Why do we pay for freemium games? Understanding the motivations of mobile gamers playing freemium and their micro-purchasing behavior of virtual goods and services.
Niek Mooij
Master’s Programme Communication Science Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam Master’s Thesis Supervisor: Dr. J.S. Lemmens Student number: 10356762 Due date: 27.03.2020 Word count: 7494
Abstract
The aim of this study is to understand the main motivations of mobile gamers to play freemium games on mobile devices and why they purchase virtual goods. Five substantially top-grossing freemium games are being analyzed to explore what motivations predicted their purchasing behaviors and the various types of virtual goods that the players buy. Accordingly, a model was created standing on both communication research and behavioral studies that presents a scientific perspective on the effects of player motivations on game enjoyment and spending behaviors on microtransactions. Cross-sectional survey data tested the model among the population that predominantly plays five top-grossing freemium games (Call of Duty, Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Fortnite and Mario Kart) and spend real money on microtransactions. Analysis of the sample, namely people aged 14-66, (N = 245), showed that the player motivations of mobile gamers predict their game enjoyment. Also, the results of this study show that there is a statistically significant mediated relationship from the need for competence through game enjoyment to spending behaviors on microtransactions.
Introduction
In recent years, loot boxes have grown from a relatively unknown in-game monetization mechanism into a billion-dollar industry in 2018 alone (Juniper research, 2018). Nowadays gamers are willing to pay real money for so-called loot boxes. These loot boxes reward the players with random virtual goods for their gameplay by making use of a lottery-mechanism that lets the player receive an item that can be used in some way in a game (Koeder and Tanaka, 2017). These virtual goods consist of items that were formerly often earned by the players and rewarded based on their in-game achievements (Macey and Hamari, 2019). According to Macey and Hamari (2019) loot boxes contain items that have the ability to alter gameplay or may be entirely decorative (e.g. skins). The value of the items, however, often holds no monetary value and when bought the items cannot be refunded. Although loot boxes are a relatively new way for players to conduct microtransactions in video games they seem to be highly controversial
already. In 2018, the Belgium government declared loot boxes to be illegal and conflicting with their national legislation due to its similarities with gambling. It seems that the contents of loot boxes are randomly determined and as a player it is impossible to know what is inside
beforehand as the chances of winning rare items are often not mentioned (Baglin, 2017). Nevertheless, free-to-play games are dominating the revenue charts in many countries around the world for example in the United-states, Russia and Japan (Statistica, 2019). In 2018 the mobile share of total gaming revenue already dominated the gaming market with 51%. The predictions are that the mobile share will continue to grow with up to 59% in 2021 (Statistica, 2019). Nowadays, the expenditure on virtual goods and other in-game content is becoming one of the biggest expenditures of online gamers and a frequently used monetization strategy for game publishers(Alha, Järvelä, Kivikangas, Koivisto, Paavilainen & Hamari, 2017; Alha,
Koskinen, Paavilainen, & Hamari, 2016; Hamari, 2015). The increasing growth rate of mobile games that are free-to-play makes the competition fiercer and the market harder to successfully penetrate for developers. To gain success on the game market publishers make use of the
freemium business model. It offers the user a version of a game that can be played freely, but the paying player will receive more content by conducting small payments. The publishers then try to upsell various in-game contents in order to generate revenue as part of their marketing strategy.
Nowadays, there is a large variety of freemium games to play and they monetize their digital selection in the way they seem fit, selling multiple virtual goods that enhance the user’s experience in return for small payments. A frequently used mechanic is the “pay-while-playing” principle that uses in-game currency to move players through “the boring parts of the game” where players have to repeatedly perform the same tasks to proceed their play. Pay-while-playing may also shift the balance of the players in such a way that paying players have an advantage over non-paying players (Heimo et al., 2018). For example, in the gameplay of Clash of Clans, a strategy game, the players have to gain resources (e.g. elixirs, gold and dark) to upgrade their ‘clan villages’ to gain in-game advantages, forcing the players to revisit the game frequently. Paying Clash of Clan players can skip time-consuming tasks by simply buying the resources for real money. The non-paying players, however, still have to gain these resources by performing the same actions repeatedly in-game. In Clash of clans, other mechanics offer the players to reduce downtime within their gameplay. In this way, the players are able to perform an activity without having to wait before continuing their play, making the game arguably more enjoyable. Freemium players can often skip these ‘downtimes’ with microtransactions
lives in order to complete levels of puzzling. When losing lives players have to wait for a period in order to get new lives but paying speeds up this process and gives access to these lives
immediately. Some monetization mechanics offer virtual goods that make players more
competent in freemium games. These games might be perceived to be hard at first but seem to be easier after a payment as these mechanics give them stronger gameplay components. These so-called boosters alter the gameplay in such a way that players get a competitive advantage over other players. In this case, the player may be more competent in the game, perceiving it as more enjoyable. In Candy Crush, a strategy puzzle game, boosters make it easier to surpass the “harder” levels in the game.
In Fortnite, a free-to-play Battle Royale title that is played on multiple platforms including mobile is an example of the successes of free-to-play gaming models. Since 2017, Fortnite is seen as one of the latest phenomena of gaming due to its substantial popularity. It successfully blends genres and elements like survival, exploration and scavenging of other games in an apocalyptic setting and combines them with a last-man-standing gameplay. Over the last years, Fortnite achieved mainstream popularity in 2018 and reached 100 million iOS five months after going mobile. That same year its revenue was estimated at 2.4 billion dollars (Business of Apps, 2019). While in-game purchases are mostly limited to non-essential items (e.g. cosmetics and skins) that only have aesthetic value, however, it has not stopped the players from spending. In order to investigate why gamers spend on micro-transactions it is important to study what these players’ motivations are in relation to their spending behavior on virtual items. Therefore, the overarching research question of this research is:
players and their spending behavior on microtransactions?
Theoretical Background
Gaming and Self-Determination TheorySelf-determination theory (SDT) represents a meta-study that establishes a framework for motivational studies. The theory is used to define human sources of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and personalities and describes the respective roles of these motivations in
cognitive- and social development and individual differences. Self-determination theory proposes how social and cultural factors drive or undermine people’s sense of willpower and ideas, in addition to their wellbeing and the quality of their accomplishments. (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In essence, it proposes what facilitates people’s behaviors and triggers them into action, as well as how their behaviors are regulated in different domains of their lives.
