Psychology 101 For Anyone Who Asks "Why are players so concerned with money?"

[Dabba]

Elite: Dangerous is as prone to power-creep and carrot + stick game design as anything else out there. Those concepts exist solely because of what the OP described. Why should Elite's community, as a whole, be able to sustain itself upon people whom have reached their target-goal and continue to play? Keeping in mind these people are by most accounts a minority compared to their peers who reach a goal and then stop playing.

The one thing I think sets Elite slightly apart is that compared to most of the current "blockbuster" games Elites player base has a much higher percentage of us 80s kids who played the original on BBC or C64, and that player base is much less prone to the 5 minute attention span and ok I did the 8 hour story and have the most phattest of lewts time to move on to Assassins Creed 47 mindset.

This might sound crazy, but when I was a kid I played with my He-Man toys for hours on end, had a ton of fun, and never once did any of them level up or have a "target goal". The story was mine to create, the progression was mine to create, the experience was mine to create. In contrast the tools that Elite gives me are pretty spectacular. We're just products of a very different environment.

 

[Nerdwing]

And you know that how?

Sorry but you're talking rubbish (I'm not having a go at you here, well I am, sort off)

You're assuming why people play games, and why people won't play ED once they've achieved their goals.

Both assumptions, it seems to me, are based on your own experience. However, your experience and sense of fun isn't the same as mine or anyone elses for that matter.

I'd be interested in hearing your experience.

You could have just saved your time typing and posted a "Thats just your opinion, man!" meme, btw.

 

[Therris]

And you know that how?

Sorry but you're talking rubbish (I'm not having a go at you here, well I am, sort off)

You're assuming why people play games, and why people won't play ED once they've achieved their goals.

Both assumptions, it seems to me, are based on your own experience. However, your experience and sense of fun isn't the same as mine or anyone elses for that matter.

This is 'rubbish', because it implies that somehow you are immune to a fundamental part of human psychological anthropology.
It is also human to tell yourself whatever narrative makes you feel better about your base motivations, if the reality is less than ideal.

Again, everyone has their individual tolerances with regard to carrot/stick mechanisms. But to imply that you - or anyone for that matter - are not in any way subject to a basic universal human trait, just seems intellectually dishonest, naive, or full of denialism.
I'm not saying there are not monastic Buddhists who spend their entire existence trying to resist inherent human motivations. I'm just saying the odds are not in favor of you being one of them.

 

[Nerdwing]

I always have a goal, it's simply not always a monetary one.

Money in this situation is exchangeable for multiple other potential items. Expansion packs for games are more or less entirely focused around this concept. A player content with their current ship setup (generally) wont be satisfied with that for eternity. To them, gameplay will become stagnant. Some may not fall within this grouping of players, and be generally content to remain at a certain loadout/ship-type indefinitely, but is it not safe to say that a far greater percentage of players would grow bored, most likely to return after an expansion-pack or DLC adds something to better suit their previously enjoyed method of play?

I just dont see why the Elite developers should by default be given the assumption that "This time, things will be different!" The game is still young (bear with me for that one). Its too early for anyone to say that things will be radically different for Elite in regards to its proceeding through the life-cycle of an MMO. Vehemently insisting that history wont repeat (and I dont accuse you of such, you've been totally level-headed here ) doesnt make it any closer to being true.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

This might sound crazy, but when I was a kid I played with my He-Man toys for hours on end...

You're right, that does sound crazy. I much preferred Star Wars figures myself

On topic, I've got my upgraded Viper to mess about in for now. I do see myself getting a Cobra eventually, maybe even an Orca a long way off (and I mean months down the track), but I'm not 'grinding' for either, nor am I bothered about time frames for progression. I just take it all in my stride.

Believe me, my young friend, there is nothing — absolutely nothing — half so much worth doing as simply messing about in Vipers. Simply messing... about in Vipers — or with Vipers. In or out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's the charm of it. Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not.

