Are you a diamond, spade, heart, or club?

Motivations for playing video games

It’s hard to believe we’re on Issue #4 for this series already! I’m curious about your gamer motivational profile — if you feel inclined, please share them with me!

Hello Scientist Gamers!

Humans love categorizing and organizing the things around us to make sense of our complex world. Whether it’s defining types of cuisines, identifying introverts versus extroverts, or fuelling the PC versus Playstation versus Xbox wars, we find comfort in fitting into organized boxes.

These classifications aren’t just labels; they’re tools that help us understand and engage with the world around us. For example, knowing that you share a passion for gaming with me can spark conversations we might not have with others.

However, these classifications are often lacking, offering only a surface-level view of the diverse landscape that they attempt to define. In other words, we are not all the same even if we play and enjoy the same games.

In today’s post, I’ll shed light on how researchers have approached classifying gamers and where this might all lead to in the future. Feel free to join the conversation and share your gamer profiles in the comments below!

Bartle’s Taxonomy of Player Types

1996 was a year defined by Super Mario 64, Civilization II, Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil. The world of gaming was comparatively simpler, which led Bartle to develop a simple classification system based on a deck of cards.

1. Achievers: Driven by accomplishments and treasure, they were the diamond suit.

2. Explorers: Thrive on discovering new information and hidden secrets, they were the spades.

3. Socializers: Find joy in connecting with fellow players, they were the hearts.

4. Killers: Seek dominance and destruction, the clubs.

Bartle’s Taxonomy of Player Types. I would most likely be an Explorer.

While Bartle’s taxonomy provided a framework, it was criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of player motivation, especially as gaming technology evolved.

Yee’s Model

Yee expanded on Bartle’s work, saying that motivations for playing a game were a mix between the following three dimensions:

1. Social

2. Achievement

3. Immersion

Bartle suggested that player motivations existed as one of the four types, which is different from Yee’s nuanced approach. But the nuanced mix of motivations was a much more realistic portrayal of gamers. Still, with only three dimensions, the model seems somewhat simplistic.

Quantic Foundry’s Gamer Motivation Model

Yee took his initial ideas and formed a market research company called Quantic Foundry, where he continued to develop these ideas. The result was the Gamer Motivation Model, which introduced three additional dimensions to better capture the diverse motivations of gamers:

1. Social (Yee’s original model)

2. Achievement (Yee’s original model)

3. Immersion (Yee’s original model)

4. Action (new)

5. Mastery (new)

6. Creativity (new)

Quantic Foundry’s Gamer Motivation Model. I scored myself along the six categories, from very important (right side) to not important (left side). As you can see, creativity and immersion are important motivators for play.

The combinations of these dimensions painted a richer picture of gamer motivations. Players motivated by exciting and immediate adrenaline rushes (like in first-person and third-person shooters) tended to score high in the Action and Social dimensions. Players motivated by figuring out the mechanics of a game and then achieving something in game with that knowledge, tended to score high in Mastery and Achievement. Players motivated by expressing their own style of play tended to score high in the Immersion and Creativity dimensions.

Where are the gaps?

Despite the evolution of these models, there are still aspects of motivations for gaming that have yet to be explored. Serious games for learning, exergames that encourage physical activity, and the influence of streaming culture all shape how and why we play games. But these motivations have yet to find their way into classification models.

What the authors did and found

To fill these gaps in gamer classification models, the authors analyzed all published literature and regrouped the dimensions within these models.

The authors analyzed all published literature on motivations for gaming and grouped the dimensions of these models in a way that made sense. They regrouped the 332 dimensions they found into the following 28 dimensions:

1. Autonomy: being in control of one’s actions and decisions

2. Competence: to feel effective in one’s actions

3. Competition: proving oneself against others or comparable metrics

4. Continuation: desire to keep playing the same game

5. Cooperation: working together with other players to complete a goal or task

6. Creativity: enjoys the satisfaction of building or crafting activities

7. Domination: putting other players down and/or feeling better than others

8. Escapism: distraction from real life responsibilities or problems

9. Expectation: peer pressure or other responsibility

10. Experimenting: trying new ideas or activities

11. Exploration: traverse the game world and discover things

12. Expression: customizing an avatar or environment to personal preference

13. Fantasy: experiences of imaginative fiction

14. Fellowship: feeling relatedness to other players

15. Growth: self-improvement and personal development

16. Health: performing physical activity or exercise

17. Idle: spend time playing games in between other activities

18. Intimacy: forming close and meaningful relationships with others

19. Leadership: taking charge and leading other players

20. Progression: accumulate items or upgrades

21. Relaxation: freedom from tension or anxiety

22. Sensation: experiencing emotions or receiving sensory stimulation

23. Status: acknowledgement from others for one’s efforts or achievement

24. Story: engaging with a narrative

25. Strategy: mental challenges and problem solving

26. Thrill: to experience suspense and subsequent relief

27. Value: receiving some benefit or profit

28. Violence: enjoys combat and destruction

A radar graph of me, scored along the 28 dimensions of play. I just scored myself from not very important (0) to very important (5) for each of the dimensions. I created the radar graph thinking I would get a cool “power level” graph, but instead, I got an exploding flask.

I made my own version of these 28 dimensions and created a scoring system to help me see who I am as a gamer. I’m sure that the actual model is a lot more complex than what I came up with; but it was a cool way to visualize my gamer motivations.

What does this all mean?

These classification systems provide a common language for game designers, developers, and researchers to talk to each other. Knowing what motivates their target audiences allows designers and developers to tweak game mechanics to feed into those motivations. Researchers can understand the effects that games have on people if they are able to identify the motivations for playing a game. Even marketers can use this information to create targeted and meaningful ads for big impact.

Implications and what’s ahead

As gaming evolves, so too must our classification systems. New modes of play or ways to experience gaming may require additional motivations. Although 28 is a daunting number of dimensions, they ensure a nuanced understanding of gamer motivations. Grouping these 28 dimensions into a handful of larger categories will provide even more options when trying to decipher the diversity of player motivations.

Gaming is a global phenomenon, transcending cultural boundaries — more research will show how these categories of motivations vary across different cultures. While there is a lot more to be explored, these dimensions provide a crucial starting point in unravelling the mysteries of what motivates us to play.

If you’re interested in reading the paper for yourself, it is available for free here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02175-6