Self-determination theory focuses on psychological level, thus using people’s perception, cognitions, emotions, and needs as predicting behavioral outcomes by defining these needs as competence, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The supporting conditions of the individual’s experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness discuss the ability to foster the most volitional and high-quality motivations and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Self-determination theory has proven to be a useful theory that tries to explain the gratifications of the needs of players (Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Recent studies show that elements of video games that enhance autonomy, competence and relatedness foster similarities from Self-determination theory’s conceptual model of need satisfaction. Hence, research shows that video games are played because they tend to stress hedonic gratifications, but also provide individuals
with experiences that are meaningful and appreciated. (Oliver, Bowman, Woolley, Rogers, Sherrick & Chung, 2016). Meaningful games are therefore not only being seen as “fun” or enjoyable but will also provide the player with feelings of added insight. This also explains why people’s individual differences may alter the liking of different properties of a game. The importance of video games will differently gratify the needs of the individual player and according to the Self-determination theory will therefore value quantities of competence, autonomy and relatedness (Oliver et al., 2016).
Self-determination theory explains why players perceive higher levels of gratified needs than others. On some occasions this may mean that some video games are more difficult to play than others, but research shows that more facets affect how motivated a player is. Research shows that different features of games, like genre and quality of the game impact the
gratifications of needs (Ryan et al., 2006). They also suggest that the relevant facets of games were intuitive controlling the game character and the fact that intuitive control leads to higher feelings of competence and autonomy. Games, however, mostly are controlled in different ways, depending on the game genres. Therefore, it is of importance that the focus of gamer’s
gratifications of needs is studied as different games (e.g. shooters, strategy, puzzle, building and racing) may gratify different needs. In some games the player is able to customize characters, their perks and the type of items. In Call of Duty players are to choose different loadouts to play with, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Some players may be more motivated to unlock certain elements to play with (e.g. guns, cars, perks, heroes etc.) so they can customize their gameplay the way they intend to. Eventually, this could motivate the player to play a game more often, because these elements have to be achieved first. Study shows that when the focus is more on the game play, players indicate that they feel higher levels of competence and autonomy
(Oliver et al., 2016). Other research of Tamborini and colleagues (2010) indicates that the more comprehensive the control was, the more a player felt competence and autonomy while playing a game. Controls of a game differ greatly, but it seems that comprehensive controls make the player feel more in control and therefore gratifies the needs of competence and autonomy. Needs for relatedness are gratified by other components of video games. Different games gratify relatedness in different ways. For example, some games have a multiplayer mode that can be played together with other players. By doing so the individual gamer may relate more to the players of that game to players of another game, since they have a higher level of relatedness with these players. In this way, the shared gameplay and experiences may trigger the individual player to be more motivated to continue their play. Research of Ryan et al., (2006) and
Tamborini et al., (2010), showed that playing a video game with another person enhanced higher levels of relatedness. These findings applied to online multiplayer games, but also for games with a human co-player playing along. Another remarkable study result shows that when video games focus substantially on the development of the characters and the storyline of the game, the need for relatedness is gratified and facilitates meaningfulness (Przybylski et al., 2010). This means that players do not solely relate to other players that play the same games, but also with the characters they play the game with.
In order for a free-to-play game to be a success and gain popularity it has to be played by many players globally. For development teams this means they have to continuously gratify the needs of their players worldwide by developing new meaningful content (e.g. storylines, items, skins, maps etc.). Meaningful content development for free-to-play games is a delicate matter as most gamers seem to be a critical audience. Collaborations with players are important to
updating these games. Updates may improve the quality of these games, leading to more player enjoyment, but may sometimes backfire as well. Studies found that elements of gaming affect player enjoyment. Ryan et al., (2006) offers evidence of a conceptual model that predicts game enjoyment by the satisfaction of the needs; autonomy, competence of the self-determination theory. In Ryan et al., (2006) the model of game enjoyment starts with a path from game characteristics to the satisfaction of needs that predict positive paths from game controls to competence and autonomy. Moreover, it predicts a positive path from social play context to relatedness. Also, Oliver and colleagues (2016) found that increased control over the player’s in-game avatar was positively associated with enjoyment. Figure 1 depicts a model that outlines the hypothesized relationships. Respectively, the direct pathways (e.g. I, II and III) visualize gamers’ needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness to game enjoyment. The direct pathways (e.g. IV, V and VI), however, may explain the direct relationship between game enjoyment and its impact on spending behaviors. The paths (e.g. VII, VIII, IX) visualize the total effect (c’) between motivations and spending behaviors mediated by game enjoyment, but also the direct from game motivations to spending behaviors.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Taking these findings into account we may argue that it is of importance to study the motivations of gamers. To be more specific, the freemium business model has proven to be very
successful by offering virtual goods. Micro-transactions of virtual goods may offer extra value that alters the gameplay of the player. In this way, it seems plausible that their needs are satisfied by virtual goods due to micro-transactions. This study looks into the players’ main motivations of five top-grossing. The first sub question is:
RQ1: What are the main motivations of mobile gamers to play five top-grossing freemium games?
The Freemium-business Model and Monetization Mechanics
In essence, freemium games are free to play in their most basic form (Hamari & Järvinen, 2011; Kumar, 2014). It is not necessary to pay access money in order to play the game, as it solely requires a device that supports the game and access to the internet. New players are getting acquainted to a game by a guided gameplay, making it easier and fun to start playing. The mobile characteristics of these games make the game easy to download whenever a player is connected to an internet connection and may be played as intensely as the player wishes
(Harviainen, Ojasalo & Kumar, 2018; Juul, 2010). Most freemium games opt social play in their game designs as well, as they can be played in a multiplayer setting with million players at the same time. The multiplayer component of freemium games is seen as the core principle of mobile gaming due to its popularity. An important marketing strategy of the freemium gameplay is to attract as many new players by means of viral marketing and commodification (Nieborg, 2015).
