作者：Travis Ross

我不久前参加了游戏开发者大会（GDC），在会上我强烈感受到了文件传输协议和微交易商业模式的强大力量。像英特尔，索尼和育碧等大公司一直是整个会议的主要角色，但是像Zynga和Playdom等公司因为本身强大的ARPU（每用户平均收益），DAU（日活跃用户量）和用户留存率等也成为会上不可忽视的光注焦点。会上着重讨论了行为经济学和心理学理论以及多样化的测试方法，并通过使用这些方法而更好地改善游戏的测量和设计，因为从某种程度上来看，很多游戏的成败取决于游戏测量是否有效和得当。

基于这种游戏测量和理论，游戏专业人士被划分成了两个不同阵营。一种人士支持微交易商业模式，主张通过游戏测试提高利润并最后取得成功。另一派别则认为这些方法可能导致游戏变成更复杂的吸金工具，他们是那些重视伦理道德和游戏创意的专家和学者。在GDC大会中我加入了一个关于游戏微交易盈利的讨论会议。会上主要讨论了两大问题，即“你最关注这种商业模式的哪个环节？”以及“社交游戏产业将走向何方？”围绕这两个问题，与会者们就游戏设计伦理和创造性展开了激烈的讨论。

当深入研究这个问题时，我把它拆分成两个问题。如果第一个问题的回答是肯定的我们就不需要再深入研究第二个问题了；但是如果第一个问题的答案是否定的，我们便不得不继续寻找第二个问题的答案，而这时游戏产业的一些不利因素也将会随之浮出水面。

monetization in games(from blog.yvd.com)

问题1：玩家是否看重游戏的创意，是否会逃离那些只把他们当成盈利工具的游戏？

是什么力量推动玩家购买游戏和玩游戏呢？Ted Castronova 和Byron Reeves都曾经谈论过市场关注度的问题。关注度可以说是一个极端匮乏的资源，如果能够妥当控制关注度并以此盈利，很多媒体公司将能取得巨大的成功。游戏开发者如何做才能从玩家的角度出发，并按照行为经济学和心理学（基于行为统计）理论制造游戏呢？他们所提供的游戏对于玩家来说是否是最好的游戏体验呢，还是仅仅只是像赌场那样存在？随着社交游戏玩家的日益增多，是否越来越多的玩家对于趣味性和创造性游戏的需求也在逐渐增长呢？如果玩家表示更青睐于有创造性和内容的游戏，那么这些重视伦理的游戏设计师们便能大大松口气。但是如果结果相反时，这些游戏设计师将不得不继续考虑下一个问题的解决方法了。

问题2：社交游戏行业是否已陷入一种改良版的“公地悲剧”？

公地悲剧指的是，资源如果缺乏排他性的所有权安排，就会导致对这种资源的过度使用，最后结果破坏公共地。最典型的例子就是森林资源和牧场资源。但是还有一个更有趣，且与我们这篇文章密切相关的例子，是Ted Castronova在14年前提出的，关于体育比赛中运动员服药的例子。

Ted Castronova很直接地引出了这个例子，“如果我是名运动员并希望能在比赛中获得胜利（在一个公平竞争的环境下），那么最好的方式便是服药或者欺骗，只有这么做我才有最大的获胜机会。”

但是如果每一个参赛选手都有这种想法，那我的获胜机会也将大大减少了，然后我就便会继续服药，以防别人超越自己。解决这种不良情况的最好方法便是强化比赛规则，大力制裁那些违反规则的参赛者。通过采用这个方法，比赛将会再次恢复公平竞争的环境，同时因为服药行为的巨大风险和法律成本，运动员也便会乖乖服从比赛规则而免受相关制裁了。

所以，是否游戏产业中也有人像体育运动员会违法行业规则而服药呢？如果在第一个问题中，开发者们便发现游戏产业面前摆放着的是一个次优的结局，到处充斥着各种以测量为方法产生的游戏，那么整个产业也可以称得上是一种“公地悲剧”了。如果这样，游戏开发者最好不要只是为了吸引玩家而采用行为经济学和心理学理论开发游戏，也不要通过使用测量方式制造游戏。但是不管怎样，这种次优的结局最终也是一种纳什均衡（游戏邦注：是博弈均衡中最重要的概念，是指一策略组合中，所有的参与者面临这样的一种情况：当其他人不改变策略时，他此时的策略是最好的）。游戏开发者一直是利润的追求者，为了赢取利益他们会不择手段采取一切有利措施。

