数学期望游戏迷 非游戏迷
The Greatest Magic Trick
最伟大的魔术
Once upon a time we all thought how charming it was when games had that elusive ‘addictive’ quality which delighted players. But now the term addiction has become an accusation labeled at apparently unscrupulous FreeToPlay designers who are leveraging the psychology of Operant Conditioning to allegedly extort money from players.
曾几何时，我们都认为游戏具有令人难以捉摸的“上瘾”质量令玩家感到满意的感觉是多么的迷人。 但是现在，“上瘾”一词已成为一种指控，因为显然是不道德的FreeToPlay设计师正在利用“操作条件”的心理从玩家那里勒索金钱。
Games that delight us often have the magical effect of become habit forming but how as designers can we judge the balance between a game as a social good and the manipulation of an audience.
使我们感到高兴的游戏通常会具有养成习惯的神奇效果，但作为设计师，我们如何才能判断游戏既是一种社会福利又是对观众的操纵之间的平衡。
I’m not a psychologist!! I’m a marketer who has been closely involved with running games services for the last over 16 years. That being said I’m first and foremost a games fan. That means I put the enjoyment of games first but I am also deeply interested in both the application of psychology for both playing and paying. I’ve read a lot round the subject but have also have had some fantastic help from Cyberpsychologist Berni Good (but please note that any mistakes here are my own!). I gave a webinar on this topic recently, and, if you want to hear more, you’ll find a link to a recording of the session at the bottom of the page.
我不是心理学家！ 我是一名营销人员，在过去的16年中一直密切参与运行游戏服务。 话虽这么说，但我首先是游戏迷。 这意味着我将享受游戏的乐趣放在首位，但同时我对玩游戏和付费方面的心理学应用都非常感兴趣。 我已经阅读了很多有关该主题的文章，但也得到了网络心理学家Berni Good的极大帮助(但请注意，这里的任何错误都是我自己的！)。 我最近举行了一次有关该主题的网络研讨会，如果您想了解更多信息，您可以在页面底部找到指向该会议记录的链接。
Design is a seductive art which is about enticing players in to your world and making them feel safe and special. This is about creating anticipation and desire for more. Key to seduction is our ability to correctly set expectations. Just as using a fake photo on an internet dating site (I’m too old/married to know personally) can damage the first date; giving misinformation to players is a fast way to get deleted. Similarly a lack of attention to the needs of new players (such as a sucky tutorial) will be an instant put off… just like abandoning your potential new partner to go talk to someone else on your first date.
设计是一种诱人的艺术，旨在吸引玩家进入您的世界，并使他们感到安全和特别。 这是关于创造更多的期望和渴望。 诱惑的关键是我们正确设定期望的能力。 就像在网上约会网站上使用伪造的照片一样(我年纪太大/已婚，无法亲自认识)可能会破坏第一次约会； 向玩家提供错误信息是一种快速删除方法。 同样，对新玩家的需求缺乏关注(例如笨拙的教程)将立即被推迟……就像在初次约会时就放弃了潜在的新伴侣去与他人交谈一样。
But if we want our relationships to last we can’t take out players (or partners) for granted. We have to sustain that interest over the long term. We want, no NEED, our games to become habitual don’t we?
但是，如果我们希望我们的关系持续下去，我们就无法将玩家(或合作伙伴)视为理所当然。 我们必须长期维持这种兴趣。 我们想要(不需要)我们的游戏成为习惯，不是吗？
Games have always been compelling
游戏向来引人入胜
Games allow us to demonstrate our own competence, be faced with genuine (albeit constrained) challenges and to escape (ideally) within a social context. These qualities are alluring and done right create something which has an intrinsic reward. That matters when we think about habit forming. BJ Fogg talks about habit forming behaviour as needing motivation, ability and a trigger. Games create compelling experiences, offer challenges which we see as achievable and contain calls to action as well as instant feedback. These seem to have the qualities needed to drive habit-forming behaviour.
游戏使我们能够展示自己的能力，面对真正的(尽管受到约束的)挑战，并能够在社交环境中(理想地)逃脱。 这些品质引人入胜并且做得正确，创造出一种具有内在奖励的东西。 当我们考虑养成习惯时，这一点很重要。 BJ Fogg谈到养成习惯的行为是需要动力，能力和触发因素。 游戏创造了引人入胜的体验，提出了我们认为可以解决的挑战，并包含了号召性用语以及即时反馈。 这些似乎具有推动养成习惯的行为所需的素质。
The argument has been that a lot of F2P games have attempted to use habit-forming techniques to create unscrupulous designs, often relying on extrinsic rewards to reinforce player behaviour to encourage spending rather than to deliver better inherent value for players.
