Materialism doesn't just have to do with roleplay. I'm of the more pvp oriented stripe, but I'm generally polite out there while also being completely willing to cut you down if you're the opponent. Its a game, and if we were playing Chess or Monopoly, I would do the same to you. I think on the whole though most MMO's are intrinsically materialist. For whatever reason, game designers think that what keeps us in a game is the continual grab for the next shiny. It might very well be that they (Game designers as a whole, from all companies) do not feel they can release enough content to entertain us. In a desire to keep their income, they resort to gambling and materialist based psychological tactics. As a person who comes to MMO's more from the perspective of FPS's and Fighter Pilot games, I've never been as interested in gearing up, though I begrudgingly do it, if only to be equal with the opposition. The point I'm trying to make in all this, is that as someone who likes PVP, I would truly love a system that was purely about the fun of the combat, and put all people and their gear on an equal footing in the realm of PVP. I like a game to be about the skill of the player, and not so much about how many years they've been grinding something into boredom. Its not what MMO's are about though, so I've choked on that pill and moved on. Its the hurdle we all have to get over, if we want to do this thing called MMO.

I guess it depends on the player. My husband and I have gone rounds on most everything in game. He sees a chest and goes "SQUIRREL!"....I see a chest and can't be bothered bc I feel what is inside is junk and Idc care abt achievements.(for easy examples sake)

Our perceptions of what we do, how we have fun, what drives us to do things in game are going to vary player to player. Thus ZOS has to try to encompass avenues for most in game to keep a broad range of players.

Materialistic rewards are just a part of a bigger spectrum of rewards that make games addicting. As a matter of fact addiction is the word that defines the mechanics behind mmorpg's. Lets take the example of the xp curve: the first lvl is "free", then you start working up a ladder that increases the ammount of effort needed to get the same basic reward which was so easy to get at first.

This is the stereotype of diminishing "returns" when using addictive substances. Games however are not substances that create a physical effect on your body, just psycological. Hence, to keep the perceived value of the reward by the player, they open new possibilities for each given reward (more skills, more content).

This effect is even bigger in MMO's because it is a massively social system, so getting those rewards will allow you to have access to social lvls in a social ladder made of human beings that are inserted in the same social network as you are.

So, materialistic rewards here are just a way for them to reinforce such mechanics. In real life, does a fancy car get you faster through heavy traffic? No but when your traffic jam neighbours look outside the window and see you driving a much better car than theirs they get nasty chemicals into their brains because in the social ladder of the traffic jam you are above them.

Thats why almost every player plays to reach some kind of goal. That however may vary. Some people are competitive while others are social, some are completionists others are researchers/investigators. Competitive people might want the best time trial, social get their kicks from a night well spent RP'ing their character at a tavern, completionists have pleasure when they finally find that trophy that allowed them to get a particular achievement and researchers have their "high" when a particular build they thought off works.

In a way its a mimese of the real world. All your bodily functions are governed by chemical stimulus that have molded your behaviour ever since your inception. You eat because your body produces chemicals that give you pleasure, while if you are hungry your body signals your mind with other chemicals that make you feel unconfortable. Same goes goes every aspect of human life or any other types of life. Its nature's way of making sure we do not just abandon life and chemical stimulus are the key to survival.

Now, sorry for the long post, but I thought it needed some clarification. So materialistic rewards are part of that equation. My word of advice, if you want to avoid the traps of consumerism, you have to replace the stimulae that material rewards give. I already gave you some hints as that could be acomplished and it depends of the type of crowd you are trying to acomplish something for/with.

Sheesh, long post... btw all this stuff i said is based on actual science and don't you believe for a second that any game developer worth its salt is not aware of this.

Good luck though. If you play EU server and need a hand on anything send me a PM.

Ahdora wrote: »

Interesting topic! Sounds like an awesome class, too. Right up my alley. It sucks that you're going to get a bunch of LOLs on this from the more immature folks in the community, but anyway...

