The Cost of Playing the Game: Modeling In-Game Purchase Intention and Investigating Purchase Behavior of Mobile Gamers

Free-to-play games typically have a monetization model that relies on players to purchase in-game items or virtual goods to generate revenue (Nguyen, 2015). There have been several empirical efforts to investigate purchase intention of virtual goods in video games with some focusing on quantitative models of purchase intention. Most of these studies tend to be with virtual worlds and lack the use of validated instruments to measure constructs (Hamari & Keronen, 2017). This research sought to gain a greater understanding of purchase intention of in-game content or virtual goods in mobile games through two studies. Study 1 modeled purchase intention with factors including satisfaction, addiction, attitudes of virtual goods, social motivations, continuance intention, and play characteristics. A total of 284 participants who played mobile games for at least 5 hours a week completed an online survey examining the relationships between the different constructs. Several structural equation models were generated to find the best fitting model. Results of the final model explained 66.1% of the variance in purchase intention with the factors of attitudes towards virtual goods, monetary value, addiction, enjoyment, and creative freedom. Attitudes towards virtual goods (β = .767) was the most associated factor with purchase intention in the model followed by enjoyment (β = .153), monetary value (β = .148), creative freedom (β = -.127), and addiction (β = .106). Study 2 examined purchase behavior of mobile video game players with a longitudinal diary study. Eight mobile video game players selected a game to play over the course of two weeks while logging their experience and purchases. Seven of the eight participants made a purchase of in-game content. Analyses of what game elements contributed to purchasing behavior revealed that some participants reported associated dark patterns around their purchases such as paying for enhancements, which is paying for in-game content to make characters stronger to progress in the game. Players also encountered loot boxes that provide only a chance to earn specific items in the game. These results add to Study 1 results by demonstrating that aspects of how a game is designed may impact in-game purchase intention and should be considered in future research. The combination of Studies 1 and 2 show that both psychological constructs of mobile gamers and aspects of game design may influence in-game purchase intention. Future research could replicate the model from this research in other in-game purchase intention or actual purchase behavior settings such as different types of games genres, platforms, or populations. Other areas of future research include further examination of the impact of dark game design patterns on purchase behavior in other situations (e.g., console, free to play vs. pay to play) and the development of ways to mitigate deceptive designs on player purchasing habits

Gameplay in Mixed Reality: How It Differs from Mobile Gameplay

With the growing demand for the use and applications of modern extended reality (XR) technology, recent studies have investigated the user experience of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) for gaming purposes. Despite AR’s and VR’s pervasiveness in the video game industry, research studies into the effects of mixed reality (MR) on video game experience are scarce. Consequently, this study examines the impact of MR on video game satisfaction. Participants will play the same strategy video game across two gaming platforms, including an MR head-mounted display, the Magic Leap 1, and a mobile device. A short version of the psychometrically validated Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS-18), which consists of nine constructs, and the Enjoyment Scale (ENJOY) will be used to measure video game satisfaction and enjoyment, respectively. Furthermore, we will then analyze the correlation between satisfaction, enjoyment, and performance in each platform. Results will demonstrate the impact of MR for gameplay on user satisfaction and performance when compared to mobile gameplay. Additionally, the potential of future video games in mixed reality environments will be discussed

Validation of the GUESS-18: A Short Version of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS)

The Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS) is a 55-item tool assessing nine constructs describing video game satisfaction. While the development of the GUESS followed best practices and resulted in a versatile, comprehensive tool for assessing video game user experience, responding to 55 items can be cumbersome in situations where repeated assessments are necessary. The aim of this research was to develop a shorter version of the scale for use in iterative game design, testing, and research. Two studies were conducted: the first one to create a configural model of the GUESS that was then truncated to an 18-item short scale to establish an initial level of validity and a second study with a new sample to demonstrate cross-sample validity of the 18- item GUESS scale. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the 18-item scale demonstrated excellent fit and construct validity to the original nine construct instrument. Use of the GUESS-18 is encouraged as a brief, practical, yet comprehensive measure of video game satisfaction for practitioners and researchers

Gaming on the Rift: How Virtual Reality Affects Game User Satisfaction

Virtual reality (VR) headsets like the Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, and Playstation VR can provide a unique experience different from traditional computer monitors. Research demonstrates some support for VR resulting in more immersive gaming than traditional games using a computer or TV monitor. This study investigates how VR technology impacts game user satisfaction. Participants played the same strategy video game using the Oculus Rift, a VR headset, and a computer monitor. Game user satisfaction was measured by the psychometrically validated Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS) which consists of nine constructs. Results from this study showed that VR enhanced overall satisfaction, enjoyment, engrossment, creativity, sound, and graphics quality

Validation of the GUESS-18: A Short Version of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS)

The Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS) is a 55-item tool assessing nine constructs describing video game satisfaction. While the development of the GUESS followed best practices and resulted in a versatile, comprehensive tool for assessing video game user experience, responding to 55 items can be cumbersome in situations where repeated assessments are necessary. The aim of this research was to develop a shorter version of the scale for use in iterative game design, testing, and research. Two studies were conducted: the first one to create a configural model of the GUESS that was then truncated to an 18-item short scale to establish an initial level of validity and a second study with a new sample to demonstrate cross-sample validity of the 18- item GUESS scale. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the 18-item scale demonstrated excellent fit and construct validity to the original nine construct instrument. Use of the GUESS-18 is encouraged as a brief, practical, yet comprehensive measure of video game satisfaction for practitioners and researchers

Validation of the GUESS-18: A Short Version of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS)

The Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS) is a 55-item tool assessing nine constructs describing video game satisfaction. While the development of the GUESS followed best practices and resulted in a versatile, comprehensive tool for assessing video game user experience, responding to 55 items can be cumbersome in situations where repeated assessments are necessary. The aim of this research was to develop a shorter version of the scale for use in iterative game design, testing, and research. Two studies were conducted: the first one to create a configural model of the GUESS that was then truncated to an 18-item short scale to establish an initial level of validity and a second study with a new sample to demonstrate cross-sample validity of the 18- item GUESS scale. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the 18-item scale demonstrated excellent fit and construct validity to the original nine construct instrument. Use of the GUESS-18 is encouraged as a brief, practical, yet comprehensive measure of video game satisfaction for practitioners and researchers

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline