游戏邦注：本文作者为Douglas Y. Park，文章主要阐述5大业内专家认为游戏机制、社交游戏和行为经济学如何影响游戏发展。

Gabe Zichermann from meshmarketing.ca

5位业内专家早前就游戏机制、社交游戏和游戏行为经济学如何推动游戏发展发表自身看法。BeamMe Live联合创始人和首席执行官Gabe Zichermann首先提出启发性论断推动讨论的展开：

“我之前认为游戏元素不只有趣味。但我后来发现这个观点是错误的。”

何为游戏机制？

座谈小组成员通过讨论游戏机制概念开始大会。

诺维斯特风险投资公司（Norwest Venture Partners）的Tim Chang认为游戏机制是促使玩家长时间致力某项活动的元素。设计含有游戏元素游戏或应用面临的核心问题是如何通过微交易创收。设计师希望游戏存在粘性元素，让玩家觉得自己和产品密不可分。

Zichermann认为游戏设计应该关注用户忠诚度。至于竞争元素，当产品成为商品后，差异化应该采用不同形式。开发者应该探索保持消费者忠诚度的途径。航空公司深谙此道，于是推出飞行常客方案。飞行常客方案和其他奖励活动是为了凸显消费者的地位。

为何是地位？地位（游戏邦注：和金钱无关）推动世界运转。这就是原因所在。附加单位资金带给玩家的意义相比附加单位地位而言要小得多。地位关系到尊重、关注和赞誉。并非人人都能成为亿万富翁，但是人人都能够在某个特定小领域拥有自己的地位。这个就是为什么Zichermann关心产品的地位系统。

相反，游戏设计师和咨询顾问Amy Jo Kim强调游戏核心体验。游戏机制支持核心体验好比锦上添花。因此，游戏机制和游戏设计不应成为关注焦点，而是应该关注产品本身。

hi5首席执行官和首席技术官Alex St. John认为，游戏化涉及优质用户界面设计。无关收益的社交游戏是个更好的设计。我们希望玩家能够花时间于我们的产品。游戏不是，也不应该是深刻活动。游戏是玩家开展社交活动的途径，至少能够假装玩家是具有社交性的。

St. John抛出问题：《Farmville》之类的社交游戏是否真的具有社交性。如果你在《Phoenix》中送给妈妈一头棕色奶牛，但不是采用当面赠送的形式，那么赠送奶牛的行为是否具有社交性？或者这不过是让微交易成为社交互动的替代品？

将游戏机制应用至社交游戏当中

游戏机制应该如何应用至社交游戏当中？

常和Kim都认为，游戏机制的核心部分是积分、奖励（游戏邦注：如徽章）和反馈以及不同等级的游戏体验。想要弄清如何设计这3个元素，Kim认为设计师应该思考以下两个问题：

1. 瞄准用户是谁？

2. 用户刺激因素是什么？

换个角度看，Zichermann认为多数玩家体验游戏的目的是进行社交互动。他举桥牌、扑克和麻将作为例子说明。并非人人都能够成为赢家，因此关注输赢的体验只会事与愿违，失去用户。

TellAPa from quarkbase.coml

Andrew Beranbom（游戏邦注：其为TellAPal联合创始人）赞同Zichermann观点，他认为一味关注积分、奖励只能带来令人失望的结果。这就是为什么TellAPal主要关注参与率。

虽然常认为游戏机制应该包括徽章、积分和奖励，但他表示，设有终极赢家的游戏体验十分危险。Chang谈到FourSquare，他表示，设有环节赢家的游戏会扫那些认为自己永远无法获胜玩家的兴。

Kim论述自己早期积分、奖励观点的同时，还提到自己曾多次采访游戏玩家，获悉他们的体验动机。玩家通常这么回答：

“我烦透这款游戏，但好友都在玩，所以我没法放弃。”

因此，游戏设计师应了解玩家的生活需求，例如社交互动，并尽力满足。

微交易的行为经济学

在交流会的最后，St. John和Zichermann表示，传统经济并不能很好地解析微交易（游戏邦注：即指少于1美元的交易）的心理学原理。但微交易是游戏机制的重要组成部分，不论是社交游戏，还是其以外的游戏体验。

想想这样的拍卖活动：1万人支付10美分投标售价30美元的手机。虽然投标高价者能够以30美元竞得手机，但拍卖商却能够获得1000美元的竞价收入。

其中的关键是所有投标者都参与到10美分的微交易当中。玩家很难评估1美元以下交易的价值。麻省理工学院Dan Ariely等行为经济学家已经开始深入剖析微交易的心理学原理。