有观点认为，许多F2P游戏都试图使用养成习惯的技术来创建不道德的设计，通常依靠外部奖励来加强玩家的行为以鼓励消费，而不是为玩家带来更好的内在价值。
However, is that actually true? And does this mean that there is an inherent flaw specific to F2P design? Game design relies on creating rule systems and patterns which, to a greater or lesser extent, railroad users to perform specific patterns of activity. The best magic trick is when we make a level or player decision feel like it was their own choice; even where it was the only real choice available. Games do this by using audio/visual/gameplay or narrative clues to trigger reaction; usually by providing instant positive feedback when the player behaves the way we want them to.
但是，实际上是这样吗？ 这是否意味着F2P设计存在固有的缺陷？ 游戏设计依赖于创建规则系统和模式，这些规则系统和模式或多或少地使铁路用户执行特定的活动模式。 最好的魔术是当我们做出关卡或玩家决定时，感觉就像是他们自己的选择一样。 即使它是唯一可用的真实选择。 游戏通过使用音频/视频/游戏玩法或叙事线索来触发React来做到这一点； 通常在玩家表现出我们希望他们的行为时提供即时的积极反馈。
Arguably that’s a form of manipulation
可以说这是一种操纵形式
Assuming you accept that manipulation is an intrinsic part of game design then we have to ask whether manipulation is inherently wrong or whether it just becomes wrong when this involves money. Is it even essentially wrong to encourage/convince people to spend money in a game? Where do we draw the ethical line?
假设您接受操纵是游戏设计的内在部分，那么我们必须询问操纵是天生的错误，还是当涉及金钱时它是否只是错误。 鼓励/说服人们在游戏中花钱甚至根本上是错误的？ 我们在哪里划定道德界限？
Terms like manipulation don’t help us as their use is too broad and we end up in meaningless discussions about semantics.
诸如操纵之类的术语对我们无济于事，因为它们的使用范围太广，最终导致关于语义的无意义的讨论。
Games have often been the target of moral outrage, but I fear that, as an industry, we may be contributing to our own panic, either because of an aversion to the commercialisation of games, or through a lack of focus on delivering entertainment over revenue. It seems to me entirely reasonable that we should be able to make games people are willing to pay for as long as the business model offers value and is based on informed consent.
游戏通常是道德上暴行的目标，但我担心作为一个行业，我们可能会为自己的恐慌做出贡献，这可能是由于对游戏商业化的厌恶，或者是由于缺乏专注于提供娱乐而非收益的原因。 在我看来，只要商业模式能够提供价值并基于知情同意，我们就应该能够让人们愿意为游戏付费。
What is Real Addiction or Conditioning?
什么是真实成瘾或条件？
The two principle accusations levelled at games seem to me to focus on addiction and the use of Skinner-Box-Style operant conditioning?
在我看来，关于游戏的两个主要指控似乎集中在成瘾和使用Skinner-Box-Style操作条件上？
Addiction a very serious issue that is harder to define than you might think. However, it shouldn’t be defined as just a habit gone bad. According to Harvard Mental Health Letter there needs to be a genuine compulsion which overwhelms the individual’s otherwise rational behaviour. This can be driven by a physiological need where the body has a chemical dependency which causes us to crave the addictive substance. Alternatively, it can be behavioural where an unhealthy pattern of specific and inappropriate activity becomes overwhelming. Both lead to harm to the individual concerned.
成瘾是一个非常严重的问题，比您想象的要难定义。 但是，它不应该被定义为只是一个坏习惯。 根据《 哈佛心理健康快报》的说法，必须有一种真正的强迫感，使个人的其他理性行为不堪重负。 这可以由生理需要驱使，其中身体具有化学依赖性，这使我们渴望上瘾的物质。 替代地，特定行为和不适当活动的不健康模式将变得压倒性行为。 两者都会对有关个人造成伤害。
Interestingly, behavioural addiction is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because “…there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviours as mental disorders.” It has however been described as an area for further study which demonstrates the need for further research and for us to remain cautious about jumping to conclusions either way.
有趣的是，行为成瘾未包含在《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》中，因为“……没有足够的经过同行评审的证据来确定将这些行为识别为精神障碍所需的诊断标准和课程说明。” 但是，它被描述为需要进一步研究的领域，这表明需要进一步研究，并且我们必须谨慎对待以任何一种方式得出结论。
In The Power of Habit, Charles Duhigg, describes a series of MRI Scans conducted as part of a legal case against a casino. The scans showed that to pathological gamblers near misses looked like wins. Their brains reacted almost the same way. On the other hand, when non-problem gamblers experienced a near miss, they received a dose of apprehension that triggered a different response, “quit before it gets worse”.