Free-to-play and freemium business models are closely related. An evident difference is that the free-to-play model is not entirely free of charge and may have a limited gameplay while freemium offers a fully functioning game that offers additional content by paying
micro-transactions (Hamari et al., 2017). Freemium games can be played and downloaded free of charge including a set of basic functions attached to it (Teece, 2010). Typical of freemium games is that the storyline and the narrative being told seems to be an ongoing one that gives the game an open ending, making it easier for the developers to create new storylines. Software companies seem to favor the free-to-play and freemium business model whereas many companies sample free trial versions of their software that could be converted to full versions when purchased. The freemium game market is rapidly growing worldwide and seems to compete with more traditional monetization mechanics of online gaming. Firstly, the classical models seem to have dominated the market for many years especially one-time payment and subscription-based models. These models demand financial investments before the user is allowed to play the game. In the freemium model the core of the game is free to play, but some gameplay elements might be restricted in some way or is simply made more difficult to play without making micro-transactions. Secondly, a monetization mechanic that is often used in freemium gaming is to make the players pay to keep playing. Most freemium games contain so-called time locks that hinder the progress in the game but paying unlocks the possibility to speed up the gameplay (Hamari, Hanner & Koivisto, 2017; Salminen, Järvelä & Ravaja, 2018). To this extent, Altit (2013) distinguishes two categories are distinguished freemium games in two categories based on their monetization mechanics: “pay or wait” and “free to download but not necessarily free to play” (e.g. Clash of Clans and Candy Crush). Thirdly, freemium games display listings of virtual goods in their online marketplace, containing a large variety of virtual goods that can be bought for real money. By exchanging real currency for virtual currency or goods, players are able to enhance their personal gameplay with specific virtual goods that they prefer. Actually, offering virtual goods is considered to be the most popular monetization technique used in the current
freemium gaming landscape. (Marchand & Hennig-Thurau, 2013). According to Paavilainen and colleagues (2013) there are two advantages in selling virtual goods rather than restricting
content. Firstly, the virtual goods fluctuate in pricing as they are being sold to players with different preferences that are willing to pay different prices for the offered goods. Secondly, the freemium business model opens up for further segmentation of different players, due to the free-to-play character of the games, virtual goods can be tailored to different audiences (Paavilainen et al., 2013).
Purchasing Virtual Goods
Monetization mechanics in freemium games commercialize processes that video game publishers can use to generate revenue, offering playable contents (DLC), cosmetic options and often virtual goods. The selling of virtual goods as a monetization mechanic is one the most popular among game companies and an attractive method to convert sales in freemium games, because of their low prices (Hamari et al., 2017). Instead of selling a premium membership that arguably costs around 5-10 euros a month, buying virtual goods for 1-2 euro per item each player may outperform the monthly revenue of a subscription-based system. The micro-transactions of virtual goods can be divided in four categories based on functionality, namely: 1) downloadable content; new levels and characters, 2) convenience; something that is hard to achieve by not paying, 3) competitive advantage; increasing strength or become better by getting more power and 4) customization; personalizing characters or gameplay with skins (Luton, 2013).
The need to examine these virtual goods is due to their increasing importance in mobile gaming. In this paragraph the various virtual goods are examined more closely in order to differentiate and categorize them. Virtual goods are most commonly characterized as digital in-game objects which are only usable within the in-game environment. They, however, exist in many
forms and this applies for their functionality as well (Lehdonvirta & Hamari, 2010). For
example, games that sell them include extra lives, clothes for an avatar, more powerful weapons or tools in their gameplay ( Lehdonvirta & Hamari, 2010; Lehdonvirta, 2009). Some of them may have the ability to alter the gameplay of players in all sorts of ways, depending on the game that is being played. Functional virtual goods have the ability to enhance the player’s in-game skill by making the player stronger due to in-game advantages, thus making the player more efficient in the game (Novak et al., 2013). In Candy Crush, for example, these so-called boosters are very popular because they may have the ability to affect the outcome of the game because they boost the gameplay, letting the player pass the level. Other virtual goods are solely used for customization goals as they are mainly decorative and give the player’s character no in-game advantages, other than unique appearances, characters, outfits, in-game emotions, carts etc. These so-called skins are solely decorative as they contain no functionality that affects game performance whatsoever (Novak et al., 2013). Skins may be considered important to the gaming community as they are in-game items, often with a real-world monetary value, that have the ability to alter the appearance of the game elements.
To some researchers, arguably, loot boxes are also perceived as virtual goods because they may contain virtual items as well. Although not knowing what is inside, the player often decides to purchase loot boxes because they might contain valuable functional or decorative items. Skins and other virtual goods are used in forms of gambling in two ways. The first is by replacing real-world currency as participations in entrenched gambling enterprises, ranging from simulated coin-flipping to playing poker (Macey & Hamari, 2018; Gainsbury et al., 2014; Martinelli, 2017; Woodford, 2013). The second methods are used to approach newly appearing modes of gambling, most of which cannot be directly accessed with any other form of currency.
By closely examining how gaming companies generate revenue with microtransactions of virtual goods and other monetization mechanics of freemium mobile games need to be classified and analyzed. The following third research question is developed accordingly.
RQ 2: What are the most popular monetization mechanics of five top-grossing freemium games that can be conducted by microtransactions?
Methods
Sample
In this study a cross-sectional survey design was selected for its adequacy for measuring game enjoyment, motivations and monetization mechanics of a large quantity of people (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, an individually operated, web-based questionnaire that can be self-completed should enable the transparency of respondents for questions that contain more sensitive topics and ask for a more delicate approach like one’s gaming preferences (Fowler, 2014). The data collection was published on the 7th of January and closed on the 24th of January 2020 and from the 26th of February until the 13th of March. In total 302 respondents were collected. After clearing responses 47 participants were non-gamers and got excluded in the early stages of the questionnaire. Other participants did not manage to finish the survey or did not fill in any questions on the essential variables of this study and therefore got excluded from further analysis. This resulted in a total of (N = 245) who provided us with relevant data.
Data of all 245 participants was used to answer the research questions and hypothesized relationships between the variables; player motivations, game enjoyment, monetization
mechanics and spending behaviors of five top-grossing games. The participants that filled out the survey characterized themselves as gamers and at least play one freemium mobile game monthly.
Of the respondents 59 gamers indicated to play Mario Kart (mobile) (24.1%), 42 gamers indicated to play Clash of Clans (mobile) (17.1%), 39 respondents played COD (mobile) (15.9%), 37 respondents played Fortnite (mobile) (15.1%), 36 participants played Candy Crush (14.7%) and 32 gamers indicated to play other mobile games (13.1%). When looking into platforms, 102 gamers reported to like mobile platforms the most (41.6%), 70 gamers preferred consoles over other platforms (28.6%), 47 gamers like PC (or laptop) the most (19.2%), 13 gamers indicated to like handheld the most (5.3%) and 13 gamers answered to like another platform the most (5.3%). Descriptive statistics show that when it comes to genre 53 gamers liked shooting games the most (21.6%), 38 gamers liked MMORPG/RPG the best (15.5%), 33 gamers liked action genres the most (13.5%), 29 gamers indicated to like the racing genre the best (11.8%), 27 gamers are puzzlers (11%), 16 prefer sport games over other genres (6.5%), 15 gamers preferably played board games (6.1%) and 34 gamers like other genres the best (13.9%). The age sample was reported that all respondents were between a minimum of 14 years old and a maximum of 66 years old, with an average of 25.36 (SD = 7.16).