总结

座谈小组成员深入探讨了游戏机制如何推动社交游戏设计。更广泛来说，游戏机制帮助完善游戏之外的营销和品牌化活动。

但关键是设计师要把游戏机制嵌入到玩家体验的核心活动当中。这个讨论引出这样的问题：行为经济学如何推动微交易以外的游戏机制？（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Five Experts On Game Mechanics, Social Games, And Behavioral Economics

by Douglas Y. Park

Five experts recently gave their thoughts on how game mechanics, social games, and behavioral economics inform gaming.  Gabe Zichermann, co-founder and CEO of BeamMe Live, offered a provocative thought to kick off the discussion:

I thought there was more to games than fun. Then I realized there isn’t.

What Is Game Mechanics?

The panelists began by discussing the concept of game mechanics.

Tim Chang of Norwest Venture Partners described game mechanics as being about keeping people engaged in an activity over a period of time.  When designing games or an applications with a gaming component, the central question is how to monetize through micro-transactions.  You want the game to have an element of stickiness.  That way you can get users to feel connected to your product.

Zichermann argued that game design must focus on loyalty.  With respect to competition, differentiation takes a different form when products become commoditized.  You must find a way to keep customers loyal.  Airlines figured this out with frequent flyer programs.  Frequent flyer programs, and other rewards systems, are about giving the customer status.

Why status? Status — not Money — makes the world go around.  Here’s why.  Each additional unit of money means less to most people than each additional unit of status.  Status is about respect, attention, and recognition.  Not everyone can be a billionaire, but everyone can have status in a specific, narrow domain.  This is why Zichermann is interested in status systems around products.

In contrast, game designer and consultant Amy Jo Kim emphasized the core action or experience that people are doing. Game mechanics support the core action or experience as icing on the cake.  Thus, game mechanics and game design should not become the focus.  The product itself must remain the focus.

To Alex St. John, CEO and CTO of hi5, gamification is about great user interface design.  An unproductive game design is a better design.  You want people to waste time on your product.  Games are not profound, not should they be.  Games are a way for people to be social, or at least pretend they are being social.

St. John asked whether social games like Farmville are really social.  If you send a brown cow to your mom in Phoenix, but do not see her face to face, is giving the cow really a social act?  Or is it an attempt to substitute a micro-transaction for social interaction?

Applying Game Mechanics To Social Games

How should game mechanics be applied to social games?

Chang and Kim agreed that the key parts of game mechanics are points, rewards (e.g. badges) and feedback, and different levels in the game.  To figure out to design these three elements, Kim stated the designer must answer two questions:

1. Who is the user?

2. What motivates them?

Taking a different angle, Zichermann contended that most people play games for social interaction.  He pointed to bridge, poker, and mahjong as examples.  Because not everyone can play to win, focusing on winning can backfire and turn off users.

Andrew Beranbom, co-founder of TellAPal, agreed with Zichermann that focusing on points, rewards, and winning can be undesirable.  That is why TellAPal focuses on participation rates.

While supporting the idea that game mechanics should include badges, points, and rewards, Chang cautioned that allowing out one winner is dangerous in any game situation.  Chang pointed to FourSquare, saying that having one winner at a location is discouraging to those who feel they can never win.

Clarifying her earlier point about points and rewards, Kim mentioned her many interviewers of gamers to understand their motivations.  Gamers often tell her:

I’m sick of that game but my friends are on it and I can’t leave.

Accordingly, game designers should look for a need in people’s lives, such as social interaction, and try to fulfill that need.

The Behavioral Economics Of Micro-Transactions

In the final exchange, St. John and Zichermann noted that traditional economics does not do a good job of addressing the psychology of micro-transactions — transactions that are less than $1. But micro-transactions are critical part of game mechanics, whether specifically in social games or otherwise.

Consider an auction where 10,000 people pay 10 cents to bid for a phone that sells for $30.  While the high bidder buys the phone for $30, the auctioneer gets $1,000 from the bidding revenue.

The relevant point is that each bidder entered into a micro-transaction of 10 cents.  And people have a hard time valuing transactions that are less than $1.  Behavioral economists like Dan Ariely of MIT have made inroads in explaining the psychology of micro-transactions.

Conclusion

The panel provided useful insights into how game mechanics can inform the design of social games.  More broadly, game mechanics can help improve marketing and branding beyond games.

However, the key is to embed game mechanics into the core activity of experience of customers.  This discussion raises the question of how can behavioral economics inform game mechanics beyond micro-transactions?（Source：dypadvisors）