(with apologies to Mr Rat)

 

[Wyseman76]

I see a lot of posts asking a question that seems to have a very obvious answer. "Why do humans who play games concern themselves with increasing monetary wealth as efficiently as possible?"

It's psychology 101...and it relates to human psychological anthropology.
1) Human brains associate video games with the concept of progression. It's natural, inherent, and unavoidable.
2) Usually progression is associated with monetary resources.
3) Players naturally move towards more efficient ways of progressing.


Despite what some might think of certain parts of human psychology, good luck avoiding the need for progression-based mechanics - in life or in games. It's a fundamental component of our psychological anthropology.
It's how we also view real life. The concept of progression is simply unavoidable.

Conjecture.

The use of "Tokens" in progressive game design is not the end all of game formulation. While I agree that it is highly successful due to the very generalized premise you set forth; there are many game mechanics that lend themselves to the general form of progression known as skill improvement.

For example, I enjoy my time in DCS flight simulators. There are no progression "Tokens", only my own sense of achievement through a gradual improvement of abilities as a pilot. Elite is in many aspects, for me, not so different. I launch from a station and commit myself to improving my combat skills. The economy is second string to the objective of being a good pilot.

I could go on but I think I have been clear enough. There is no denial here, no objective disregard for general Psychology merely a note, that progression is not always a matter of "Tokens" or tangible things. With wisdom you come to find the "Tokens" of little value at the end of the day. I would wager that is why many of us old "84's" have a bit of a different perspective on progression.

 

[IceSerpent]

I see a lot of posts asking a question that seems to have a very obvious answer. "Why do humans who play games concern themselves with increasing monetary wealth as efficiently as possible?"

It's psychology 101...and it relates to human psychological anthropology.
1) Human brains associate video games with the concept of progression. It's natural, inherent, and unavoidable.
2) Usually progression is associated with monetary resources.
3) Players naturally move towards more efficient ways of progressing.


Despite what some might think of certain parts of human psychology, good luck avoiding the need for progression-based mechanics - in life or in games. It's a fundamental component of our psychological anthropology.
It's how we also view real life. The concept of progression is simply unavoidable.

1. Humans who don't spend their waking hours licking nearby windows recognize that not all games (video or otherwise) have progression component. For example: chess has no progression, sim city has no progression, single player RPG games have no progression (unless you count end of story line as "progression"), etc.
2. Progression is rarely associated with currency in games where it exists - i.e. in MMOs progression usually involves levels and gear, neither of which can necessarily be bought.
3. This is the only part you got right, people tend to take the path of least resistance.

 

[Therris]

Conjecture.

The use of "Tokens" in progressive game design is not the end all of game formulation. While I agree that it is highly successful due to the very generalized premise you set forth; there are many game mechanics that lend themselves to the general form of progression known as skill improvement.

For example, I enjoy my time in DCS flight simulators. There are no progression "Tokens", only my own sense of achievement through a gradual improvement of abilities as a pilot. Elite is in many aspects, for me, not so different. I launch from a station and commit myself to improving my combat skills. The economy is second string to the objective of being a good pilot.

I could go on but I think I have been clear enough. There is no denial here, no objective disregard for general Psychology merely a note, that progression is not always a matter of "Tokens" or tangible things. With wisdom you come to find the "Tokens" of little value at the end of the day. I would wager that is why many of us old "84's" have a bit of a different perspective on progression.

Point taken. Well said! I would put forth the suggestion that monetary-based progression seems to be the most common, and the one that most strongly appeals to our carrot-chasing nature?

 

[Nerdwing]

1. Humans who don't spend their waking hours licking nearby windows recognize that not all games (video or otherwise) have progression component. For example: chess has no progression, sim city has no progression, single player RPG games have no progression (unless you count end of story line as "progression"), etc.
2. Progression is rarely associated with currency in games where it exists - i.e. in MMOs progression usually involves levels and gear, neither of which can necessarily be bought.
3. This is the only part you got right, people tend to take the path of least resistance.