Procedure
The survey was created with the help of Qualtrics software, a commonly-used survey program at the University of Amsterdam, (www.qualtrics.com) and before publication it was pilot-tested on a small convenience sample (N = 5) of containing mostly emerging adults to determine possible shortcomings that could compromise the research and amending the internal validity of the survey. As soon as the visual enhancements, the survey flow and the
comprehensibility of the items of the questionnaire were improved, the full version of the survey was published and then advertised. On account of a shortage of a sampling frame, the
gaming aged 14-66 using mostly social media posts, email, messenger and WhatsApp. Since (mobile) gamers are hard to reach the usage of gaming fora and chats were used to spread the survey further. Despite the ambiguity of evidence for the (in)effectiveness of incentives (Goritz, 2010), this study included a charity induced message in order to strive to counter the growing survey weariness (Fowler, 2014).
To inform the respondents about their rights, conform to the ethical guidelines regarding this research, the online questionnaire (in Qualtrics) briefly explained the purpose of the study. Also, it informed the respondents that the study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Amsterdam safeguarding their anonymity and asked for the informed consent to participate in the research with the possibility to opt-out of the research at any given time during the research. After giving their consent, participants enrolled in the survey and were given a definition of gaming in order to create a more unilateral understanding of the subject.
Accordingly, the survey proceeded with four items about game enjoyment, genre, platform-type and which of the following top-grossing mobile games (e.g. Clash of Clans, Call of Duty, Fortnite, Candy Crush Saga or Mario Kart) they played.
Measures
Game Enjoyment
The respondents were asked about the enjoyment of video games in general, measuring the amount of joy the player perceives while playing a game. Respondents were questioned to indicate to what extent they would agree or disagree with statements such as “I find video games fun”, “I find video games enjoyable”, “I find video games entertaining” and “I find video games interesting” (Song, Peng & Lee, 2011). An overview of all items can be found in the appendices (A). The four items of Game Enjoyment were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly disagree - 5 = Strongly agree) and these were answered by all 245 participants. The mean scale was computed to measure this variable and reported good reliability, Cronbach’s alpha = .92. On average the sample scored (M = 4.53 SD = 0.69).
Motivations of mobile gamers
The respondents were asked about their motivations to play a mobile game (Appendix A). These motivations are measured by 12-items in total, measuring competence (4-items), autonomy (4-items) and relatedness (4-items) adapted from the Player Experience of Need Satisfaction scale and the Basic Needs Satisfaction At Work scale (Ryan et al., 2006; Deci et al., 2001). They were questioned to what extent they would agree with the 12 statements, asking about competence, autonomy and relatedness of their most played mobile game on a five-point likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree - 5 = Strongly agree). These scales were altered to fit the essential motivations for each specific game. All items of the games showed scores that are considered to be reliable enough to be included in the data set and no items had to be removed. Competence Chronbach’s alpha showed (� = .66) for (M = 4.07, SD = .72), Autonomy (� = .74) for (M = 3.66, SD = .88) and Relatedness (� = .84) for (M = 3.51, SD = 1.06).
Spending behavior on microtransactions
This variable measures to what extent the respondents spent real money on
microtransactions in freemium mobile games. Spending behavior is measured by two items. The first item “When I play (game), I spend money on virtual goods or services?” is measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never - 5 = always). Of all participants (n = 233), (M = 2.31, SD = 1.32). Of the participants that filled out this questionnaire (n = 233), 84 participants indicated that they have never spent on microtransactions (36.1%). 149 participants, however, did spend real money on games (63.9%). The second item questioned “How much money, on average, have you spent
on (type of game)?” This question had an open-input character, so the gamers had to make an estimation of the average total amount they have spent on microtransactions while playing. The amount of money spent was relatively high and varied (M = 103.13, SD = 256.83). The range of the amount of money spent on these micropayments started at 3 euros and reached an amount of 2900 euros. The participants noted that they spent the amount of 10 euros most frequently on a game. For analysis, this (2900) outlier was removed to contribute towards a more realistic data set.
Monetization mechanics.
These mechanics were gathered by exploring the optional virtual goods and other mechanics (or services) that the player was able to purchase in the virtual stores of the aforementioned games (Hamari et al., 2017). Firstly, Clash of Clans players could buy “Resource Packs (resources), Town-Hall/Builder-Hall Starter packs (boosters), Clan Gifts (resources), Magic Item packs, Gold Passes and Pass Down time (boosters)”. Secondly, Call of Duty offers monetization packs in their in-game marketplace as well. The packs included “Season Weapon rates (skins), The Royal Crimson crates (skins), Prophet Soldier crates (skins) and Premium passes”. Thirdly, Fortnite mostly offers “Gliders (skins), Picks (skins), Costumes (skins) and a Season pass. Fourthly, Candy Crush values different monetization mechanics like “Lives (Pass down time), Boosters and New episodes”. Fifthly, in Mario Kart the players are to make purchases as well like “Gold Pass, Special packs (skins, boosters and resources) and Value packs (resources)”. The
monetization mechanics were subdivided among four general categories, namely loot boxes, boosters, skins and resources.) that could be purchased in mobile game marketplaces The general tendency was that there were four general monetization mechanics included in all of these games that were profitable through microtransactions.
Demographics
To conclude the questionnaire, participants were asked to fill in some demographic questions, such as gender, age and their current employment status. There are many empirical studies that have sufficient statistical proof to believe that gender and employment have a close relationship with playing video games and could therefore affect the main variables of the research (Pfister, 2011; Bavelier et al., 2011). Gender shows there was an overrepresentation of 136 male respondents (55.5%) compared to 86 women (35.1%), 6 non-binary (2.4%) and 17 of them preferred not to report their gender (6.9%). Of all respondents 88 reported to be a student (35.9%) compared to 79 respondents who work in full-time jobs (32.2%), 32 reported to have part-time jobs (13.1%), 18 were unemployed (7.3%), 2 were retired (0.8%) and 26 of the respondents indicated that they had another employment status (10.6%). This data allows us to differentiate between possible subgroups of the sample. Segmentation of groups may eventually lead to new insights that may have been overlooked when analyzing the accumulated data of this study.
