Quantcast Achievements: The Asynchronous Metagame that Drives Sales - Ozymandias

Achievements: The Asynchronous Metagame that Drives Sales

Interesting Gamasutra article out today on a study from research group Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR) that shows better achievements can drive better sales. Achievements have been a bit of a phenomenon, and it's been pretty obvious that other platforms would be following Xbox LIVE's lead soon enough. (To be clear, I'm not saying that the idea of awards or badges for achieving certain tasks is new; however, LIVE enabled the concept seamlessly for all games on the platform. There was lots of initial skepticism from partners, but I think folks are pretty well bought in now.)

Here's an interesting snippet from the article:

Can you break down the different types of accomplishments you've identified?

GZ: We broke them down into 16 different types, and we've got very specific definitions about what each one is. They go from action accomplishments which reward you for doing an action to something as specific as one related to user generated content, or games that do unlocks, time based or score based accomplishments, initiation, elimination, customization, collection, community, challenges, advancement. They really track to different player types.

We've found that games that incorporate a wider diversity of accomplishments, they hit more people with the things that they really like, and they tend to do better, they tend to get reviewed better, which isn't necessarily terribly surprising. The same goes for quantity.

It's interesting -- we actually have time graphs over the years since the release of the Xbox 360, showing that while it didn't start out that way, it's definitely that way now. As people learned what the accomplishments do, it's actually rather striking. When you look at sales figures for the first five or six months, it really didn't matter as much, but as the consumers have got used to them, they now really seem to be focusing on games that [have more and diverse accomplishments].

I've been on a bit of a "we need to really go enable asynchronous gaming" kick, and you'll see more in that vein going forward. The main thing I wanted to point out here was that achievements are, in many ways, nothing more than another form of async gaming. It's a game where you compete across games to collect Gamerscore, and within games to collect achievements - in many cases, challenging friends to get the same achievements. You don't have to be online at the same time to play, and you can play at any time, and from multiple platforms. Today those platforms include the Xbox 360 and Games for Windows - LIVE... tomorrow, who knows?

Oh - since I know my bringing up G4WL is going to cause some reaction from people who aren't thrilled with our early implementations (in Shadowrun and Halo 2), it's worth saying that I'm still personally excited to where we're going with it. Microsoft is (for better or worse) known for iterating and improving products continually. The old joke is that it takes three versions to deliver what people are happy with - frankly, I think we did pretty darn well with v1 and v2 of LIVE (for Xbox and Xbox 360), and I know folks will be very pleased with what's coming down the pipe for both LIVE and G4WL. Can't talk details for obvious reasons, but let's just say that we fully know things that we need to deliver. Time and space, my friends... time and space.

Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | live it!

Comments

Xwar said:

Achievements spurred me to do things in my games that I generally don't do. I've played games more and harder since achievements, and even though many of them are rubbish and seriously frustrating, it's still awesome.

And it's one of the reasons why I've pretty much dumped PC gaming for the 360 by now. Not sure if even G4WL can make me go back.

But seriously - achievements as asynchronous gaming? Now that's just stretching it.

# October 17, 2007 1:14 PM

Ozymandias said:

"But seriously - achievements as asynchronous gaming? Now that's just stretching it."

Why's that? It's just a different type of "game". After all, all async games require is the ability to play some sort of "game" (in this case the "collect/compare/compete) game, and be able to do so when or where you want, without other players being online at the same time. Not claiming this is checkers or chess, but there's a very real async metagame aspect to achievements.

# October 17, 2007 1:38 PM

Brandon Furtwangler said:

I think there is big potential for meta games involving trading/spending things you collect in other games.

Sort of like a XBL Virtual Economy.  It could be used for user created content.

this is a key aspect of many MMO's and I believe it hits the same addiction nerve as achievements currently do for LIVE.

# October 17, 2007 2:41 PM

B Diddy said:

Yeah, I think the replayability of games like Bio-shock could have been great if they would of included some cool achivements like take down a big daddy with Plasmid A, and Plasmid B.

And there are many other games out there like that, which just dont take advantage of achievements.  I am all for cool chievey's.  Bring em on.

# October 17, 2007 3:30 PM

Tom C said:

"Today those platforms include the Xbox 360 and Games for Windows - LIVE... tomorrow, who knows?"

Dude, Games for Windows LIVE is a dud. A big, stinking turd. Even Games for Windows is a dud, albeit arguably.

How many games out so far have supported it?

How many of those games are first party titles?

How many of those games required Vista?