In trying to think of how to bring value to gameplay outside of material incentive (From the Devs, not the players), I realized that it can be hard to separate the two. As an example, something that will bring a lot of enjoyment for me is housing. Decorating, showing off said decorations, etc. However, it's likely that housing will also come with a material incentive included, like more storage space or possibly the ability to sell items from your home, thus voiding the broker fee for those making the trek. Housing items will also be sold, no doubt, or quested for, etc.

That's not a bad thing, though, is it? It would provide value for different player types.

If I'm off base on what you meant, let me know. I'm overworked and underfed at the moment.

7 LOLs as of posting this reply.

Draehl wrote: »

The problem is to keep most players' interest in a game long term it either needs:

1. To have a goal to chase (gear treadmill) as to keep players constantly striving for more power. This is the common route in MMOs.
   
2. Be extremely difficult and have a very high skill cap/competitive nature. Not to knock ESO (I love it) but it doesn't have a particularly high skill cap compared to its peer MMOs. Even the highest skill cap MMOs fall flat when compared with MOBAs/first person shooters.
   
3. Extremely high replay value via emergent content or procedually generated and/or truly "living" worlds. ESO is great for a contemporary MMO, but when you get down to it the world isn't alive and it's just a series of very basic (albeit VERY well done) quests strung together. MMOs simply won't even try until someone really raises the bar as far as world interactivity/realism are concerned- to be clear I mean this in more of a simulation/advanced scripted AI sense- NOT graphics. Even Guild Wars 2 & Rift which have a very rudimentary dynamic systems are almost offensive in how bad they are. Everquest Next is talking some big talk along these lines, but I'll believe it when I see it.

As far as other entertainment elements- other media far outclass MMOs. Looking for a story? Movies and books vastly outclass MMOs. Immersiveness of being a part of the story? Single player games that can make the player truly the hero of the world will win here. Both of these, even if done well for an MMO won't keep player's interest long term. Only social ties with guilds will keep people hanging on, and that's a vast minority of older MMO players anyway.

TLDR: Loot treadmill is here to stay until we at least get somewhat more believable AI, more sophisticated emergent/procedural/sandbox (pick your adjective) content, and generally the world feels more alive, immersive and "real" versus feeling so incredibly contrived like chain quests and mobs constantly standing around a campire waiting to be killed do.

I don't think the loot treadmill will ever go away. Many of the people who play this game are basically just rats in a maze, and if you take away the cheese at the end they simply will no longer play.

Other than that, I agree with the points that you've made, they're very well expressed and I felt the need to express as much.

Firellight wrote: »

I'm currently doing a reading and class discussion on materialism, and I've been relating a lot of it to the gaming industry. The course is called "Sustainable Happiness", and incorporates positive psychology, environmentalism, intrinsic/extrinsic values and materialism into the curriculum (so far in my second week).

If anybody recognizes my username, I made a few posts in attempts to increase intrinsic actions in ESO, such as suggesting enhanced roleplay features, alliance war overhauls and starting a discussion around the possibility of the level 1-50 grind being pointless. I admit, I have an anti-grind ideology, and I wouldn't go beyond a month of casual effort to reach endgame of a particular feature. I also support any social activity, and endgame features revolving around these things. I like to skip the formalities, have fun, meet friends and develop communities.

I am not going to get into any details, but I want to start a conversation on how ESO players, and perhaps ZOS devs can increase non-materialistic values and practices in the game. I always fail to start a guild, so if any guild leaders are reading this post, we can discuss how guilds thrive. Just yesterday, I was passing through a dungeon, and noticed a bunch of people at the entrance. They were having a guild event, most likely providing materialistic incentives to participate. Any thoughts?

Thoughts?, Yes, several.

Firstly, don't take what you learn on a course too deeply to heart, academics (who create these courses) come in two varieties: clueless and with an agenda. I just removed a bit o text here, because it gets political, and I don't want to break the rules, so add your own commentary, I'm pretty sure everyone can guess what I wrote.

Secondly, most of us are not influenced by incentives (which given the definition of incentive is ironic), we play because we enjoy the game.

