Infinitely Repeatable Core Compulsion Loops

The building blocks of addictive gaming

How are Modern Warfare 2 and Angry Birds alike?  Answer: each game is built upon a simple and tactile core compulsion loop as the fundamental building block of game play.  Both games require you, as the player, to repeat the same action over and over.  It's an action that is inherently pleasing to perform, and provides a satisfying outcomes or outcomes that makes you want to repeat the experience ad infinitum.  The result? A game that you literally can't stop playing.

Example A.) Modern Warfare

Lock-on targeting and headshot kill

Example B.) Angry Birds

Pull and release slingshot and physics-based destruction

In the case of Example A.) The auto target and headshot, the action is perfectly mapped to the controls of the Xbox 360 (or PS3) controller.  Navigate your targeting reticule into the general vicinity of your right Thumbstick. Pull Left Trigger, and the reticule snaps to the head of said target.  Pull Right Trigger to fire away, with satisfying haptic feedback to simulate recoil. Target disappears in a mist of red, and crumples, falls, or flies backwards.  Even when playing enemy AI, the simulated “kill” is visceral, immediate and addictively repeatable.

Example B.) is less bloody, but no less genius in its use of the touch screen interface.   Place finger on bird, bull back (with delightful corresponding stretching sound effect).  Gauge angle and distance to target, then release.  Upon impact, a surprising real physics (not scripted) cause and effect, with blocks shaking or falling, and occasionally crushing pig target or targets.

In both examples, there is a goal state – kill the bad guy before he gets you, demolish the pig(s) -- that is solved by successfully performing this action.  Yet regardless of outcome, the act itself has been engineered to be inherently pleasing.  The result: a building block of addictive interactive experience, where, thanks to a deceptively simple seeming mechanic, even failure results in an enjoyable moment of play.

Our True Intent Is All For Your Delight

Delighting your customers is a wonderful goal.  Delivering a service that places your customer (not “end-user”) first in mind when making business and product decisions is a lofty ambition, and deserves the highest admiration.  However, much like other some times glib sounding catchphrases, it’s amazing how often and how dubiously that phrase is employed in the world of startups and technology companies.

There is a tantalizing read on EverythingD about how Ben Silbermann, CEO of Pinterest, bet that there was an experience in what they had built that delivered something people truly cared about.  Even though the install base and acquisition #'s didn't seem to support that belief.  But through the hard work of going out and finding those people, and sharing that experience with them (sometimes known as Marketing), Pinterest achieved terminal velocity.  Everyone I know who uses and enjoys Pinterest is incredibly passionate about it.  Silbermann’s belief was validated by the experiences the product delivers.

And yet I wonder…did the Pinterest team ever crafted a deck, outlining how “Delight” was the bullseye target of their “Why”?  Did they get mugs with the words “Delight” emblazoned on it, so that the mission could permeate their company “culture” and being?  Or did they set themselves to the more difficult yet achievable goal of creating an experience / platform that people like themselves (crafty, curious, social) wanted to use?

For some reason, it all beings to mind chain of Butlin vacation camps in the UK during the 60’s and 70’s (amazingly documented in a book of photography by John Hinde, the title of which I borrowed for this post). I see a parallel between those garishly gilded halls; endless Tiki cocktail hours and buffet dinners for thousands served in cavernous expanses of palatial poured concrete -- to the endlessly interchangeable digital offerings on my iPhone and browser, homogenized products devoid of the emotional resonance and clarity of vision that might possibly delight.  Entertain, perhaps.  Amuse, quite possibly.  But delight?  I don't think so.    

Games With Friends

Choosing the right Social Graph Model for Your Interactive Experience

The recent news that Mobage in Japan is going to allow login with Twitter is a distinct pivot for the Japanese social mobile gaming platform, and raises all sorts of interesting questions about the two opposing social gaming philosphies known as Real and Virtual Social graphs.

Note the subtle use of the word "superiority" the slide.  

Simply put: I am more likely to play more with other people if I can do so under the guise of anonymity (like Mobage)?  Or is it more compelling to play with "real" friends, whose identities you presumably know? Mobage was built with the Virtual Social Graph at its core.  The idea seems sound:  you play games, and meet others, through a shared interest in game type and genre, and this bond is reinforced through multiple instances of shared ongoing gaming experiences.

Dr. Serkan Toto does a succinct job of outlining DeNA's and Gree's Virtual Social Graph philosophy in detail.  Now, given the market saturation that both Gree and Mobage have achieved within the Japanese markets, this move could simply be an attempt to broaden customer acquisition and find the last few souls in Japan yet to start playing mobile games on the Mobage platform.

Or, more interestingly, what if this means that the core principle illustrated above has proven to be false? That a Virtual Social graph does not actually provide more engagement, and better monetization?    

Without the data to analyze, I can only hypothesize.  But when I think about my experiences playing games, mobile, console and social, the best and most memorable multi-player experiences have resulted from playing with and against people I know.  Team based, collaborative play with a group of real world friends playing Battlefield2 provided countless hours of timesuck -- and a real why-to-buy map packs and expansions. And free to play Scrabulous on FaceBook, with its asynchronous, broadly appealing play against dozens of friends at the same time was always a great time.

The point of all this connectivity is to truly connect.  So perhaps, leveraging existing social frameworks and reality-based experiences result in stronger digital connections?  It's a very relevant question to be asking right now.