Results
Before the main research question is answered, it is important to determine what the main motivations of mobile gamers are to play five top-grossing freemium games. To understand the motivations of Clash of Clans, Call of Duty, Fortnite, Candy Crush and Mario Kart we have to examine how the measures of competence, autonomy and relatedness statistically relate towards each other. The One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to measure whether there are statistically significant differences between the means of the games. In total, three one-way ANOVAs were performed to assess the means of the need for competence, autonomy and relatedness for each game.
Table 1.
For the need for competence, the test of Homogeneity of Variances shows that equal variances were assumed, Levene’s F(5, 239) = .731, p = .601. Taking these assumptions into account the ANOVA is consulted, claiming that there was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined F(5, 239) = 12.19, p < .001. Post-hoc tests, meeting LSD criteria, were consulted to examine the differences between the games better. When comparing the need for competence of the different freemium games and how all these games relate to each other, it was found that gamers who play Clash of Clans statistically significantly differed from Call of Duty players and Candy Crush players, p < .05. The need for competence of Clash of Clans, however, not significantly differed from Fortnite, Mario-Kart and “other” category, p > .05. The need for competence of Call of Duty, however, shows that gamers who play Call of Duty significantly differed from Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. Call of Duty did not significantly differ from Fortnite, p > .05. The need for Competence of Fortnite, however,
difference was found when comparing Fortnite with Clash of Clans and Call of Duty, p > .05. The need for competence of Candy Crush shows that it significantly differed from all other groups, p < .05. The need for competence of gamers who play Mario Kart statistically significantly differed from those who play Call of Duty, Fortnite and Candy Crush, p < .05. There was no statistical difference found between the need for competence of Mario Kart and the players of Clash of Clans and the “other” category, p > .05. When comparing the need for
competence of the “other” category we see that it statistically significantly differed with Call of Duty, Fortnite and Candy Crush, p < .05. No significant differences were found between the “other” category Clash of Clans and Mario Kart p > .05.
Figure 2. Graph chart with the mean scores of the need for competence on the Y-axis and the most recently played top-grossing freemium games on the X-axis.
For the need for autonomy, it should be noted that the test of homogeneity of variances showed that equal variances were assumed, F(5, 239) = .395, p = .852. In this case, we consult the ANOVA, claiming that there was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined F(5, 239) = 16.10, p < .001. The post-hoc test, meeting LSD criteria, is being
consulted to study the differences between the need for autonomy for five top-grossing freemium games. When comparing the need for autonomy of the five-top grossing games and how these relate to each other, it was found that players of Clash of Clans statistically significantly differed from players that played Call of Duty, Fortnite, Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. The need for autonomy of Call of Duty players was found to be significantly different from Clash of Clans and Candy Crush, p < .05. However, no differences were found when comparing the need for autonomy of Call of Duty players with Fortnite, Mario Kart and “other”, p > .05. Fortnite, however, shows statistically significant differences with Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. No significant differences were found between the need for autonomy of Fortnite and Call of Duty, p > .05. The need for autonomy of Candy Crush significantly differed compared to all other games, p < .05. Finally, in Mario Kart, however, there were no statistical differences found between Call of Duty and “other”, p > .05.
Figure 3. Graph chart with the mean scores of the need for autonomy on the Y-axis and the five most recently played top-grossing freemium games.
For the need for relatedness, the test of homogeneity of variances shows that equal variances were assumed, Levene’s F (5, 239) = 1.26, p = .281. As this assumption is not violated the results suggest that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups as determined F(5, 239) = 12.95, p < .001. The results of the post-hoc test, meeting LSD criteria, showed that the need for relatedness of Clash of Clans significantly differed from Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. The results, however, found that the need for relatedness of Clash of Clans showed no significant difference compared to Call of Duty and Fortnite. The need for relatedness of Call of Duty showed significant differences when compared to Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. In comparison, the need for autonomy of Call of
Duty did not show significant differences with Fortnite and Clash of Clans, p > .05. The need for relatedness of Fortnite players significantly differed from Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Mario Kart and “other”, p < .05. In comparison with Call of Duty no statistically significant difference was found for this variable, p > .05. The need for relatedness of Candy Crush significantly differed from Clash of Clans, Call of Duty, Fortnite and “other”, p < .05, but not for Mario Kart, p > .05. For Mario Kart players, the need for relatedness significantly differed from Clash of
Clans, Call of Duty, Fortnite and “other”, p < .05. For the “other game” group, it
Figure 4. Graph chart with the mean scores of the need for relatedness on the Y-axis and the five most recently played top-grossing freemium games.
The most popular monetization mechanics of five top-grossing freemium games are examined by zooming in on the spending behaviors of the gamers, as data is gathered from all participants. Based on the analyses it is possible to distinguish different virtual goods that the Clash of Clans, Call of Duty, Fortnite, Candy Crush and Mario Kart offer, comparing players and their spending behaviors with each other. Of all participants (n = 149) conducted
microtransactions on virtual goods. 84 respondents indicated that they have never paid money on a freemium game or virtual goods before (36.1 %). Table 2 gives an overview of all the
Table 2.
Overview of spending behaviors on microtransactions and different monetization mechanics of five top-grossing freemium games.
relationships between gamers’ motivations to play freemiums games and their spending
behaviors on microtransactions. Therefore, this conceptual model had to be tested on statistical significance by a simple mediation model that tested all pathways at once, calculating direct, indirect and total effects of these relationships by bootstrapping the analysis (testing the conceptual model on 5000 iterations).
For competence, pathway I (a) showed that the need from competence significantly predicted game enjoyment β = .292, t (146) = 4.31, p < .001. The need for competence also explained a significant proportion of variance in game enjoyment scores F (1, 146) = 18.58, p = < .01, R2 = .11. Pathway IV (b) showed the relationship of both competence and game
enjoyment predicting outcome variable spending behavior. Analysis showed no significant relationship from game enjoyment to spending behavior on microtransactions, β = -10.48, t(145) = -.61, p = .55. Pathway VII (c’), however, showed a significant relationship of competence and game enjoyment on spending behaviors was significant, β = 41.87, t (145) = 2.78, p < .05. The variance explained 5 % for the need for competence to spending behaviors, F (2, 145) = 3.93, p < .001, R2 = .05. The relationship between competence and spending behaviors VII (c) showed a significant relationship, β = 38.80, t (146) = 72.74, p < .01.