Thirdly anti-grinding philosophies tend to be missing something, I know I've adopted a few myself (I hate grinding), and each time I've realise that it would either be ineffective or ruin the challenge of the game. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Hmmm... but isn't the very nature of a game materialistic? The most points you got in Pacman or something meant you could put your initials on top. When you go to a fair and play a game you do it to win a giant stuffed toy. When you play football you do it to gain that trophy. All games are this way from what I can tell. So if you took that away wouldn't the game feel more like a digital space for your avatar to move around in? Take Second Life for instance. Thats what it was but if you look at what the people did in it you will realize it became the most materialistic virtual space known to man. So not sure how any of this would work but I'm up for anything.

Draehl wrote: »

The problem is to keep most players' interest in a game long term it needs:

1. Extremely high replay value via emergent content or procedually generated and/or truly "living" worlds. ESO is great for a contemporary MMO, but when you get down to it the world isn't alive and it's just a series of very basic (albeit VERY well done) quests strung together. MMOs simply won't even try until someone really raises the bar as far as world interactivity/realism are concerned- to be clear I mean this in more of a simulation/advanced scripted AI sense- NOT graphics. Even Guild Wars 2 & Rift which have a very rudimentary dynamic systems are almost offensive in how bad they are. Everquest Next is talking some big talk along these lines, but I'll believe it when I see it.

As far as other entertainment elements- other media far outclass MMOs. Looking for a story? Movies and books vastly outclass MMOs. Immersiveness of being a part of the story? Single player games that can make the player truly the hero of the world will win here. Both of these, even if done well for an MMO won't keep player's interest long term. Only social ties with guilds will keep people hanging on, and that's a vast minority of older MMO players anyway.

The story in any MMO, heck any game, is going to depend on the engagement or emotional investment of the players. One example is that in Auridon there are a number of questlines that deal with a particular 'flavor' of 'bad guys'. Folks who seemed 'good' at first turn out to be 'bad' and there are plenty of times when a certain NPC gets hurt - not just physically but socially and emotionally.

Sure if you want to just skim this and not get involved, that's a choice. I choose to invest in it. Makes gameplay (individual and with in-game and RL friends) more enjoyable. Heck I have been known to write fanfic about particularly thought provoking sections of ESO.

I choose. Then I act. That's fun for me.

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Gix wrote: »

I'm having a hard time understand what you're trying to talk about. Materialism, Incentives and Roleplaying aren't mutually inclusive. In fact, it's good design practice to keep them very distinct from one another.

Um, what?

Lets look at this in regards to Roleplaying first.

Roleplaying and Materialism are not exclusive, you can easily take the view that your character is slowly building up money, gear and a general assortment of items.
Roleplaying and Incentives are generally not exclusive either, since the incentives can easily be worded so that their is a reason for your character to be doing various things.

I'm not arguing that they're exclusive, merely that having one doesn't necessarily include the other... because each concept is exclusive at its core. I know, this sounds contradictory, but hear me out.

Roleplaying is not about acquiring wealth and/or items; but. You could roleplay a bard that only speak in rhymes. Why? Because that's how you imagined your character to be.

From a game design concept, Incentives is an [O]ut [O]f [C]haracter concept and is player driven. "Why do I Roleplay? Because if I do a good job, Dungeon Master will award me XP points" or "Completing this quest gives me loot that will help me defeat the dragon." THAT's Incentives and , while it's typically rewarded with Materialism, saving Princess Zelda has nothing to do with Materialism. That's you instinctively Roleplaying the role of Link chasing your goal.

Unless you're discussing at "why" your character is acting a certain way, Incentives don't necessarily include (and often rarely do, actually) Materialism. Completing a game of Megaman or finishing off all the quests in Dragon Age : Origins is not Materialism nor is it a case of Roleplaying.

That's why I said they're not mutually inclusive.

If you're looking at these terms from a psychological point of view, well... the concepts are so vague that there's almost nothing to talk about. Unless you're talking about the impact that one has over the other when they're applied together... then we got something. That's why I asked.

"What drives you to play?" is a question that will only give you 1 of these 3 answers.

- Because I like acting out scenarios.
- Because I like to accomplish something.
- Because I like to earn things.