engagement, while reserving anticipation, gratification, and advancement, as part of the in- experience mechanics, cleverly adding periodic payment, or delay in engagement experience, as part of the design - this is the core focus of module seven.
Monetization Gameplay Mechanics
In this module, participants are connected to emerging monetization strategies used by King™ and other video game production companies as a means of displaying how monetization models can connect to the structure of a video game’s enjoyment, progress, and completion. An introduction to semiotics of monetization in video games is provided in module 7, though this week intends on giving students extra time to consider the other mechanics covered in the previous module. It also serves as an historical and statistical module for participants, outlining some of the trending video game design models such as the ‘freemium’ model, which affords free game play, with the aforementioned monetization strategies; ‘social gaming’, which connects the monetization model to web 2.0 technologies for the purposes of drawing in more participants; ‘virtual currencies’, which afford participants the ability to ‘spend’ and ‘collect’ a non-physical currency as a means of achieving progress; and ‘embedded advertising campaigns’ as part of design in mobile development (Shokrizade, 2013). Some statistical information surrounding how much revenue is collected from the ‘freemium’ model is also detailed in this module.
When it comes to the semiotics and cultural models of monetization, there are basic concepts that form the foundation of many video games using monetization mechanics. These include coercive monetization, premium currencies, skill games, money games, reward removal,
progress gates, soft boosts, hard boosts, and ante games (Shokrizade, 2013). These concepts are also able to add to the instructional design discourse, though the implementation may seem more leaning toward financial gain.
The cultural model of monetization is relatively new in video game design, as it is a direct result of a newer, iterative method of content distribution. As such, this module introduces participants to one specific monetization model as it pertains to some puzzle-based video games.
The semiotics of the monetization model covered in this module are significant, because the details of this cultural model highlight how some game designers have been able to weave in rules that call on participants to ‘have to do’ certain things in order to progress through the experience. The small caveat to this method of monetization is that, while the affordances of a purchase are available without a purchase, the path to obtaining those affordances can be made to appear as though it would be much simpler to purchase affordances.
Coercive Monetization. Coercive monetization, in video game design, refers to an idea of compelling players to participate in a game through the purchase of some kind of helpful in- game tool, which often allows them to acquire in-game affordances faster than participants who wish to obtain those same affordances without the use of money. This is evident in free-to-play games such as Candy Crush Saga™, DOTA 2™, and Duelyst™. In the aforementioned
examples, the tradeoff for acquisition of in-game affordances is time, in that; players must spend quite a bit of real-life time to acquire the same affordances of those who choose to purchase affordances. Ported into instructional design, coercive monetization can be effective in
instructional design, without the use of money, were the affordances given to participants who choose to put in extra real-life time into consuming materials. In this example, however, there
must be some in-game tangible way for the affordances for participants who choose not to put in time, to see the benefit that time can have on course performance.
Premium Currencies. Premium currencies, in video game design refer to the use of using ‘real money’ to purchase an in-game currency, specific to the game. This technique is a means of persuading players to blur the departure of funds between ‘real money’ and ‘fake money’. Ported into instructional design, the creation of an in-course currency, though difficult, could have successful scholastic integration, provided there were benefits to the currency within the context of the institution.
Skill Games and Money Games. ‘Skill games’, in video game design, involves the direct tie-in of user ability, within the context of the experience, to progress. Money games refer to the acquisition of progress, or progressive items, through purchase. It is common that participants usually wish to progress through an experience using skill, as that was traditionally known core objective of game design, and game play. Ported into instructional design, and removing money from the instructional design, this coercive mechanic may help instructional designers craft skill- based paths for participants, making clear objectives, and consumable feedback, based on how participants can progress through curriculum.
Reward Removal. Reward removal, in video games, refers to the initial provision of all of the suggested tools, or affordances needed for successful progression, with an eventual withdrawal of those same tools, forcing participants to work through a different means, to reacquire desired tools. This includes the aforementioned coercive monetization strategies, as a means of
reacquiring the same affordances, initially provided as a ‘preview’ for potential easier experience navigation. Ported into instructional design, reward removal could exist in the form of example provision – giving participants an example of what desired outcomes for the experience are,
without giving explicit details of how one can acquire the desired outcomes, without disclosing pertinent information provided through full course navigation.
Progress Gates. Progress gates, in video game design, refer to points in an experience, where participants cannot proceed unless certain conditions are met. Progress gates are often applied as a means of requiring participants to engage in certain tasks, or display a certain level of skill in a measurable way, before being allowed to progress. Ported into instructional design, the use of prerequisites in course design are useful, but, finding ways to ensure that participants engage with materials as part of progression may better contribute to engaging with those materials in the ways desired by the designer.
Soft and Hard Boosts. Soft boosts, in video game design, are in-game affordances that have a one-time use. For example, a game designer could create an experience allowing an hour of game play to generate an in-game currency, which then can be used, once, to unlock progression. In this example, the use of the currency for progression is no longer available. Conversely, a hard boost is an in-game affordance that is persistent, in that, it remains applied for the remainder of participation, or until it is converted into another hard boost of some kind. For example, a video game may allow participants to navigate through an experience, persistently faster, once a certain in-game level is reached. Ported into instructional design, affording participants increasing, and persistent access to useful materials once certain conditions have been met, could be instrumental in the learning experience.
Ante Games. Ante games, in video game design, refer to the designing of an experience where participants can see status updates of other players, initially based on skill, where progression subtly shifts to a money game. Ported into instructional design, a progress portal for participants, where progress is shown, as it connects to the consumption of specific materials, may help
motivate other participants to consume content desired for consumption by the instructional designer.
These coercive monetization approaches can serve as a code-based method of demanding attention to certain goals and details, while still engaging participants as part of an experience. Module seven is designed to be a ‘cool down’ week after the gameplay mechanics work done in the previous module. The concept of considering all the potential affordances in an interactive experience can be one of the most difficult things for participants to understand, as this is the concept that separates the video game players, from the designers. In this module participants are asked to play two games – one that does not feature monetization mechanics, and one that does. This is a purposeful historical module, as the two games used are from different time-periods; the 2007 game Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords, is a puzzle-based action game with traditional role playing game features as a level-up system for level progression. Next, participants are asked to play, Candy Crush, another puzzle-based action game with in-app purchases as an option for level progression. The second game that participants are asked to play, Candy Crush, features the same sophisticated monetization models covered in this module.