For autonomy, pathway II (a) showed that autonomy had a positive significant
relationship, thus predicted game enjoyment β = .12, t (146) = 2.39, p < .05. It, however, showed that only 4 % of the variance was explained from autonomy toward game enjoyment, F (1, 146) = 5.69, p = < .01, R2 = .04. Pathway V (b) showed no significant relationships between
autonomy and game enjoyment on spending behaviors, β = 2.67, t (145) = .016, p = .88.
and game enjoyment toward spending behavior, β = 9.95, t (145) = .91, p = .36. The pathway VIII (c) showed that there was no significant relationship between autonomy and spending behavior β = 10.28, t(146) = .97, p = .34.
For relatedness regression showed that pathway III (a) had a positive relationship toward game enjoyment, β = .18, t (146) = 3.89, p < .001. It also shows that 9% of the variance of relatedness to game enjoyment is explained, F (1, 146) = 15.17, p < 001, R2 = .09. After analysis, indicating pathway VI (b), it showed that relatedness and game enjoyment were not predictors of statistically significant relationships toward spending behavior, β = .109, t (145) = .06, p = 95. Path IX (c’) showed the coefficient, β = 8.70, t (145) = .86, p = .39, thus no significance. The variance of relatedness and game enjoyment to spending behavior showed to be less that .06%, F (2,145) = .42, p = .66, R2 = .006. The relationship of relatedness toward spending behavior, path IX (c), it was found that there was no statistical significant relationship between these variables, β = 8.89, t(146) = .92, p = .36.
*p <.01, ** p <.001
Firstly, the importance of the gratification of mobile gamers’ intrinsic needs is essential to study the motivational satisfaction of freemium gamers and the relationship with their
spending behaviors on microtransactions. Motivational theories like the self-determination theory could provide a useful framework to study the satisfaction of psychological needs and intrinsic motivations of mobile games. The need for competence, autonomy and relatedness, deriving from the Self-determination theory of Ryan & Deci (2011), provides a useful
framework that should be deployed to unravel the spending behaviors on microtransactions of top-grossing freemium games. Our model about the predicting value of motivational needs on behavioral outcomes has proved to be promising in successfully explaining a significant share of the variance of the intrinsic needs of players on game enjoyment and spending behaviors, and the significant paths seemed to be in line with the theory and other recent studies (Hamari et al., 2017). This suggests that when gamers are to decide whether to play a freemium game for their enjoyment, different intrinsic needs should be gratified in order to experience enjoyment and a meaningful purpose. The need for competence, autonomy and relatedness are positively linked to game enjoyment, thus predictors of game enjoyment. The need for competence, however,
showed more promising results. It seemed that it also (in)directly predicts the spending behaviors on microtransactions through game enjoyment, thus being a mediated relationship.
This study, however, partly failed to deliver sufficient evidence for the mediated relationships between the need for autonomy toward spending behaviors on microtransactions through game enjoyment and the need for relatedness toward spending behaviors on
when gamers are feeling more or less autonomous or relatedness, they spend more on or less microtransactions.
The main limitation of this study is that the motivations of 5 different freemium games are all gratified by different game mechanics, making it hard to generalize the outcomes of the motivations. Even though the items of competence, autonomy and relatedness seemed reliable, the freemium games all contained different in-game mechanics, designs, story lines and genres, making it hard to standardize the measures of competence, autonomy and relatedness. In order to measure these items, the survey was specifically designed (tailored) to reflect the most important gamers gratifications needs of that specific game, but these needs seemed to be all gratified in a different way accordingly.
Another limitation can be found in the sample size of the gamers that actually spend on microtransactions. Many respondents that filled in the survey were considered to be gamers but only a small sample size reported what amount they did spend on microtransactions. This made it very hard to retrieve sufficient useful data about the specific monetization mechanics that led to the purchase of virtual goods. Also, it seemed that the offerings of virtual goods packages in the marketplaces vary over the time. This seemed to have happened during the data-collection phases of this present study. Some gamers indicated to have bought different packages that were not adopted in the questionnaire at all as they were “new”.
The final limitation has to be considered as a minor limitation. It can be found in the overlap of monetization mechanics categories in the freemium games. As proposed, many monetization mechanics offer specific virtual goods (e.g. only skins or only boosters), but many of them are ought to be offered as loot boxes. This makes it substantially difficult to categorize the mechanics based on their characteristics.
Several practical implications can be derived from this study. Understanding the
relationships between motivations, enjoyment and spending behaviors of freemium games better could contribute to the interests of game developers and gamers better, translating the promising potentials of co-creation. Also, the commercial and non-commercial developers of games could benefit from an elaborate study on motivations to design their games substantially better in order to fit the needs of the players. Finally, although loot boxes are considered to be controversial according to the legislation of some countries, designing new monetization mechanics should be implemented in the design of games in order to successfully increase the revenue of these gaming companies by offering ethical approved virtual goods that enhances the gameplay of most freemium players.
References
Alha, K., Koskinen, E., Paavilainen, J., & Hamari, J. (2016, August). Critical Acclaim and Commercial Success in Mobile Free-to-Play Games. In DiGRA/FDG.
Altit, M. (2013). The Freemium APProach to Children in the iOS App Market Economy. http://www.bakercyberlawcentre.org/2013/The_Freemium_APProach.pdf
Baglin, S. (2017) Random numbers and gaming ‘ART 108: introduction to games studies’. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/art108/announcements.html
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Han, D. H., Renshaw, P. F., Merzenich, M. M., & Gentile, D. A. (2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3135
Bowman, N. D., Oliver, M. B., Rogers, R., Sherrick, B., Woolley, J., & Chung, M. Y. (2016). In control or in their shoes? How character attachment differentially influences video game enjoyment and appreciation. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 8(1), 83- 99. https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.8.1.83_1
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. BusinessofApps (2019). Fortnite Usage and Revenue Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/fortnite-statistics/
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of educational research, 71(1), 1-27. Fowler, F. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., Hing, N., Wood, R., Lubman, D., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). The Prevalence and Determinants of Problem Gambling in Australia: Assessing the Impact of
Interactive Gambling and New Technologies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(3), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036207
Goritz, A. S. (2010). Using lotteries, loyalty points, and other incentives to increase participant response and completion. In S. D. Gosling & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research (pp. 219-233). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hamari, J., Alha, K., Järvelä, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Koivisto, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2017). Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase
motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 538-546.
Hamari, J. (2015). Why do people buy virtual goods? Attitude toward virtual good purchases versus game enjoyment. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 299-308.
