This chapter addresses and reflects upon the limitations and delimitations of this project. I further then critically assess my work, and where improvements could be made.
Firstly, I shall address the limitations in this project. As this project has already stressed out, this project intends to observe the international market of gaming industry. This means, that sample’s mother language is not necessarily english. This poses a limitation to their ability to answer and express themselves within the survey, as the survey created is spread out in
english. Furthermore, another limitation is that I as researchers are active gamers, as well as within the community so there might be certain bias inserted unconsciously, however I tried to not include these in the research. Essentially, it is impossible to delete all of the biases, but that is also why pragmatism as philosophical standpoint fits it better. Moreover, I have gathered data from communities that I sometimes participate in discussions and engage with people like already mentioned Reddit and Discord. This poses some biases as I will use these communities to get data. These people are therefore quite likely minded as me and might not be completely representative of the sample.
There is also a limitation to the models. These models takes into consideration primarily mainstream games, as they are most successful, I can see what is mainly pushing the longevity of the project. Therefore, the graphs may not be entirely descriptive of the whole PC gaming industry.
Secondly, my delimitations are the limitations imposed by me researchers and this project topic. One of the delimitations I have set is to look purely into PC platform. The rationale behind is that different platforms, practice different variations of business models, and generally are distinct to the pc platforms.
Finally, I shall address the research from a critical standpoint and discuss what could have been done additionally or better with different approach. One of the main critiques of the project is it's changes in late stages of the project. This imposed more time constriction, making some of the decisions made rushed. Furthermore, the model for multiplayer games is rather complex. It's complexity may be something that is difficult to capture in just one graph.
5. Analysis
In the analysis part, I will analyse answers of respondents about gamers reception in relation to the theories and framework.Consequently, this give the idea of how does a business model have an impact on the reception of PC games. The main purpose of the survey is the capture the preferences and opinions of consumers. I shall ask questions, which were based on the theories, pragmatic philosophical point of view as well as my single and multiplayer revenue stream framework. The initial aim was to get at least 100 respondents, to fill up the survey.
Instead, stunning 127 respondents answered within 3 days. This part shall try to answer the
5.1. Statistics (quantitative reception)
Firstly, I will address the answers of quantitative questions about single player games.
Secondly, I shall proceed with the multiplayer one where in both single player and
multiplayer, I will contrast the theories and philosophical viewpoint with the results of the survey. Interesting results will be highlighted and then discussed further in the discussion part as the results revealed interesting information about gaming community.
5.1.1. Single player stats
As I have said in the methodology, questions have been divided into sets, where each set asks about one topic. In the single player section, there were only three sets. First question was preferences of either a paid or a free game. The player result was more in favor of paid games, 80 percent answering that they prefer paid games as they are most of the time better (Survey 2018). Second set was targeting DLCs of single player game. Based on the graph, the DLC usually are one of the factors in the business model, which helps to prolong the life of a product. I have asked whether people would return to the game if a company releases new DLC. Once again 80 percent were sure to return back, and buy the new DLC and play it (Ibid.). This question is based on the assumption that people have liked the game before returning back to it. We further then ask, whether a DLC is able to attract people to buy the game and the new DLC. Most of the people agreed, as long as the new content seemed interesting (Ibid.). This proves that companies have to some extent second chance to attract new people to their product, as well as captivate those who have been playing the original product to begin with. Consequently, the life of the product is therefore prolonged with the release of new content for a game or at least it attracts people. Finally, to the last set of questions, I have asked about user value input to the game. If a company created a n engine for their game, and allowed people to create various mods, games even, within them, 85 percent of people are most likelier to stay and continue playing the game, for instance
Skyrim, one of the most popular modded game today (Ibid.). Most people (65 percent) would not pay for this content to the users, however there are still some who would (Ibid.). This perhaps depend on the quality of this user infused value. When it came to the point where I have asked, if the company should charge money for them, 94 percent disagreed (Ibid.). This
was then followed by the question why? This question will be further dove into, in the qualitative output of the survey. This certainly have an effect on the life cycle, as it seems very important to the community to keep it user friendly. The topic of user created content and it's monetization should be kept in mind as it is an interesting topic to be discussed.
