Extra Credits
2 HN recommenders · recommended in 5 months, 2015–2019
6:58 · 1.2M views · Mar 13, 2012
An Extra Credits episode on how games use Skinner box operant conditioning and reward schedules to keep players playing and spending. It argues for more immersive design mechanics than simple reward loops.
HN points to it as a short source on operant conditioning in games, loot boxes and engagement loops, with design alternatives.
5 comments from Hacker News
> time slips away It doesn't help that many modern games explicitly use Operant Conditioning to keep people playing. MMOs and "free to play" games are notorious, but you will find Skinner Boxes in a lot of modern games. Extra Credits has a nice overview, which includes a few design suggestions which games can use instead of hooking players with a reward schedule. this video Also, it's not just games - you will find Operant Conditioning style reward schedules in some "social media" businesses, too, which can waste someone's day just as bad as any game.
Take a look at this video [1] for explanation, and possibly other Extra Credits videos if you're interested in game design. [1]: this video
> A workaround would be for EA to simply officially sell the game's "coins" Preventing this kind of workaround is already part of many gambling laws. They usually define the payment/stake/wager as a very generic term like "anything of value". For example, in NV (as a stereotypical representation of a locale allows gambling), the law defines[1]: >> “Representative of value” means any instrumentality used by a patron in a game whether or not the instrumentality may be redeemed for cash. >> “Wager” means a sum of money or representative of value that is risked on an occurrence for which the outcome is uncertain. Any type of in-game "coin" still represents value to the people playing the game, so trading them for lootboxes with uncertain contents is still a "wager". The gaming industry could solve a lot of this mess if they simply *sold people the game (or game pieces) directly as a defined product. Of course, that wouldn't exploit the human weakness to operant conditioning[2]... ~sigh~ [1] [LINK] [2] this video
It was a long time ago and I wish I was less foggy on the details but I read this comment on Reddit by a purported neuroscientist or some such who was talking about how we don't actually enjoy social media. They described basically what you've said. We take the actions and get the tiny reward and our brain gets a little jolt of there you did it but when it comes right down to it we don't actually enjoy the activity. More importantly, we're no more satisfied when we finish the activity than we were when we started, we just do it because we've become conditioned to. I suppose a more concrete source would be the Extra Credits video on Skinner Boxes: this video
These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. To an algorithm, or a metric, even miserable feeling variable schedule or reward addiction looks like "engagement." So if there's "engagement" and money, why should companies do anything different? this video So how is it that games which have "art" don't come along, charge a bit less money, and win in the marketplace? I guess the argument can be made that they do, but they're in the minority. I wonder if there aren't also generational issues? Maybe the environment of today, where even young people have tablets and smartphones is just a different one?