Challenge in Digital Games: Towards Developing a Measurement Tool

Challenge is arguably the most important experience that players seek in digital games. However, without a measure of how challenged players feel during the act of play, it is hard to design games that are neither too easy nor too hard and, therefore, truly enjoyable. Especially in industry, challenge is dominantly assessed by means of manual play testing in ad-hoc trials. The aim of this research is to create a more systematic, complete, and reliable instrument to evaluate the level of players' experienced challenge in games in the form of a questionnaire. This paper presents the key results from an extensive literature survey which will inform further development. We survey definitions of challenge, challenge types, and their relation to player experience based on the observations of game designers. We furthermore draw from empirical findings in a diverse range of fields such as game studies, human-computer interaction (HCI) and artificial intelligence (AI)

Measuring perceived challenge in digital games: Development & validation of the challenge originating from recent gameplay interaction scale (CORGIS)

Challenge is a key element of digital games, but a clear conceptualisation and operationalisation of this player experience were long missing. This made it hard for game researchers to measure this experience in different video games across different skill sets and impeded the synthesis of challenge-related games research. To overcome this, we introduce a systematic, extensive, and reliable instrument to evaluate the level of players’ perceived challenge in digital games. We conceptualise challenge based on a survey of related literature in games user research, design and AI, as well as interviews with researchers and players. Exploratory factor analysis (N=394) highlights four components of experienced challenge: performative, emotional, cognitive and decision-making challenge. Refinement of the items allowed us to devise the Challenge Originating from Recent Gameplay Interaction Scale (CORGIS), which has been further validated in a study with nearly 1000 players. The questionnaire exhibits good construct validity for use by both game developers and researchers to quantify players’ challenge experiences

Open letter from UK based academic scientists to the secretaries of state for digital, culture, media and sport and for health and social care regarding the need for independent funding for the prevention and treatment of gambling harms

First paragraph: Dear secretaries of state, As leading academic scientists studying gambling behaviours and its harms, we are writing to express our concern about the continuing support shown for the voluntary system of funding treatment, prevention and research in Great Britain. We feel compelled to write to you following the Betting and Gaming Council’s (BGC) recent announcement (17 June 2020) that five of its operators will now allocate the long awaited increase in funding for prevention and treatment, first promised on 2 August 2019, to GambleAware rather than the charity Action Against Gambling Harms. Irrespective of which organisation funds are given to, the BGC’s announcement exemplifies the longstanding weakness of a funding system that allows the gambling industry to regulate the availability and distribution of vital funds to address gambling harms across our communities. As we outline below, the continuance of this arrangement produces several negative effects that undermine the collective effort to reduce harms from gambling. It is also our belief that funds for research into gambling harms and their reduction should primarily be distributed through recognised independent organisations, such as UK Research and Innovation. We hereby urge you, as the secretaries of state with responsibilities for addressing gambling harms, to implement a statutory levy to fund effective prevention and treatment of gambling harms that is free both from industry influence and the perception of industry influence...... [Read more in the article]Additional co-authors: Carolyn Downs, Simon Dymond, Emanuele Fino, Elizabeth Goyder, Cindy Gray, Mark Griffiths, Peter Grindrod, Lee Hogan, Alice Hoon, Richard James, Bev John, Jill Manthorpe, Jim McCambridge, David McDaid, Martin McKee, Sally McManus, Antony Moss, Caroline Norrie, David J Nutt, Jim Orford, Rob Pryce, Gerda Reith, Amanda Roberts, Emmett Roberts, Gareth Roderique-Davies, Jim Rogers, Robert D Rogers, Stephen Sharman, John Strang, Richard Tunney, John Turner, Robert West, David Zendl

Targeting the next generation of gamblers? Gambling sponsorship of esports teams

No abstract available

The changing face of desktop video game monetisation: An exploration of exposure to loot boxes, pay to win, and cosmetic microtransactions in the most-played Steam games of 2010-2019.

It is now common practice for video game companies to not just sell copies of games themselves, but to also sell in-game bonuses or items for a small real-world fee. These purchases may be purely aesthetic (cosmetic microtransactions) or confer in-game advantages (pay to win microtransactions), and may also contain these items as randomised contents of uncertain value (loot boxes). The growth of microtransactions has attracted substantial interest from both gamers, academics, and policymakers. However, it is not clear either how frequently exposed players are to these features in desktop games, or when any growth in exposure occurred. In order to address this, we analysed the play history of the 463 most-played Steam desktop games from 2010 to 2019. Results of exploratory joinpoint analyses suggested that cosmetic microtransactions and loot boxes experienced rapid growth during 2012-2014, leading to high levels of exposure by April 2019: 71.2% of the sample played games with loot boxes at this point, and 85.89% played games with cosmetic microtransactions. By contrast, pay to win microtransactions did not appear to experience similar growth in desktop games during the period, rising gradually to an exposure rate of 17.3% by November 2015, at which point growth decelerated significantly (p<0.001) to the point where it was not significantly different from zero (p = 0.32)

Prevalence and salience of problematic microtransactions in top-grossing mobile and PC games: a content analysis of user reviews

Microtransactions have become a major monetisation model in digital games, shaping their design, impacting player experience, and raising ethical concerns. Research in this area has chiefly focused on loot boxes. This begs the question whether other microtransactions might actually be more relevant and problematic for players. We therefore conducted a content analysis of negative player reviews (n=801) of top-grossing mobile and desktop games to determine which problematic microtransactions are most prevalent and salient for players. We found that problematic microtransactions with mobile games featuring more frequent and different techniques compared to desktop games. Across both, players minded issues related to fairness, transparency, and degraded user experience, supporting prior theoretical work, and importantly take issue with monetisation-driven design as such. We identify future research needs on why microtransactions in particular spark this critique, and which player communities it may be more or less representative of