The Player
Demographic Models
Playing: VVVV
Watching: Californication
Reading: Crónica do Pássaro de Corda,
Haruki Murakami
Listening: Tiamat, Testament
Audience Models

Why?

How to measure the success of a game?
A game is successful if it satisfies the
needs of its (target) audience (players)

Usually a Game does not target
Everyone!
Player Motivation

Social Interaction

Competition

Knowledge

Mastery

Escapism

Physical Sensations
Models by Genre

Common genres

Action

Adventure

Driving

Puzzle

Role-play

Simulation

Sports

Strategy
Hardcore vs Casual

Hardcore

Familiar with game conventions

Read about games (e.g. magazines, forums)

Playing games as a life-style

Adapt theirs life to the game

Look for challenge

Buy a lot of games
Hardcore vs Casual

Casual

Unaware of game conventions

Play few games

Games must adapt to their life

Play to relax and “kill time”

Buy few games
Hardcore vs Casual
Hardcore
Casual
Literacy
High
Low
Motivation
Challenge
Kill Time
Quantity
Many
Few
Hardcore vs Casual

Results from this model

Include different difficulty levels

E.g.: Resident Evil (Capcom, 1996)

Mountain Climbing

Hiking
EA Games Model
Hardcore
Gamer
Cool
Gamer
Mass Market
Casual Gamer
Electronic Arts (GDC, 2003)
EA Games Model

Hardcore Gamer

Read about games

Play demos

Rent games before buying

Play many games (about 25 per year)
EA Games Model

Cool Gamer

Have a friend who is “Hardcore Gamer”

Are influenced by their “Hardcore Gamers”
friends


To play

To buy
Play games that are in the Top 10
EA Games Model

Casual Gamers

Know little about the world of games

Their opinion is highly influenced by the
mass media and the other two groups

Play game in the Top 3

Are in higher numbers than the other two
groups
EA Games Model

Results from this model

Differentiates players from the way they
know about a game

Identifies an influence of the more literate
gamers on the others

To ignore this fact might be a big mistake

E.g. Try to make a game only for casual players
IHOBO Model
Hardcore
Gamer
Testosterone
Gamer
Lifestyle
Gamer
Family
Gamer
Mass Market / Casual
International HOBO, 2000-2003
IHOBO Model

Hardcore Gamer

Looking for challenge

Favours games with high difficulty

Tolerant to complex controls

Have the role/power to “spread the word”
IHOBO Model

Testosterone Gamer

Usually male

May be hardcore or casual

Gives high importance to competition


Loves games with a lot of action


Player vs Player
Fight, driving, shooting
Tolerates complex controls, but not as much
as a “pure” hardcore gamer
IHOBO Model

Lifestyle Gamer

Looking for fun

Looking for new experiences

Favours games with low difficulty

Does not tolerate being stuck in the game

Gives importance to the narrative

Does not play “socially inacceptable” games

Does not tolerate complex controls
IHOBO Model

Family Gamer

Mostly parents that buy games for their
children

Play with their kids

May play alone

Looking for fun

Give importance to the narrative

Rather play games within their reality

Needs simple controls
IHOBO Model

Results from this model

Identifies an influence in the casual sector

Identifies the influence that children have on
their parents

Emphasizes the importance of “hardcore
gamers“ to spread the word
Market Vectors


Identify the influence between groups of
users
Find the path of the “desire to buy” in the
audience
Market Vectors
Casual Players
Friends
Specialist
Press
Hardcore
Player
(male)
Girlfriend
or Wife
(female)
Family
The Sims (Maxis, 2000)
Mainstream
Press
Market Vectors

Evangelist groups

Specialist Press

Mainstream Press

Hardcore players

Estimated 1 Million per market (USA, Europe and
Japan)
Market Vectors

Target groups


Testosterone

3 million estimated

Current penetration 33% to 50%
Lifestyle



10 million estimated
Current penetration 10% (rare exceptions reach
50%)
Familiar

30 million estimated

Current penetration less than 5%
Market Vectors

Phases in market penetration
I. Hardcore penetration
II. Hardcore players evangelism
III. Casual penetration
IV. Casual players evangelism
Market Vectors