Hamari, J., Hanner, N., & Koivisto, J. (2017). Service quality explains why people use freemium services but not if they go premium: An empirical study in free-to-play games. International Journal of Information Management, 37(1), 1449-1459.
Hamari, J., & Järvinen, A. (2011). Building customer relationship through game mechanics in social games. In Business, Technological, and Social Dimensions of Computer Games: Multidisciplinary Developments (pp. 348-365). IGI Global.
Harviainen, J. T., Ojasalo, J., & Kumar, S. N. (2018). Customer preferences in mobile game pricing: a service design based case study. Electronic Markets, 28(2), 191-203. Heimo, O., Harviainen, J., Kimppa, K., & Mäkilä, T. (2018). Virtual to Virtuous Money: A Virtue Ethics Perspective on Video Game Business Logic. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3408-z
Juniper Research (2018). Loot boxes & Skins Gambling to Generate A $50 Billion Industry by 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/press-releases/
loot-boxes-and-skins-gambling
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. MIT press. Koeder, M. J., & Tanaka, E. (2017). Game of chance elements in free-to-play mobile games. A freemium business model monetization tool in need of self-regulation?.
Kumar, V. (2014). Making" freemium" work. Harvard business review, 92(5), 27-29.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2009). Virtual item sales as a revenue model: identifying attributes that drive purchase decisions. Electronic Commerce Research, 9(1-2), 97–113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-009-9028-2
Lehdonvirta, V., & Hamari, J. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game mechanics create demand for virtual goods. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 5(1), 14–29. Retrieved from:
https://doaj.org/article/10ad0cd38f944ad9b1ef0e63a9ad7194
Luton, W. (2013). Free-to-play: Making money from games you give away. New Riders. Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 344–353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.027
Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). eSports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818786216
Marchand, A., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2013). Value creation in the video game industry: Industry economics, consumer benefits, and research opportunities. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 141-157.
Martinelli, D. (2017). SKIN GAMBLING: HAVE WE FOUND THE MILLENNIAL GOLDMINE OR IMMINENT TROUBLE? Gaming Law Review, 21(8), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2017.21814
Nieborg, D. (2015). Crushing Candy: The Free-to-Play Game in Its Connective Commodity Form. Social Media + Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115621932
Novak, N. M., Mladenow, A., & Strauss, C. (2013, December). Avatar-based innovation processes-are virtual worlds a breeding ground for innovations?. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services (p. 174). ACM.
Oliver, M., Bowman, N., Woolley, J., Rogers, R., Sherrick, B., & Chung, M. (2016). Video Games as Meaningful Entertainment Experiences. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000066
Paavilainen, J., Alha, K., & Korhonen, H. (2015). Domain specific playability problems in social network games. International Journal of Arts & Technology, 8(4), 282–306. Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., Stenros, J., & Kinnunen, J. (2013). Social network games: Players’ perspectives. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6), 794-820.
Pfister, R. (2011). Gender effects in gaming research: a case for regression residuals?. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(10), 603-606.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0547
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 154-166.
spellbound: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound. AbC-CLIo.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. M. (2000). The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319–338.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344-360.
Salminen, M., Järvelä, S., & Ravaja, N. (2018). Economic decision-making in free-to-play games: A laboratory experiment to study the effects of currency conversion. In GamiFIN (pp. 92-99).
Song, H., Peng, W., & Lee, K. (2011). Promoting Exercise Self-Efficacy With an Exergame. Journal of Health Communication, 16(2), 148–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.535107
Statistica (2019). Mobile gaming - statistics and facts. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/topics/1906/mobile-gaming/
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic Needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
EVE online. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on EVE Online (pp. 39-46).
Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in this study as part of my master thesis under supervision of the Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam.
In this survey, you will be asked several questions about mobile gaming, your motivations, game enjoyment, and purchasing behavior. The aim of this study is to gain insights in the motivations, enjoyment and spending behaviors of freemium gamers.
This survey will take approximately 5 minutes.
At the end of this survey, you will be asked about your preference for a charity. After data-analysis is completed, 30 euros will be donated to the charity with the most votes. In this way, I hope to return the favor.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to other parties under any conditions. Also, your IP address will remain anonymous and will not be registered for any reason whatsoever.
2) You can refuse participation in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. Also, I would like to point out that if you are to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in this research for any reason whatsoever, do not hesitate to contact me. If so, please give register the beginning and the
ending time of your participation in this survey and your responses will be erased from the data set.
3) Participating in the research will not entail you being subjected to any appreciable risk, the research will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any offensive material.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl
We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.
Kind regards,
N. Mooij
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done in such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact dhr. Dr. J.S. Lemmens; j.s.lemmens@uva.nl
Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl
- I understand and accept what is mentioned above and I agree with participating in this study
- I do not wish to participate (>> end of survey)
I. DEMOGRAPHICS
Q1. What is your age in years? Q2. What is your gender?
- Male - Female - Non-binary - I prefer not to tell
- Employed full-time (38 hours a week or more) - Employed part-time (less then 38 hours a week) - Unemployed
- Student - Retired
- Other, please specify… (text input)
II. GAME ENJOYMENT
GE1. A video game is commonly known as an electronic game experience that enables interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a two- or three-dimensional video display such as a touchscreen, virtual reality headset, monitor or (TV) set (e.g. console, PC, laptop, mobile, handheld).