Good call on the window- comment! Maybe you should spice things up and insult the OP's mom next? Get an insult combo going?

 

[Therris]

1. Humans who don't spend their waking hours licking nearby windows recognize that not all games (video or otherwise) have progression component. For example: chess has no progression, sim city has no progression, single player RPG games have no progression (unless you count end of story line as "progression"), etc.
2. Progression is rarely associated with currency in games where it exists - i.e. in MMOs progression usually involves levels and gear, neither of which can necessarily be bought.
3. This is the only part you got right, people tend to take the path of least resistance.

Sure, progression can take many forms... but I thought it went without saying that this topic lies within the context of games that do include monetary-based progression mechanics (see thread title). I didn't realize that needed to be explicitly stated.

 

[Arktac13]

Money > Human Decency

 

[Morbad]

chess has no progression, sim city has no progression, single player RPG games have no progression (unless you count end of story line as "progression"), etc.

Progression within an individual chess match is measured by opponent's pieces taken and how advantageous of a position you are able to obtain for your own.

Sim City's progression can be measured in numerous ways related to the size, prosperity, or longevity of your city.

Most single player RPGs, in addition to progress through a story or character development, have some form of money/equipment to acquire, as well as an experience point and skill or level advancement system.

 

[Eyeofsauron]

i cant even.

You must be odd.

 

[IceSerpent]

Sure, progression can take many forms... but I thought it went without saying that this topic lies within the context of games that do include monetary-based progression mechanics (see thread title). I didn't realize that needed to be explicitly stated.

That's not what you said in OP:

Despite what some might think of certain parts of human psychology, good luck avoiding the need for progression-based mechanics - in life or in games. It's a fundamental component of our psychological anthropology.
It's how we also view real life. The concept of progression is simply unavoidable.

Regardless, in ED the monetary progression only goes up to a certain point at the moment. If you're into exploring your progression ends with an Asp. If you're into combat it ends with Python. If you're into trading it pretty much ends with Cobra, as large freighters don't make trading any different - it turns into making money for the sake of making money (although, trading can be viewed as means to get Asp + Python faster).
Not to mention that it's more of a prerequisite than actual progression. Even if you had every possible ship with every possible upgrade available from the start, it really wouldn't change the gameplay in any meaningful way.

 

[Wyseman76]

Point taken. Well said! I would put forth the suggestion that monetary-based progression seems to be the most common, and the one that most strongly appeals to our carrot-chasing nature?

To be honest I would say that general level progression is most often used with money being a strong second. Both are easy to use and create as well as lend themselves to real life mirrors. Money equals choice, more money, more choice. This work in game mechanics very well.

I find the ever increasing short attention span focused game design fascinating. Developers try to fulfill players need for gratification, hold their attentions long enough to justify the purchase, and then release them fast enough to have them buying the next title. This is less game development and more designer drug addiction. This is a huge part of the Mobile gaming markets bread and butter.

I am very grateful for the amount of independent and dare I say old school developers deviating in some ways from the current trends in gaming.

 

[IceSerpent]

Progression within an individual chess match is measured by opponent's pieces taken and how advantageous of a position you are able to obtain for your own.

Sim City's progression can be measured in numerous ways related to the size, prosperity, or longevity of your city.

Most single player RPGs, in addition to progress through a story or character development, have some form of money/equipment to acquire, as well as an experience point and skill or level advancement system.

Progression normally refers to becoming more powerful in games where the goal of the game is to become more powerful. In chess the goal is to win the game, it doesn't matter how many pieces are still on board or how advantageous your position is. A checkmate is a checkmate. In sim city the goal is to build a city that you like - it's a sandbox. Doesn't matter how big it is, doesn't matter how much money it generates. If you think it's perfect, then it is perfect, game over. In RPGs the goal is to get to the end of the story. Again, doesn't matter what level you achieve, doesn't matter what gear you end up with, doesn't matter how much gold you carry. You finish off "the end boss" - you're done.