To achieve market penetration consider

Gameplay vs Toyplay

Complexity of controls

Duration of a game session

Play window

Game replay value
Audience Models

These models are based on sales

Do they reflect the real needs of players?
10 Millions
Hardcore
Testosterone
Lifestyle
Family
45 Millions
Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and
Spades

Players of MUDs (Bartle, 1996)
Interact
Manipulate
Socializers
Killers
Explorers
Achievers
Players
Environment
Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and
Spades

Socializers


Killers


Enjoy manipulating other players
Explorers


Enjoy learning about or communication with
other players
Enjoy interacting with the game world
Achievers

Enjoy manipulating the game world
Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and
Spades

Further findings



2 kinds of killers

Griefers (sly) and Politicians (open)

New dimension: Implicit/explicit action
Players gradually change over time

Killer -> Explorer -> Achiever -> Socializer

Killer -> Socializer -> Killer -> Socializer
Connection to the Hero’s Journey
The Daedalus Project

The psychology of MMORPG players


Based on players surveys


Nick Yee, since 2003
More than 35000 players
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus
The Daedalus Project

Sample findings (World of Warcraft)
The Daedalus Project

Sample findings (World of Warcraft)
The Daedalus Project

Sample findings (World of Warcraft)
Break
DGD1 Model

Demographic Game Design 1

Developed by International Hobo

Players model based on personality


Myers-Briggs
Build on

Player surveys and interviews

More than 400 participants
Myers-Briggs

Psychology model of personality

Classifies individuals in 16 categories

Based on 4 dichotomies

Extraversion vs Introversion (E vs I)

Sensing vs Intuition (S vs N)

Thinking vs Feeling (T vs F)

Judging vs Perceiving (J vs P)
Myers-Briggs

Extraversion vs Introversion (E vs I)


Extraversion (50% of the population)

Act before think

Need outside world experiences

Motivated by people and things around

Favour experiences with several people
Introversion (50% of the population)

Think before act

Need private time

Seek internal motivation

Favour 1 to 1 communication
Myers-Briggs

Sensing vs Intuition (S vs N)


Sensing (70% of the population)

Live the present

Remember details about past events

Build solutions based on past experiences

Prefer explicit and concrete information
Intuition (30% of the population)

Live the future

Remember patterns, context and connections of events

Build solutions based on theoretical models

Tolerates implicit and ambiguous information
Myers-Briggs

Thinking vs Feeling (T vs F)


Thinking (50% of the population)

Use facts and logic to make decisions

Focus on tasks

Analyse objectively

Believes that conflict is natural
Feeling (50% of the population)

Uses emotions and feelings to make decisions

Focus on the consequences of actions

Analyse subjectively

Does not like conflict
Myers-Briggs

Judging vs Perceiving (J vs P)


Judging (55% of the population)

Plans everything before act

Uses routine in every-day life

Focuses on one task at the time

Avoids deadline stress
Perceiving (45% of the population)

Plans while acting

Favours liberty and flexibility

Focuses on several tasks at the same time

Works better close to deadlines
Myers-Briggs

The categories
ISTJ (Trustee)

ISTP (Artisan)
ESTP (Promoter)
ESTJ (Administrator)
ISFJ (Conservator) ISFP (Artist)
ESFP (Entertainer) ESFJ (Seller)
INFJ (Author)
INFP (Questor)
ENFP (Journalist)
INTJ (Scientist)
INTP (Architect) ENTP (Inventor)
ENFJ (Pedagogue)
ENTJ (Field Marshal)
Online Test
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgiwin/JTypes1.htm
Myers-Briggs

Influence on Game Design (E vs I) - How
games are played

Duration of game sessions

Sociability

Connection with the outside world

Physical components

Dance Dance Revolution (Konami, 2001)
Myers-Briggs

Influence on Game Design (S vs N) Learning and problem solving

Level of abstraction of challenges

Approach to challenge resolution


Game progression


Trial and error (common sense) vs “Lateral
Thinking”
Complex problems should not stop the
progression (S)
Tutorials and help (S, not N)
Myers-Briggs

Influence on Game Design (T vs F) –
Motivation to play

Encouragement

Rewards and progression

Collectables (aesthetics)

Suggestions and help

Deal with failure (“Game Over”)