5-point Likert scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
GE1_1 I find video games fun GE1_2 I find video games enjoyable
GE1_3 I find video games entertaining GE1_4 I find video games interesting
III. FUNNEL QUESTIONS GAMING
G1. Have you played at least one video game in the last month? - Yes
- No (>> end of survey)
G2. When do you play video games mostly? - During the week
- Only in the weekend - Both
G3. At which age have you started playing video games? - (text input)
G3. On which platform do you play most of your video games? - Console
- PC (or laptop) - Handheld - Mobile
- Other, please specify… (text input)
- Action - Shooting - Racing - Board - Sport - Puzzle - MMORPG/RPG
- Other, please specify… (text input)
G5. Which of the following video games (e.g. freemium) have you played most recently? - Clash of Clans (mobile) (>> CoC motivations)
- COD (mobile) (>> COD motivations) - Fortnite (mobile) (>> FN motivations) - Candy Crush saga (mobile) (>> CC motivations) - Mario Kart (mobile) (>> MK motivations)
- Other, please specify… (>> General gaming motivations) (text input)
IV. GENERAL GAMING MOTIVATIONS
Q40. Please tick the boxes that fit your view on the statements best regarding the game that you recently played
5-point Likert scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
Q40_1. I felt competent at the game that I recently played
Q40_2. I was able to meet the challenge of performing well in the game that I recently played
Q40_3. I felt a great sense of accomplishment in the game that I recently played Q40_4. I felt that I was effectively interacting with the game that I recently played Q40_5. The game that I recently played provided me with interesting options Q40_6. I experienced a lot of freedom in the game that I played
Q40_7. I had a lot of choices in the game that I recently played
Q40_8. I was able to play the game that I recently played in the way I wanted t
Q40_9. I find the relationships that I formed in the game that I recently played fulfilling Q40_10. I feel that the players that I care about in the game that I recently played also care about me
Q40_11. I feel connected with other players that play with me Q40_12. I experience a warm feeling towards other players
V. MONETIZATION GAMING GENERAL
Mon_gen When I play the game that I recently played, I spend money on virtual goods or services
5-point Likert scale ( 1 = Never and 5 = Always) - Never (>> end of survey)
- Sometimes (>> display additional questions) - About half of the time (>> display additional questions) - Most of the time (>> display additional questions)
- Always (>> display additional questions)
Mon_gen_2 How much money on average have you spent on this game in euros? (text input)
Mon_gen_3 When I buy virtual goods in this game, I mostly spend my money (or in-game currency) on
- Resources
- Boosters (upgrades) - Skins
- Loot boxes
- Other, please specify… (text input)
VI. CLASH OF CLANS PLAYER MOTIVATIONS
CoC_1. Please tick the boxes that fits your view on the statements best 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
CoC_1_1. In Clash of Clans it is important to me for reach TH12 (level) as quickly as Possible
CoC_1_2 In Clash of Clans it is important for me to try to unlock all (new) heroes whenever Possible
CoC_1_3 In Clash of Clans it is important to me that when I attack another player's village I collect three stars
CoC_1_4 In Clash of Clans it is important for me that I have as many builders as possible CoC_1_5 In Clash of Clans I enjoy collecting different skins for my heroes
CoC_1_6 It is important for me to build my town in a unique way
CoC_1_7 I like collecting objects or skins that have no functional value in Clash of Clans CoC_1_8 It is important to me that my town looks different from other towns
CoC_1_9 I rather play Clash of Clans with other players than by myself CoC_1_10 I am in a clan with others because we want to win the clan wars CoC_1_11 I enjoy playing Clash of Clans because I can meet other players CoC_1_12 I enjoy playing Clash of Clans because I can help other players
VII. MONETIZATION CLASH OF CLANS
MON_coc_1 When I play Clash of Clans I spend money on virtual goods or services 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = Never and 5 = Always)
- Never (>> end of survey)
- Sometimes (>> display additional questions) - About half of the time (>> display additional questions)
- Most of the time (>> display additional questions)
- Always (>> display additional questions)
MON_coc_2 How much money on average have you spent on Clash of Clans in euros? (Text input)
MON_coc_3 When I buy virtual goods in Clash of Clans, I mostly spend my money (gems) on - Resource packs (Gems, Gold, Elixir, Dark Elixir)
- Town-hall/Builder-hall starter packs - Clan gifts
- Magic item packs
- Gold passes (mixed items and skins) - Skipping down time
- Other please specify… (Text input)
VIII. CALL OF DUTY MOTIVATIONS
COD_1 Please tick the boxes that fits your view on the statements best 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
COD_1_1 In COD (mobile) it is important to me that I have a high kill/death ratio each round
COD_1_2 In COD (mobile) it is important to me that I reach a high level as quickly as Possible
COD_1_3 In COD (mobile) it is important to me that I can deploy my kill streak (score streak)
COD_1_4 In COD (mobile) it is important for me that I am ranked highest in the leaderboard
COD_1_5 In COD (mobile) I enjoy collecting different skins for my loadout COD_1_6 I enjoy myself whenever I unlock the loadout I feel like playing with COD_1_7 In COD (mobile) it is important to me to customize my avatar COD_1_8 In COD (mobile) it is important to me that my character is unique COD_1_9 I enjoy playing COD (mobile) with others better than by myself
COD_1_10 I enjoy playing COD (mobile) in a clan because I consider my clan-members to be my friends
COD_1_11 I like playing COD (mobile) because it allows me to meet new players
COD_1_12 I enjoy playing COD (mobile) because I can have meaningful conversations with other players
IX. MONETIZATION MECHANICS CALL OF DUTY
MON_cod_1 When I play Call of Duty (mobile) I spend money on virtual goods or services 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = Never and 5 = Always)
- Never (>> end of survey)
- About half of the time (>> display additional questions) - Most of the time (>> display additional questions)
- Always (>> display additional questions)
MON_COD_2 How much money on average have you spent on Call of Duty (mobile) in euros? (Text input)
MON_COD_3 When I buy virtual goods in Call of Duty (mobile) I mostly spend my money (cod points) on
- Season Weapon crates (weapon skins) - The Royal Crimson crates (weapon skins) - Prophet Soldier crates (character skins) - Premium pass
- Other, please specify… (Text input)
X. FORTNITE PLAYER MOTIVATIONS
FN_1 Please tick the boxes that fits your view on the statements best 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
FN_1_1 In Fortnite (mobile) it is important to me to level as quickly as possible
FN_1_3 In Fortnite (mobile) it is important to me to win a round
FN_1_4 In Fortnite (mobile) I find it important to gather as much resources to build whenever necessary
FN_1_5 In Fortnite (mobile) I enjoy collecting skins to customize my character
FN_1_6 In Fortnite (mobile) I find it important that my character looks different than other Players'
FN_1_7 In Fortnite (mobile) I enjoy to customize my character's emotions
FN_1_8 In Fortnite (mobile) it is interesting to see which new skins are available after a new season comes out
FN_1_9 I would rather play Fortnite (mobile) with players I consider my friends than Strangers
FN_1_10 I enjoy playing Fortnite (mobile) because I get to meet more players from all over the world
FN_1_11 Playing Fortnite (mobile) with other players is important to me because it has allowed me to have meaningful conversations with them
FN_1_12 I enjoy playing Fortnite (mobile) in a clan because I feel that players that I care about also care about me
XI. MONETIZATION MECHANICS FORTNITE
MON_f_1 When I play Fortnite (mobile) I spend money on virtual goods or services 5-point Likert scale ( 1 = Never and 5 = Always)