I think MS can get away with regulating a platform vis-a-vis XBL/Games for Windows is because the 360 is a closed platform held in the death grip of Microsoft's private key cryptography aka signed code. I think the publishers put up with MS' crap because they have to, as without MS's blessings their product would never see the light of day on the platform. That's the way its been, and arguably, until someone high up pulls their head out of their ass, that's the way itll always be. PC publishers -- especially PC publishers that prefer the platform -- do not like being pushed around like that. Take Epic, for example, who got a bit of press earlier this year because MS wouldnt allow them to release maps for free. Epic could get away with that on the PC, but unfortunately Gears of War wasn't on PC so there you go.

And here we have GfW LIVE now telling publishers how to run a multiplayer network. Never mind the fact that  we gamers already have to put up with crap like Steam, GPGNet, Stardock's platform, EA Downloader (plech!) and Xfire -- not to mention the private, unintegrated networks that many games have of their own -- and now there's yet another multiplayer platform to worry about?

MS should concentrate on integrating all of the above as opposed to carving out its own niche. Because currently, GfW LIVE will never win. And gamers, especially the console haters, will always be suspicious of it. When Microsoft reaches an agreement with Valve to let my Steam achievements carry over to my gamertag, when MS stops thinking that gamers want to actually pay for the ability to do something we already do better for free, when MS stops telling publishers how to make, distribute, and market their games, THEN GfW Live may just have a chance.

# October 17, 2007 3:35 PM

Im The Map said:

Oh Ozy, you tease with thoughts of the fall update...which we have not heard much about for awhile thanks to Halo 3 and The Orange Box.  Please give us a hint of when it’s coming!?

Achievements are probably the most next-gen thing I’ve seen for gaming.  You can say what you want about flailing your arms and body being next-gen, but the Achievements system has given other consoles a bit of a run for their money so to speak.  I've played games that I would have never played just to get points.  I mean, come on Cars?  Open Season?  Fusion Frenzy 2?  Vampire Rain?  These games aren't huge blockbusters (well I think Cars may be) but they got my attention because of easy achievements.  I can't stand to play other console games that don't give me achievements.  I'm not big on getting all the points, but there is some gratification when you get the achievement unlocked toast and sound.  I love it.  I mean, who doesn't want the achievement for finishing Jordan on Expert in GHII???

The comment about achievement acquiring not being a game, try telling that to the millions of gamers that compete with each other on gamerscore…

# October 17, 2007 6:07 PM

Robin said:

Achievements as asynchronous gaming... not so sure about that. I suppose you are getting a similar sort of feedback loop, but you're not actively thinking about the input you put into the loop. It's almost like an ambient effect.

I personally think Facebook (or some future version of the same concept) is the enabler that asynchronous gaming has been waiting for. Uninvasive, intuitive and ubiquitous.

It's almost an immutable law that you can't force people to join a new community to play your game (unless, say, you happen to own the platform and prevent alternative solutions ever being implemented, as was the case with XBL).

I'm totally behind you in trying to educate people about asynchronous gaming, it's just a shame a lot of the energy you can expend on it will presumably be wasted on the clearly doomed "Live Anywhere" initiative. GFW Live has had it's lunch eaten by Steam and there are no other platforms MS can or want to meaningfully approach.

# October 18, 2007 4:53 AM

CGomez said:

There's no question achievements are a form of metagame.  My friends and I talk about achievements all the time.  We compete to earn them (in a friendly way) but we also cooperatively help each other get them (not by flat-out boosting, because there's no fun in that, but by say... playing Legendary co-op with two other friends).

I have had many asynchronous game ideas in my head for some time.  I'm hoping that XNA GSE 2.0 helps me accomplish a few of those over Live.

# October 18, 2007 6:15 AM

Trellium said:

Robin wrote: "I'm totally behind you in trying to educate people about asynchronous gaming, it's just a shame a lot of the energy you can expend on it will presumably be wasted on the clearly doomed "Live Anywhere" initiative. GFW Live has had it's lunch eaten by Steam and there are no other platforms MS can or want to meaningfully approach."

Microsoft will do what Microsoft has always done, allocate resources as needed and put out updates that add features and start to compete. It's not like this is a static and constant industry. It's in a perpetual state of change and who is competing with who in what manner and how well changes on a regular basis. Hello Wii and PS3? Talk about changes in competitive position from the "unrivaled" PS2 that nobody could ever compete with.

Things change.

# October 18, 2007 7:20 AM

RDJ134 said:

First i didnt understanded the big fuzz about the Achievements, then when i got my first few and my GS whent up i whas like WTF?? this is very cool. So when i get (advance of beeing a game journalist) a game 1st thing i do is check for the Achievements and start to play to get them unlocked.