Moving on to the multiplayer stats.
5.1.2. Multiplayer stats
First question aimed towards the preference of game time monetizations. Interestingly, mostly 87 percent prefers one time buy. 10 percent though prefer the combination of a subscription and one time buy, the rest are mainly content with subscription (Ibid.). Perhaps, the 10 percentage have drawn a connection with the first question on the single player. It perhaps signifies to them that if the game is subscription based as well as paid, the staff for the game have enough funds to make the game always great, with good customer support, and constant updates of content and other things. Well the preference in this case is clear though, as people try to pay least amount of money to receive greatest product. People want companies to be altruistic, and want companies to indulge them contentwise. As it may not help company financially, it will definitely make the gamers happy.
Second question set aimed towards the free game and if they play it before knowing anything technical about it but like the concept. The answers were almost even, 55 percent of people just try it out, but the other 45 percent reads the review first (Ibid.). But for the most part review system is used in most cases as 70 percent of the sample checks reviews before playing any game (Ibid.). It seems like a common mechanism in relation to everything.
People have access to a lot of information, and even a slight investment results in people looking for reviews.
This is also quite interesting and will be also addressed in the discussion part too. Third set had focused a little bit on paid game, since 73 percent of respondents currently mainly are interested in a paid game (Ibid.). I have asked if they feel like their money was well spent, or that the product was worth it. 78 percent were quite sure that games they paid for were worth it most of the times, whereas only 6 percent disagreed (Ibid.). Now for a little bit interesting set, fourth one questioning cash shops. It is something, which is very difficult to pinpoint on the revenu stream life framework, as it can be quite damaging to the company but also
see that only two people like cash shops, whereas 30 percent dislikes it and rest 68 percent says that it depends on what is inside the cash shop (Ibid.). This question was further followed with why question and will be addressed in qualitative output as well as in the discussion. Fifth set deals with the questions about cosmetics. First two questions asked about if people have spent any real money on cosmetics and if they like that company provides updates to the cosmetic shops. For both of these questions it was rather even as 79 percent bought something in the cash shop and 80 percent are fond of the constant updates (Ibid.).
When then asked about these cosmetics being exclusively for real money only instead of game currency it was even as well. 64 people said that it makes sense whereas 63 said it is stupid (Ibid.). This is fascinating as I can see both sides of the story, one being that people understand that company needs certain revenue to prolong the longevity of the product, but also on the other there are people who feel that it's unfair that they can not get something they want simply for playing the game. One side seems to be conscious of how it works, whereas others just feel like they are being just milked out of money from every direction. This split in opinions could be perhaps related to ethics of the company. In the case of company, they try to get as close to utilitarianism making few things unavailable (self-interest) and some available (concern for others). However, when we asked if it's justifiable to buy cosmetics from cash shop of the free game, 83 percent agreed that it is (Ibid.). There is a bit of a contradiction or perhaps some of the limitations playing it's part in terms of formulating the question. Moreover, it could be just a matter of being fair. This is also something, which can be discussed in the discussion.
Finally, in the last set of the survey I was asking a lot about loot boxes as it is one of the more controversial ethical subject and relevant today. I first asked whether the community likes loot boxes, and 67 percent answered that they dislike them (Ibid.). However, most people from respondents, 55 percent have spent some money to buy or open some of these loot boxes. I suppose, buying loot boxes is mostly not preferred due to it's randomness. I have further asked, whether just buying the specific cosmetic or other items they want was easier and better for them 82 percent agreeing (Ibid.). What about others? Was it due to their consciousness to the company, knowing they wouldn't make more money or simply that they love the effect of a surprise. On the other hand, the loot boxes are random and can take several of them maybe twice or more money spent than it could have been on just buying the specific cosmetic needed. Is this some form of unethical baiting? The answers to the next two
questions were a bit more qualitatively oriented, therefore they will be included in the
qualitative output chapter. Additionally, loot boxes shall be addressed more in the discussion chapter.