those who engage in excessive gameplay and have problem gambling symptoms are at an even greater risk for high expenditure on loot box systems."

While they say that the difference in negative feelings is mild, that's the difference between those known to have a gambling disorder and those not known to have one. That's not to say the negative effects are mild, just the difference between these two groups is not marked.

Sorry for the wall of text but I think this is the most important issue in gaming today, gambling does not belong in gaming.

BruceYee

The main thing that keeps me playing a game is if I'm excited about character progression.

All the other stuff is not really a big deal but opportunities like ESO events to make a fk ton of in-game cash does motivate me to log in cause I'm greedy af.

lotrlore

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.

Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Cryomatrix

Just build a home gym, doesnt need much, mine is almost done, all you need is weights a bench and the rest of the time you can use your body to challenge any muscle group

Scot

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

xpsync

ESO i stayed subbed for a year(s) i don't remember, but was a very long time and all for the off chance i'm in the mood to play, it would be ready,

Thing there was that ofc i was into the game but the crowns equaled the sub alone and the crafting bag, so why not right.

Eventually i did return, my son did too and yeah, lets just say he had a heyday with all my crowns, poof gone! lmao. Then not long after we bored of the game yet again and this time i actually canceled.

Can't even begin to count the games that destroyed themselves for me over the daily login BS. Even SWL was one of the victims.

All i want is a nice break from the game and come back fresh, however becasue i'm very much into the game i continue that daily login bs and yeah no break.

Eventually turns to i'm resentful of the game due to being reminded daily what an absolute f'ing PITA it is to do this chore every day. Canceled/Uninstalled usually for life becasue of this stupid trick. I'm not sure how anyone could be a fan of that tactic?

TheRebellion

Scot said:

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I've bought a year of Xbox Live Gold and used it for maybe 2 weeks.

xpsync

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I wonder how many people played wow for a month or two at launch, maybe a year and then a decade later a statue arrives in the mail and they be like WTF is this?

lotrlore

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I also think I paid for a WoW sub for a year after Legion launched, but maybe played it for two weeks? I didn't start playing it regularly again till BfA when I did IGN's review, and even then I went months after finishing it without playing before picking it back up again.

Aeander

I fucking hate dailies and battle passes. Stop making me treat my game like a job.

Scot

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I also think I paid for a WoW sub for a year after Legion launched, but maybe played it for two weeks? I didn't start playing it regularly again till BfA when I did IGN's review, and even then I went months after finishing it without playing before picking it back up again.

Ok, I just keep an eye on my finances more then, I did not think for a second your answer could be yes.

Scot

Torval said:

I'm all for full disclosure on odds for all random chance rewards. That includes loot crates, but also any other RNG rewards systems. It's easy to hind grind and lockin in a subscription game behind various RNG rewards, raid timeouts, etc.

Loot crates and blind box purchases still need to go, but full disclosure is a good first step in the path to firmer regulation of predatory monetization practices.

I think that's just a fall back that suits the companies that want to keep us gambling in gaming. The study suggested that and putting a cap on the number of loot boxes you could buy in a given time.

For me the argument is very simple, the study shows what we already know, this is gambling. Starting gambling early in life is a causator of gambling addiction, this will lead kids to getting such addictions.

So what about the adults? When it comes to how we play our games I can think of nearly anything more alien to the fair playing field that gaming once was than gambling. It is nearly as  bad as P2W. The attempt by the article to try to make out that loot boxes are part of the same system as a subscription is very misleading. Their only connection is they are revenue methods, subscriptions do not involve gambling.

lotrlore

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I also think I paid for a WoW sub for a year after Legion launched, but maybe played it for two weeks? I didn't start playing it regularly again till BfA when I did IGN's review, and even then I went months after finishing it without playing before picking it back up again.

Ok, I just keep an eye on my finances more then, I did not think for a second your answer could be yes.

Yeaaaa.....I'm awful at remembering subs, to be honest. Thankfully, this thread helped curb that for this month.

Wizardry

There is one missing and the imo the biggest like 99% of the reason people keep playing MOST of these games and even the newest advert game is doing it>>>LOOT.
There is very little immersion,very little true exploration,little world building,no real truly good puzzles,little interaction just game for ...LOOT and of course the obvious pvp for fame more so than FUN.