Don’t punish (F)
Myers-Briggs

Influence on Game Design (J vs P) Goal-orientation

Goals and progress

Victory conditions


Open or closed games
Game structure
Myers-Briggs

Axis TJ vs FP

Challenge and conflict

Subjective experiences

Subjective Appraisal
DGD1 Model
Judging
Perceiving
Conqueror
Manager
(TJ)
(TP)
Thinking
Feeling
Participant
(FJ)
Wanderer
(FP)
DGD1 Model
Conqueror
Manager
C1
Participant
C4
C2
H1
H2
H4
H3
C3
Wanderer
DGD1 Model

Hardcore player

Buys and plays many games

Plays for long periods

Seek challenge, progression, mastery

Tolerates complex controls

Games are part of their life
DGD1 Model

Casual player

Plays few games

More popular of suggested by friends

Plays for short periods

Seek fun, immersion and new experiences

Does not tolerate complex controls

Games are just pastime
DGD1 Model

Type 1 – Conqueror (T + J)

Need to “beat” the game in all possible ways


H1 (I)

Beat their own limits

Failure and frustration is positive
C1 (I + S)

Beat the other players

The most hardcore of the casual sector
DGD1 Model

Type 1 – Conqueror (T + J)

Game characteristics


Fast pace (game progression)
Story is irrelevant (C1) or does not give
importance to characters (H1)

Likes hidden components

Online support/extension

Need voice (often complain)
DGD1 Model

Type 2 – Manager (T + P)

Need to understand and explore the game


H2 (I)

Like to explore strategies

Failures are new opportunities to improve the strategy
C2 (I + S)

Likes to build artefacts

Low tolerance to failure
DGD1 Model

Type 2 – Manager (T + P)

Game characteristics

Stable progression

Implicit goals, focus on the process

The plot is more important than the characters

Does not need a strong social component
DGD1 Model

Type 3 – Wanderer (F + P)

Seeks new experiences


H3 (I + N)

Seeks fantasy

Likes to play with “style”
C3 (E + N)

The game is just pastime, it cannot

Irritate, tire, “force to think”
Needs progress but without much effort


Plays single-player games in pairs!
DGD1 Model

Type 3 – Wanderer (F + P)

Game characteristics

Slow progression

Progression implies new “toys”

Non-linear structure

Simple controls

Emotional connection with the characters

The game is a means to share experiences

May be to talk about unrelated subjects
DGD1 Model

Type 4 – Participant (F + J)

Want to participate in a story or social
interaction


H4 (E + S)

Seek participation in the development of the game
and/or story

Seek involvement with the real world

Favour collaboration
C4 (E + S) ?

Seek social entertainment

Implies the same physical space
Favours group play (with friends)

DGD1 Model

Type 4 – Participant (F + J)

Game characteristics

Game progression connected to the narrative

Emotional connection with the characters

Group interactions

Preferably face to face
DGD1 Model
Progression
Narrative
Social
Conqueror
Fast
No / Plot
Competition
Manager
Stable
Plot
No
Wanderer
Slow / novelty
Character /
emotion
Sharing
Participant
Narrative
Character /
emotion
Cooperation (in
loco)
http://ihobo.com/_oldsite/articles/DGD1.shtml
DGD1 Model
Distribution
betweenpelos
the 4
four
types
grupos
Distribuição
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hardcore
Casual
Total
Conqueror
Manager
Wanderer
Participant
DGD1 Model
Men
- percentage
(Homens)
Percentagem
100
90
80
70
60
Hardcore
Casual
Control
50
40
30
20
10
0
Conqueror
Manager
Wanderer
Participant
Overall
DGD1 Model
Women - percentage
(Mulheres)
Percentagem
70
65
60
55
50
45
Hardcore
Casual
Control
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Conqueror
Manager
Wanderer
Participant
Overall
Conclusions


Game design should be focused on the
satisfaction of players needs
There are clear differences in the way
people play


Hardcore vs casual
Different kind of people like different type
of games
Conclusions


There are people that don’t play because
there are no games for them

Need better connection with the real world

Collaboration
Do not ignore evangelist groups


Hardcore, press
Other factors

Culture, Generation
Bibliography
“21th Century Game Design”, Chris Bateman
and Richard Boon. Charles River Media. 2006
“Game Development Essentials”, Jeannie
Novak. Thomson Delmar Learning. 2008