查尔斯·杜希格(Charles Duhigg)在《习惯的力量》一书中描述了一系列MRI扫描，这是针对赌场的法律案件的一部分。 扫描结果显示，对病态赌徒而言，未命中率看起来像胜利。 他们的大脑React几乎相同。 另一方面，当无问题的赌徒几乎怀念时，他们会感到不安，引发了不同的React，“在情况恶化之前就退出”。
Games, if we are to believe Rafe Koster’s Theory of Fun, use pattern matching to generate stimulus. Over time and given repeated success the pleasure reward diminishes as we become increasingly familiar with the patterns. Eventually we get bored with the game and move on. However as Neurologist Judy Willis described in Psychology Today “The motivation to persevere and pursue greater challenge at the next level is the brain seeking another surge of dopamine — the fuel of intrinsic reinforcement.” That does sound like something we encourage in game design.
游戏，如果我们要相信拉菲·科斯特(Rafe Koster)的“娱乐理论”，则可以使用模式匹配来产生刺激。 随着时间的流逝，并获得了反复的成功，随着我们对模式的日益熟悉，愉悦的奖励逐渐减少。 最终，我们对游戏感到厌烦并继续前进。 但是，正如神经学家朱迪·威利斯(Judy Willis)在《今日心理学》中所描述的那样，“坚持不懈并在下一个阶段寻求更大挑战的动机是大脑寻求另一波多巴胺激增，这是内在增强的动力。” 听起来确实像我们在游戏设计中鼓励的那样。
Just A Skinner Box
只是一个Skinner盒子
In a series of experiments on Rats and pigeons, BF Skinner found using his eponymous box that an animals behaviour could be affected by adjusting their expected rewards; such as releasing food by pressing a button. By creating an escalating or random variation in the frequency of the release of that food you can even can cause them to press that button compulsively. The topic is too complex to cover in detail here and there are unanswered questions too, however it seems that a schedule of reinforcement (repeated actions with a predictable payout) plus unpredictable timing to that reward can be highly compelling.
在对老鼠和鸽子的一系列实验中，BF斯金纳(BF Skinner)使用他的同名方块发现，动物的行为可能会因调整其预期奖励而受到影响； 例如通过按下按钮释放食物。 通过在食物的释放频率上增加或随机变化，您甚至可以使他们强迫按下该按钮。 该主题太复杂，无法在此处进行详细介绍，并且也有未解决的问题，但是似乎强化时间表(重复的行动以及可预期的支出)加上不可预测的奖励时机可能非常具有说服力。
Is that what’s happening in games? And is it unique to F2P?
那是游戏中发生的事情吗？ 它是F2P独有的吗？
The good news is that playing games a lot may not in itself be problematic for all gamers, whereas with addiction it is always detrimental for the addict (Gentile, 2009;Kuss & Griffiths, 2012): ‘‘Healthy excessive enthusiasms add to life, whereas addictions take away from it’’ (Griffiths & Meredith, 2009,p. 247).
好消息是，玩很多游戏本身并不会对所有游戏者造成问题，而成瘾对成瘾者总是有害的(Gentile，2009； Kuss＆Griffiths，2012)：“健康的过度热情增加了生活，而成瘾则从中解脱''(Griffiths＆Meredith，2009，p.247)。
A number of experiments have shown that humans show the same patterns of response that other animals show when exposed to the basic schedules of reinforcement; so Operant Conditioning does seem to work. However, in a game (unlike a Skinner Box), we don’t control all the factors and aren’t the only source of stimulus. In practice it’s rare that any game will have the capacity to exert much direct influence over players; the vast majority of people are just too savvy.
大量实验表明，人类在暴露于基本的强化计划后会表现出与其他动物相同的React模式。 因此操作条件似乎确实有效。 但是，在游戏中(与Skinner Box不同)，我们无法控制所有因素，也不是刺激的唯一来源。 实际上，很少有游戏能够对玩家产生直接的影响。 绝大多数人都太精明了。
Even if we could really deliver the kind of influence that might affect players’ behaviour, conditioning also seems to require effort if it is to be sustained. There comes a point where that effort becomes greater than the reward. When we vary the rate of stimulus (e.g. the interval or ratio of activity needed to trigger a reward), the investment required to achieve the payoff will eventually exceed its value (eventually leading to the cessation of that behaviour). We learn from experience as an ongoing adaptive process. When conditions change, we learn new behaviours and eliminate old ones. Habits can, of course, be very hard to break – but they can also be very hard to form as (going back to BJ Fogg) they need a sustained Motivation, Action and Trigger.
即使我们确实能够提供可能影响玩家行为的那种影响力，但要保持这种状态，似乎也需要付出努力。 有时候，这种努力变得比回报更大。 当我们改变刺激率(例如，触发奖励所需的活动间隔或比率)时，实现回报所需的投资最终将超过其价值(最终导致该行为的停止)。 我们从经验中学到，这是一个持续不断的适应性过程。 当条件改变时，我们将学习新的行为并消除旧的行为。 习惯当然很难打破，但也很难形成，因为(回到BJ Fogg)他们需要持续的动机，行动和触发。
It seems to me that conditioning in games is plausible; but largely impractical, not least because people are just too savvy.
