Annex 11
Peer review of the Game Design Model (GDM) and the Revenue Mechanic
Framework (RMF)
The GDM and RMF are meant to function as physical tools, like pin-up boards for discussion and analysis.
The user fills out the GDM and RMF with post-its, which makes it easy to remove and add ideas/features. In
order to facilitate this usage, we recommend that the GDM and RMF are printed out on sizeable paper.
Picture 1 - Usage situation
What to use it for:
- Facilitate discussion. Create a shared language/terminology. Feature creation.
It is not a model meant to be used on a day-to-day basis, but rather whenever you need to facilitate a
discussion in regards to feature creation (game features and revenue mechanics).
For whom is this meant to give value:
-The GDM and RMF can used be every role in a game development if they gain any value from it.
We see the GDM and RMF to be primary used by the lead team, especially within areas such as: Game
design, level design, business performance and QA/UX.
We would like to get feedback in regards to:

Terminology
 Are we using the right terms to describe the different parts in models
Wouldn’t “Revenue mechanic framework” be more aptly named “Monetization framework”?
Currencies: we call them soft/hard currencies. I’ve never heard main/deluxe used as terms.
Metagame is usually used as a name for the numbers game around the main game. You seem to use meta
in a slightly different manner.

The structure and flow of the frameworks
Not really sure about this question. I don’t understand the flow from reading them, so I can’t comment on
that.

Other ideas that could improve the frameworks
I think the framework as presented does not efficiently map sources and sinks (where you get and spend
resources, respectively), and the flow between these.
I think the framework does not place a lot of weight on social hooks for retaining/reactivating/acquiring
users.

Practicability
 Do you find it useful?
I think the terms on there are all relevant if you are designing a game, but I probably don’t see the great
gain in presenting them in this particular layout.
I feel a little bit like it runs the danger of not seeing the forest because of the trees. There are usually a little
handful of questions/focal points that are the key ones for any given game. Focusing on those tends to be
the most beneficial.
Depending on the particular game being designed, it is probably more valuable to look at identifying pinch
points, emotional highs/lows, first purchase incentives, overall session design, a tiered or exponential
economy, sources and sinks, etc. – perhaps that is contained in your model, and I just don’t see it.
The more a model can steer you from generic questions towards specific ones, the better.

Would you be able to use it in your team for development?
No, we have our own way of doing things.