Arcade Berg aka. "Learning Game Design with Arcade Berg"

The risk of relying on a player base

Even though I have a high frost resistance, some evil wizard has succeeded in with a critical hit on me with a cold spell. So today I'll make it easy for me and I offer you a re-post of a post I wrote for AboutGameDesign.com on the topic "Designing Social Games".

*****************************************************************************************

There are many forms of interaction between players made possible in games; competitive, cooperative or neither one.

There are also many different levels of interaction required in games, while some require none, other encourage it and finally some demand it to a great extent to be able to play the game.

If the game requires social interaction with other players, it also needs a healthy player base. And that... Can be a bitch.

I'll briefly discuss two topics today within Social Game Design. My way of thinking when designing one and the risk of not getting people to play it.

"Social Games" is a vague term and probably mean different things for different people. I don't include games like World of Warcraft because they aren't built around the social part. Without other people, they still work.

I do however include games like Farmville for Facebook, even though, technically it still works without other players. But I include it because it's built around the social parts. It's how the game is spread, by pulling other people in with the help of gameplay features like gifts and requiring help with your own farm.
http://www.farmville.com/ (13/11/09)

My Mini City is a great example of a Social Game where all you do is getting people to join your city with the help of a URL.
http://myminicity.com/ (13/11/09)

One of my many projects right now is a social game in which the players are dependent on other people. It's impossible to play by yourself and basically, the more the merrier. When designing it, I've been trying to work with the social aspects, so they feel natural and not slapped on at the last-minute and I actually think it's gonna be a fun game.

However, because of this design, I'm taking a great risk because it'll be in need of a lot of players. If it doesn't get that early on, the game will simply crawl into a dark corner and die. It's a huge risk I feel uncomfortable with, but you gotta bet some to win some, right?

This happens to a lot of games, including big MMO's. If the players aren't there, the game "doesn't work" and is shut down or just forgotten. It's a very real problem and I thinkit's one of the factors for why there aren't more Social Games out there that are actually socially dependent.

One of the key things I have in mind when designing this top secret game is that whenever a social interaction is executed, both parts should gain from it. I do this to stimulate the interactions and to encourage it to a greater extent.

If I can ask for help in a game, it's more likely that I'll get it if there's something to gain from for the helper.

I never take anything away from the one asking for help, instead I'm rewarding him. That way, people will keep on wanting other people to help them out, at the same time as the helper will ask other people to help him. Nobody is losing anything, instead everyone is receiving!

If you're setting a cost on the social interaction, it'll be used less. And if you rely on people's "good will" to help you out, you're in for a surprise about how people work.

People give gifts in FarmVille because they actually want the other person to give something back; it's that simple. I'm not sending you a Cow because I think you should drink more milk, I'm sending it because I want you to send me a Horse!

People are egoistic. Deal with it.