Blog of Nuke

Image courtesy of Penny Arcade (jG7JE9J6ZH)

Former Microsoft game user research head Bill Fulton recently did an article for Gamasutra.  In it, Fulton states that online jerks are having a significant effect on online game sales and are stunting the growth of the industry.

These days, when people go online to play, they encounter the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic comments, new player bashing and a colourful spectrum of language as well as behaviour that’s just plain aggravating (team killing, in-action etc.)

They go online, play a few times, or even just once, then never come back.  When you’re trying to expand your user base, this is not the experience you want for players— new, casual and old alike.

The usual retort is that jerks are a part of the scene and if you don’t have a thick enough skin, then don’t play online.

But that’s the root of the problem, isn’t it?  People play online precisely for the experience of playing and having fun with other people. 

Such retorts usually come from more dedicated/hardcore gamers who are able to tolerate such behaviour because their love of the games they play allows them to.  But as much as they’d like to believe it, hardcore gamers aren’t the centre of the gaming universe.

In the greater context of gaming as a whole, they are the minority of players and that’s why something needs to be done about bad online behaviour if the gaming base is to grow and develop.

Fulton suggests behaviour modification through careful design of the game’s social environment and puts forth some of his ideas.

Here are some examples of embedded systems that Fulton discussed:

Proportionate award system. 

“Kill stealing” is often a source of conflict.  That’s where one player has battled an opponent and is about to deliver the coup de gras when another player swoops in and delivers the killing blow and thus being awarded the kill.  Fulton suggestion a proportionate award system where the player who did the majority of the work gets the majority of the credit.

Make bad behaviour risky. 

Many games have a “vote-kick” system where players on the server can elect to eject a player from the game.  This voting system can be abused by bad players.  Fulton uses Shadowrun as an example where the vote system was tweaked to make it riskier for abusers.   Players have to option to abstain, kick, or kick the one who started the vote.  That third option opens the possibility that vote system abusers could end up being ejected.

Feud detection. 

In the majority of games with a vote-kick system, when two players engage in a vote-kick war, neither player ends up being kicked if no majority is reached.  Usually players who are involved in such a spat manage to stay in the game and become a source of annoyance because most players will abstain from feud votes.

Shadowrun employs a feud detection scheme where it designates players as being in a “feud state” when two players call kick votes on each other.  A feud vote will always result in the server kicking one of the two players involved in it and this nips feud voting in the bud.

Reward good behaviour. 

This may seem like a no-brainer but a lot of games do not employ this mechanism to sufficient degree or are lacking it entirely.  Providing meaningful rewards for players who engage in positive team actions such as healing a teammate, or giving a teammate superior weapons/equipment can dramatically change the atmosphere of the game.

My Experience

I’m not a hardcore gamer, but a gamer nonetheless.  I only got a game console (a 360) two years ago if you can believe it and haven’t been on XBox Live for long.  But bad online behaviour has made me seriously reconsider renewing my XBox Live membership.

Ultimately, I did renew so I could test drive game demos and maintain the ability to game with the few good people I know.  But I admit that I am actually reluctant to play online because it has come to a point where my hobby has almost become a source of aggravation for me.

XBox Live has a severe problem with bad behaviour, so much so that it was the topic of one of Oprah Winfrey’s shows.  But a system such as XBox Live is very difficult to police since a lot of the bad behaviour is verbal abuse over voice chat, something which design-based behaviour modification systems can’t control.

Sadly, Microsoft has not really taken much action in regards to enforcing proper player conduct.  While accounts are suspended here and there, it’s obvious the measures are not enough.

No doubt, Fulton’s ideas of behaviour modification through design would help.  But until Microsoft can introduce an increased level of accountability and moderation, XBox Live will forever be the rank gaming pit it is today.