While there certainly are games based on progression, there's also a huge number of games that either don't have any kind of progression (aside from winning the match or scenario), or have progression that has nothing to do with money.

One can come up with some sort of artificial "progression" in any game (i.e. nothing is stopping you from setting a goal of making a billion in sim city fro yourself), but when it has nothing to do with the intended goal of the game, it really doesn't have any objective meaning - it's just some sort of a personal preference.

 

[Remiel]

I measure progress in bananas, the same way I measure radiation.

 

[LuciusEsox]

Fortunately, I'm not human.

I stopped fussing over money in real life when it became evident I had enough to not have to much of anything I didn't want to do ever again, as long as I was careful about not blowing it frivolously. I don't have a lot by many measures, but I don't need a lot, and I value my free time far more than my labor is worth to others. I measure my progress by the amount of work I'm not doing, the money I'm not wasting, and the fun I am having.

I stopped caring about money in Elite: Dangerous (after release at least) once I got my favorite ship to where I wanted it, and had a suitable reserve to pay insurance several times. Now I'm content to let money trickle in from incidental encounters and random missions. Here I mostly measure my progress in my still growing skill and experience...and the proverbial height of the pile of corpses at my feet.

All that said, I think there are practical uses for credits in ED that most players simply don't have the experience or imagination to grasp, yet.

Pmsl,,, I like the opening sentence

OP,, yah de yah,, I am a space hippy man and I don't do nothing for no sicological s**t

 

[soapmak3r]

With a game like this, you set your own goals...Those goals require you to earn money in-game, and that is a fairly slow process at the start.

It has taken me the guts of a month earning bounties to have about 500 grand in the bank, and an upgraded Viper and a Cobra. Currently my goal is to earn my first million (I already have, but most has gone of ships and ship upgrades to make bounty hunting easier).

I really want to be more of an explorer, so that is my long term goal...To get a ship capable of bigger jumps, eqipped with some decent weapons, fuel scoop, detailed surface scanner....The ASP seems decent.

This is going to cost me a lot. Might need to get into trading a bit first. I'm in no rush really. Just enjoying myself, ranking up in combat and earning bounties for now.

 

[the100thmonkey]

I think the cart has been placed somewhat before the horse. A credit/token system is easy to implement in code; it's fundamentally mathematical and familiar to players: Games often recapitulate aspects of real-world experiences. Looking at other games, such as Battlefield, there are unlocks for all the weapons and a very detailed statistics engine that - again - provides numerical values that are considered to be indicative of performance: kill/death ratio, accuracy, headshot/kill ratio, kills per minute, flags captured, etc. etc.

Such numerical values are easy to focus on and formulate goals for - "I want to make cr1,000,000" or "I want to get my general accuracy over 20%". Some of the goals might even make one a better player.

Nevertheless, not everything that can be measured is important, and not everything that is important can be measured. It would be odd for someone to keep playing the game if they didn't enjoy it. Some players have already indicated that they don't particularly care about the credits in the game, over and above the need to repair and rearm their ship. There are other goals - for example mastery experiences. In that regard, the credits are the means to the end, not the end in itself. They provide a means to support the goal and/or to evaluate achievement, depending on whether and how much one accepts the value of the token itself.

I think the characterisation of games as "progression" is incomplete. A game is a system with a set of rules that lead to complex outcomes from simple initial conditions. "Progression" within a game is understanding (and later being able to exploit) the rules of the system in order to achieve a set goal within it. This is why people still play Super Mario Bros. 64, for example. They have "finished" the game by the standard metrics of defeating Bowser and freeing the princess, collecting all the stars and coins and killing every goomba. They set new goals, such as speed-runs and glitching the game to make it behave in ways that the developers did not intend.

tl;dr:

a financial system is easy to implement and a familiar way to induct players into the system. It's not the be-alll-and-end-all of they system itself - a key component, players, is too complex for that.