1. The Player Demographic Models
Playing: VVVV
Watching: Californication
Reading: Crónica do Pássaro de Corda, Haruki Murakami
Listening: Tiamat, Testament
playstyle theories and models of Caillois, Lazzaro, and Edwards

2. 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!

3. Player Motivation Social Interaction Competition Knowledge Mastery
Escapism
Physical Sensations

4. Models by Genre Common genres Action Adventure Driving Puzzle
Role-play
Simulation
Sports
Strategy

5. 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

6. 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

7. Hardcore vs Casual Literacy Motivation Quantity Hardcore High
Challenge
Many
Casual
Low
Kill Time
Few

8. Hardcore vs Casual Results from this model
Include different difficulty levels
E.g.: Resident Evil (Capcom, 1996)
Mountain Climbing
Hiking

9. EA Games Model Electronic Arts (GDC, 2003) Hardcore Gamer Cool
Mass Market
Casual Gamer
Electronic Arts (GDC, 2003)

10. EA Games Model Hardcore Gamer Read about games Play demos
Rent games before buying
Play many games (about 25 per year)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. IHOBO Model International HOBO, 2000-2003 Hardcore Gamer Testosterone
Mass Market / Casual
Lifestyle Family
Gamer Gamer
International HOBO,

15. IHOBO Model Hardcore Gamer Looking for challenge
Favours games with high difficulty
Tolerant to complex controls
Have the role/power to “spread the word”

16. IHOBO Model Testosterone Gamer Usually male May be hardcore or casual
Gives high importance to competition
Player vs Player
Loves games with a lot of action
Fight, driving, shooting
Tolerates complex controls, but not as much as a “pure” hardcore gamer

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Market Vectors Identify the influence between groups of users
Find the path of the “desire to buy” in the audience

21. Market Vectors The Sims (Maxis, 2000) Casual Players Friends
Specialist
Press
Hardcore
Player
(male)
Girlfriend
or Wife
(female)
Mainstream
Press
Family
The Sims (Maxis, 2000)

22. Market Vectors Evangelist groups Specialist Press Mainstream Press
Hardcore players
Estimated 1 Million per market (USA, Europe and Japan)

23. Market Vectors Target groups Testosterone Lifestyle Familiar
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%

24. Market Vectors Phases in market penetration Hardcore penetration
Hardcore players evangelism
Casual penetration
Casual players evangelism

25. Market Vectors To achieve market penetration consider
Gameplay vs Toyplay
Complexity of controls
Duration of a game session
Play window
Game replay value

26. Audience Models These models are based on sales
Do they reflect the real needs of players?
10 Millions
Hardcore
Testosterone
Lifestyle
Family
45 Millions

27. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades
Players of MUDs (Bartle, 1996)
Interact
Manipulate
Players
Socializers
Killers
Environment
Explorers
Achievers

28. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades
Socializers
Enjoy learning about or communication with other players
Killers
Enjoy manipulating other players
Explorers
Enjoy interacting with the game world
Achievers
Enjoy manipulating the game world

29. 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

30. The Daedalus Project The psychology of MMORPG players
Nick Yee, since 2003
Based on players surveys
More than players

31. The Daedalus Project
Sample findings (World of Warcraft)

32. The Daedalus Project
Sample findings (World of Warcraft)

33. The Daedalus Project
Sample findings (World of Warcraft)

34. Break

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Myers-Briggs The categories Online Test
win/JTypes1.htm

42. 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)

43. Myers-Briggs
Influence on Game Design (S vs N) - Learning and problem solving
Level of abstraction of challenges
Approach to challenge resolution
Trial and error (common sense) vs “Lateral Thinking”
Game progression
Complex problems should not stop the progression (S)
Tutorials and help (S, not N)

44. 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)

45. Myers-Briggs Influence on Game Design (J vs P) - Goal-orientation
Goals and progress
Victory conditions
Open or closed games
Game structure

46. Myers-Briggs Axis TJ vs FP Challenge and conflict
Subjective experiences
Subjective Appraisal

47. DGD1 Model Conqueror Manager Participant Wanderer (TJ) (TP) (FJ) (FP)
Judging
Perceiving
Conqueror
Manager
(TJ)
(TP)
Thinking
Feeling
Participant
Wanderer
(FJ)
(FP)

48. DGD1 Model Conqueror Manager Participant Wanderer C1 C2 H1 H2 H4 H3 C4

49. 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

50. DGD1 Model Casual player Plays few games Plays for short periods
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

51. 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

52. 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)

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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!

56. 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

57. 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)

58. 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

59. DGD1 Model http://ihobo.com/_oldsite/articles/DGD1.shtml Progression
Narrative
Social
Conqueror
Fast
No / Plot
Competition
Manager
Stable
Plot No
Wanderer
Slow / novelty
Character / emotion
Sharing
Participant
Cooperation (in loco)

60. DGD1 Model
Distribution between the four types

61. DGD1 Model
Men - percentage

62. DGD1 Model
Women - percentage

63. 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

64. 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

65. Bibliography
“21th Century Game Design”, Chris Bateman and Richard Boon. Charles River Media. 2006
“Game Development Essentials”, Jeannie Novak. Thomson Delmar Learning. 2008