如果在第一个问题中开发者得到了正面的答案，并承认通过测量方法而制造的游戏是次优的游戏，那么他们便需要在这个产业中确定一些相关的规则。但是如果开发者并未确立任何统一的规则，玩家也不再支持他们的游戏，开发者将不得不面临游戏中的“公地悲剧”，而只能谋求通过测量方法去制造游戏了（虽然他们确实一直偏执于这种方法）。

现在我最大的希望便是那些有创造性的游戏能够吸引更多玩家的关注。因为只有这样，游戏产业中的“公地悲剧”才不再是困扰整个产业的大难题。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

What really worries game designers: Game design driven by psychological theory and behavioral quantification.

by Travis Ross

As I walked around GDC last month I was hard not to feel the power of the FTP/Microtransaction business model. Yes, companies like Intel, Sony, Crytek, and Ubisoft dominated the expo floor, but companies like Zynga and Playdom pushing behavioral metrics like ARPU, DAU, engagement, and retention seemed to dominate the discussion. Theories from behavioral economics and psychology along with multivariate testing are being applied and flouted as means to improve metrics, and design –  to some extent – seems to be driven by metrics.

From these metrics and methods a dichotomy of industry professionals seems to have emerged. On one side are individuals who embrace the model of micro-transactions and metrics as a way to increase revenue and be successful. On the other are those who are concerned that these methods will lead them to making slightly more complicated slot machines. These are the proessionals concerned with ethics and the suppression of creativity. For my last talk of GDC I attended a round-table discussion on monetization in games based around microtransactions. Two of the points discussed “What are you most paranoid about with this business model.” and “Where is the social games industry headed?” lead to animated and impassioned discussion about the ethics and creativity of game design.

As I explored this question more in my own mind I decided that the problem boils down to two questions. If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, then question 2 doesn’t matter. However, if the answer to question 1 is “no” and the answer to question 2 is affirmative then the game industry may have a looming problem on its hands.

Question 1: Will players eventually vote with their feet (or mice) and leave games that are simply treating them as a unit of monetization?

What motivates and engages players to buy and play? In the past Ted Castronova and Byron Reeves have talked about the market for attention. Attention is a scarce resource and media companies that can command and monetize attention will be the most successful. To what degree can following theory of behavioral economics and psychology enlightened by behavioral statistics lead to games that players desire? Is there an optimal player experience, and is it similar to that of a casino? Or as the audience of social games grows up, will they demand games that are more fun, and engage them in ways that are creative, and thoughtful? If players vote with their feet for creative and thoughtful games then those ethical game designers need not worry. However, if the outcome is that some or all players don’t then game designers must address the next question.

Question 2: Is the social game industry suffering from a modified tragedy of the commons?

In the tragedy of the commons there exists a rivalrous (limited) good and exclusion from the use of this good is difficult. Player attention fits both of these criteria. The tragedy of the commons occurs because it is in the best interest of those using the good to maximize their use of it. A classic example of this is a forestry or pasture, but let me draw from a slightly more interesting and pertinent example that was actually developed by Ted Castronova about fourteen years ago. It is the tragedy of the commons applied to doping in sports.

The problem is fairly straightforward. If I am a player and my desire is to win in sport (on a fairly level playing field) then it is in my best interest to dope or cheat – as this maximizes my chance of winning.

However, if everyone dopes then my chances of winning are actually no better than before and I still suffer the long term problems associated with doping. The optimal solution for the group then is to enforce regulations and sanctions that are stronger than the incentive to dope. This way there is still a level playing field (we can all coordinate on not-doping) because doping is too costly, and no one suffers the problems of the suboptimal outcome.

So ask this question: Is the game industry in the same position as the athletes who are doping? If question 1 is true and the majority of developers believe that industry is in a suboptimal outcome with metric driven games then, yes the game industry is in a tragedy of the commons situation. In this case it would be better for developers to not use behavioral economic and psychological games supplemented by metrics to get more attention. However, the suboptimal outcome is actually the Nash Equilibrium. Game developers are profit seeking entities and therefore they will use the most successful means to generate profit.

So, if question 1 turns out to be true and game developers also believe that metric driven games are a suboptimal outcome they need to come up with some mechanisms for regulation of the industry.

If they don’t and players don’t vote with their feet then they will end up in a tragedy of the commons making metric driven games to succeed. One of the things they are paranoid about will come true.

For now lets just hope that the truly creative games can compete for player attention. So that a tragedy of the commons is not a problem that the game industry must address（source:gamasutra）