Mendel

Not surprisingly, none of the ideas to hook a customer involve making an amazing game with deep, meaningful player interactions, tons of content, quality service and new, fresh ideas.  Most of the ideas listed seem to have been written my an accountant; the focus on the bottom line to the exclusion of everything else is unmistakable.

Nick_Shively

Mendel said:

Not surprisingly, none of the ideas to hook a customer involve making an amazing game with deep, meaningful player interactions, tons of content, quality service and new, fresh ideas.  Most of the ideas listed seem to have been written my an accountant; the focus on the bottom line to the exclusion of everything else is unmistakable.

Correct, and that was the point of the article. Pointing out ways companies can manipulate players to extend play time and not by simply improving quality of content. That was also the purpose of my example on how early Blizzard titles personally kept me hooked due to quality and sheer volume of content, and that most new games don't do this.

Kyleran

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

More than one EVE player has paid a sub to train more skills while not playing for months or even years at a time.

Kyleran

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

Before I learned better I did purchase 6 month subs to a couple of games, Rift being one only to quit playing after a month or two.

lahnmir

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I also think I paid for a WoW sub for a year after Legion launched, but maybe played it for two weeks? I didn't start playing it regularly again till BfA when I did IGN's review, and even then I went months after finishing it without playing before picking it back up again.

Ok, I just keep an eye on my finances more then, I did not think for a second your answer could be yes.

Yeaaaa.....I'm awful at remembering subs, to be honest. Thankfully, this thread helped curb that for this month.

There are just so many subs. I’ve got:

- Netflix
- Apple One
- Disney +

- Dropbox
- Crunchyroll
- LotRO
- Nintendo Online
- Humble Bundle

And cancelled:

- PS Online
- MS Gamepass
- Several Apple subs when One became available

I never lose track of them though for more then a month  

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Scot

lahnmir said:

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

Scot said:

lotrlore said:

maskedweasel said:

foxgirl said:

The sunk cost fallacy isn't really a fallacy since very few people are going to subscribe then just not play the game at all.

But what if your favorite part of the game is paying the subscription but not playing the game? 

People do this with gym memberships too.



Source: Me, a guy who paid $20 a month for 6 months and went 3 times before finally canceling.

Have you every started a subscription for a game and just played three times in six months though?

I also think I paid for a WoW sub for a year after Legion launched, but maybe played it for two weeks? I didn't start playing it regularly again till BfA when I did IGN's review, and even then I went months after finishing it without playing before picking it back up again.

Ok, I just keep an eye on my finances more then, I did not think for a second your answer could be yes.

Yeaaaa.....I'm awful at remembering subs, to be honest. Thankfully, this thread helped curb that for this month.

There are just so many subs. I’ve got:

- Netflix
- Apple One
- Disney +

- Dropbox
- Crunchyroll
- LotRO
- Nintendo Online
- Humble Bundle

And cancelled:

- PS Online
- MS Gamepass
- Several Apple subs when One became available

I never lose track of them though for more then a month  

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Not just thinking of Lahnmir here but you guys need to get a grip on what you are spending. I am not saying don't spend, just know where you are spending. Most importantly don't admit this to your wife, when it comes to gaming you know where every penny goes.

Mendel

Nick_Shively said:

Mendel said:

Not surprisingly, none of the ideas to hook a customer involve making an amazing game with deep, meaningful player interactions, tons of content, quality service and new, fresh ideas.  Most of the ideas listed seem to have been written my an accountant; the focus on the bottom line to the exclusion of everything else is unmistakable.

Correct, and that was the point of the article. Pointing out ways companies can manipulate players to extend play time and not by simply improving quality of content. That was also the purpose of my example on how early Blizzard titles personally kept me hooked due to quality and sheer volume of content, and that most new games don't do this.

If you ever wonder why the MMORPG genre is in the state that it's in, one reason is because those creating these type games are more concerned about how to keep customers in substandard experiences rather than building superior games.  These 'tricks' have become the norm for almost the entire gaming industry.

Too many customers have bought into this, thinking that if it costs more, it must be better, right?  So people pay and pay and pay, but the actual game activities never improve or even change.  Somehow these customers feel enriched, and the developers think 'look at all the money, we must be doing something right'.  So the next burst of creative energy goes not into a new game ideas but another monetization scheme.

I just wonder why we do this to ourselves.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.