You definitly can say Achievements changed the way i am playing games

# October 18, 2007 8:25 AM

JohnCz said:

Ozy, with 40GB $399 PS3 announced..I guess you can collect on your bet with NGai. :)  I'm hopeful we will see Microsoft respond...with a drop on the HD-DVD Drive to $129 U.S and a $50 console instant rebate.  For sure the HD-DVD has to drop.

# October 18, 2007 8:27 AM

Porktree said:

Achievements are like crack.  At first you get a few, and then you think, mmm, that's not bad, let my try some more, and them WHAM, all of the sudden you can't play any game that doesn't have them, and will play any crappy game that does even if it's an advertisement for a car. <shakes fist>. I can't even play my Wii anymore.

# October 18, 2007 9:13 AM

Ozymandias said:

Re: "I'm totally behind you in trying to educate people about asynchronous gaming, it's just a shame a lot of the energy you can expend on it will presumably be wasted on the clearly doomed "Live Anywhere" initiative. GFW Live has had it's lunch eaten by Steam and there are no other platforms MS can or want to meaningfully approach."

Like I said, one of Microsoft's strengths is that the company keeps at it. All I can say is that I actually believe G4WL and "Live Anywhere" is well on its way... but obviously some will assume I'm just saying that because I work here.

Let's put it another way - there are aspects that people don't like, both technical and business. If you assume we're smart enough to both see and hear that, and are flexible enough to iterate in the future (meaning what you have today will not equal what will be there in the future), why can't G4WL/Live Anywhere succeed? I can't talk about timeframe, features, or any details... but I can say that we will evolve, and I personally have no doubt that the Live Anywhere vision will arrive. :)

# October 18, 2007 9:41 AM

Priotus said:

"Let's put it another way - there are aspects that people don't like, both technical and business. If you assume we're smart enough to both see and hear that, and are flexible enough to iterate in the future "

Could you be possibly hinting at accessing live without having to be playing a live enabled game on Windows? I would love that feature, and support for 50hz games over VGA for backwards compatibility.

If you cant comment could you at least wink?

# October 20, 2007 4:44 AM

JohnCz said:

Ozy, can you update us about IPTV?  Your buddies at Gamerscoreblog said in this weeks podcast that IPTV was already available.  I haven't received any XBox updates that include IPTV and I haven't seen any press releases regarding it.  Could you clarify? Thanks

P.S. I'm really pumped about using XBox's IPTV and prepared to buy two addition 360s for our home. From what I saw at CES, its going to transform our home entertainment experience.

# October 20, 2007 6:04 PM

CGomez said:

I'm pretty sure IPTV is something that you get through your cable company/television provider.  In other words, all MSFT is doing is enabling the 360 to be an IPTV set-top box (along with everything else it does) and that a television provider could choose to sell you one as an option or let you use your own (their choice).

I am pretty sure 'IPTV on 360' is not something you can buy in the retail sense.

# October 22, 2007 6:14 AM

JohnCz said:

CGomez, I hope you are wrong about all that.  Mainly because I don't trust the cable companies to do anything that is benefitial for customers.  Sure they partner with you, but I tend to believe they do it as part of their delay tactics.  Just look at how cable companies have hobbled & delayed Microsoft's ability to include cable card tuners.  Their certification requirements are probably the primary reason that Cable Card PCs and Tuners are so outrageously expensive.  How can Microsoft entertainment ecosystem ever compete with cable companies on DVR offerings or Tivo.  I believe Microsoft should embrace the disruptive nature of IPTV and go with pure IPTV providers who are able to deliver content over the internet without regard to who the internet provider is.  Again, I'm not 100% certain of what going on and thats why I was asking for Ozy to clarify for us.

# October 22, 2007 10:17 AM

Ozymandias said:

CGomez has it right.

# October 22, 2007 10:22 AM

JohnCz said:

Thanks Ozy!  What should I ask my local provider to see if they are offering it?

# October 22, 2007 11:02 AM

BackScatter said:

I think Ozymandias is right on re: the competitive nature of the Xbox Gamerscore. It clearly plays into the competitive nature of many gamers while at the same time driving software sales - A win for everyone.  Further evolution of this concept seems like a no-brainer, and I'm really curious to see where that goes.

As a side note, I laughed out loud at Level Up's recent post re: the whole Ozy PS3 wager. Fun read. :-)

blog.newsweek.com/.../level-up-saving-for-steaktacular-dinner-with-microsofts-andre-vrignaud.aspx

# October 23, 2007 8:48 AM