在我看来，游戏中的调节是合理的。 但在很大程度上不切实际，尤其是因为人们太精明。
Is it an Question of Ethics?
这是道德问题吗？
Of course being difficult doesn’t mean impossible. But is there an opportunity? is this even an ethical question at all?
当然，困难并不意味着不可能。 但是有机会吗？ 这根本是一个道德问题吗？
One of the biggest holes in the question of manipulation is that most (mindful) people will quickly notice any obvious attempts at manipulation. Despite this there are of course vulnerable people including children or adults with a susceptibility who might fall into the tricks of less ethical designers. There are systems in place to protect minors, legally and from a platform perspective – however this is not just a question of enforcement. Our brand is on the line if we sully it with unethical designs which destroy trust and credibility. The anger people feel about being manipulated isn’t just about the individual concerned – they tell everyone they can. That kills any business.
操纵问题中最大的漏洞之一是，大多数(有思想的)人们会很快注意到任何明显的操纵尝试。 尽管如此，当然还是有弱势人群，包括易感的儿童或成人，他们可能会陷入不太道德的设计师的骗局中。 已经建立了从法律的角度和从平台的角度保护未成年人的系统-但这不仅是执法问题。 如果我们以不道德的设计来破坏我们的品牌，那会破坏信任和信誉。 人们对被操纵的愤怒不只是与有关个人有关，他们还告诉所有人。 那杀死任何生意。
Trust is what helps keep people engaged – not manipulation! It’s not just unethical to seek to form habitual behaviour in games but it is also largely counterproductive.
信任是帮助人们保持参与的动力，而非操纵！ 试图在游戏中形成习惯性行为不仅不道德，而且在很大程度上适得其反。
To be ethical our intent has to be appropriate, reasonable, and clearly communicated. Players need to have informed consent. But, for me, this isn’t just a question of ethics.
为了符合道德规范，我们的意图必须适当，合理且明确地传达。 玩家需要征得知情同意。 但是，对我而言，这不仅仅是道德问题。
Commercially we are better off making better games. Designing game play that factors in engagement is the very best way to ensure a healthy environment that encourages players to come back to your game. Giving feedback at the right time will helps since intrinsic positive reinforcement is massively important in terms of desire to play. That feeling of mastering something and of an escape from our everyday world are more important than mechanical operant conditioning because they leave the player with a feeling that they “…cannot wait to play again”. This taps into the very essence of what it means for people to play games, rather than the work of responding to a schedule of reinforcement.
在商业上，我们最好制作更好的游戏。 设计影响参与度的游戏方式是确保健康环境，鼓励玩家回归游戏的最佳方法。 在正确的时间提供反馈将有所帮助，因为内在的积极强化在游戏欲望方面非常重要。 掌握某些东西和逃离我们的日常生活的感觉比机械操作调节更为重要，因为它们使玩家感到“……迫不及待想再次玩”。 这充分发挥了人们玩游戏的意义的本质，而不是响应强化时间表的工作。
We have a lot to learn from the underlying principles behind habit forming behaviour especially from people like BJ Fogg and BF Skinner; but the value is in trying to understand players so that we can make them better games; not just to make more money.
从习惯养成行为背后的基本原理中我们可以学到很多东西，尤其是从BJ Fogg和BF Skinner等人那里学到的东西。 但其价值在于试图了解玩家，以便我们使他们成为更好的游戏； 不只是为了赚更多的钱。
Special thanks to Berni Good for her input and advice (any mistakes here are of course my own!)
特别感谢Berni Good的意见和建议(这里的任何错误当然是我自己的！)
___
___
Oscar Clark is a Consultant and Evangelist for Everyplay, the free SDK from Unity that records and shares your favourite moments of play. Find out more at https://developers.everyplay.com. He is also author of “Games As A Service: How Free To Play Design Can Make Better Games.” Published by Focal Press, it is now available on Amazon as well as Kindle, iBooks and Kobo.
Oscar Clark是Everyplay的顾问和传播者，Everyplay是Unity的免费SDK，用于记录和分享您最喜欢的比赛时刻。 在https://developers.everyplay.com上找到更多信息。 他还是《游戏即服务：免费设计如何创造更好的游戏》一书的作者。 该书由Focal Press出版，现已在亚马逊以及Kindle，iBooks和Kobo上提供。
To follow Oscar on Twitter check out @Athanateus
要在Twitter上关注奥斯卡，请查看@Athanateus
Watch the Magic of Habit Webinar
数学期望游戏迷 非游戏迷