Did you ever stop midway through collecting the (insert number) hidden (insert exotic noun) and ask yourself just why you’re doing this? Do you want to complete the game? Do you want to unlock whatever it unlocks? Or do you just want to get to hear a DING and see the much sought-after “You have earned a trophy!” pop-up? And if so, why the hell do you want that trophy? You probably don’t even know. Hell, I don’t even know. I collected all 300 blast shards in Infamous and I hated it. It was gruelling, un-fun and it must’ve sucked a good 4 hours out of my life, which is exactly why I’m going to try to crack that nut open and try to understand just why we do it.
First of all, we have to understand that there’s a history here. Games are historically about collecting things: points. Back in the old days, when they gave you control over a triangle and asked you to break as many big lumps as possible, you at first did it because you had fun. You saw that the more lumps you shot, the more that counter at the top of the screen went up. So you kept shooting, and the counter kept going up. At some point, you died and that number represented your journey. And then, they put that number in a huge list and you saw that you were 6896th in the list of people who played that game. At that exact moment, your competitive instinct kicked in. Surely, there aren’t 6895 people better than you? (Also, how crazy is that guy at #1? (He probably owns a hot sauce company.)) So, these points represent a marker in your journey that compares it to everyone else’s.
Then games moved to home consoles, and they kept the points. In some cases, they even added more collectibles: coins, rupees and cherries (what can I say, Adventure Island rocks). This addition rendered points essentially useless, save for one reason. You didn’t need to compare yourself against other people in that era; you owned the cartridge, therefore essentially the only person you had to compete against was yourself. Points, however, gave you gratification. And at this very moment, you stopped asking yourself why. Who cares, right? Goomba = 100 points. 100 points = good.
Trophies are the exact same way. They’re telling you what you’re doing is good. Keep on doing it (or, as is sometimes the case, stop doing it because now you have to kill 100 dudes with another gun). It transcends the instant gratification of performing the actual action in the game, as it confirms that yes, what you did was indeed awesome. Not only did you think that, but Sony confirms it by giving you a digital trophy! Congratulations!
Reward systems, be they points or trophies or achievements or just an extra life, are necessary in order to keep the player happy. It confirms their actions, shows them that they’re doing the right thing because they’re getting something in return. Something intangible and probably useless, but a reward nonetheless.
So now you’re doing something in a game, and having fun (instant gratification). You’re also getting a tangible reward for it, which is great. But why do you need a third level of gratification? Why would platforms want to have such a system in place? Why did Sony go to such lengths to implement one, why is Microsoft genius for thinking about it and why is Nintendo making the wrong decision by not implementing one?
It’s all about attribution, really. It’s about associating that reward with a helpful and kind figure. Imagine you’re working a summer job, and it’s the best summer job you’ve ever had. Just doing it makes you happy (initial gratification) and you’re getting paid for it (reward). And then, at regular intervals, your boss comes over and says “Hey, David, that’s a great job you’re doing, keep up the good work!” You end up loving that man. It’s the exact same thing with trophies and achievements. They’re that third level of gratification that confirms your good work and that make you invest more and more of yourself in the platform itself. You not only remember the good times you had with the game, but also that you had them with your console of choice. Not only that, but no matter what game you play, that console always rewards you. It keeps track of the love it gave you and tells you how much it loves you. Over time, you end up with a vested interest in a specific object that’s not a game, but the platform itself. It’s like a game layered over all of your games, and you end up playing a game to play the game.
That vested interest becomes brand resonance. It becomes part of the very essence of what makes consumers intrinsically linked to your company, what makes them devotees. It’s an overarching net that ties all of your active consumers together, and that makes them happy to be part of it. What’s more, it ties back to that era of leaderboards in arcades, by pitting them against one another.
What does that mean for platform holders? Well, it means that I, for example, will choose to buy on PS3 any game released on both platforms because I have more trophies there. It means that I would much rather play any game on the PS3 over a game on the Wii because the Wii doesn’t make me advance in that never-ending journey. It makes me sad to buy iPhone games that have OpenFeint instead of plus+ integration, simply because I beat a few games on plus+ and have a higher standing there.
That third level is becoming a necessity in this current period of the industry. With Nintendo completely ignoring it, they leave a door wide open for publishers to jump in on the action and add their own third layers. Disney is the pioneer in that sense with DGamer, a social network of sorts where you create an avatar and get to dress it up with game-themed clothes, unlocked by playing certain specific games. Not only is that the best reward system possible for a nine year-old kid, it wouldn’t have been possible if not for Nintendo leaving the field wide open.
Other companies are starting to jump on the bandwagon in what could become a fourth layer of gratification, functioning similarly to the third layer in that it creates a bond with another key player, the publisher. It’s a tool that publishers will learn to utilize in an increasingly competitive marketplace. It’s not entirely impossible to imagine a future where the only games people buy are Ubisoft games on Xbox 360.
That fourth layer brings forth important concerns. Will developers lose sight of the first layer, instant gratification? It is, after all, what all of this rests on. If actions in games aren’t just plain fun to perform, there’s no point in having a gigantic infrastructure to reward people. And what about the second layer, plain old points? Is it bound to disappear someday, as games become more story-driven? It’ll be interesting to see where all of this leads us, but one thing is for sure, you’re going to get increasingly more people giving you virtual high fives.
Still, this whole system is something that works and that not only resonates with gamers (it’s been with us since the dawn of the industry) but with people in general. AirMiles is a tremendously successful business on its ownas well as a capable revenue-booster for associated products. Many social networks, such as Foursquare, are implementing badges as a means of getting people to use them. Humans are wired that way; they just like having rewards. It’s up to publishers and manufacturers to make that system the best it can be for everyone involved.
basab-blog liked this shoulderbutton posted this