Points are widely used design elements in gamified systems. Yet how they motivate is still unclear: what motivational meaning or functional significance do users ascribe to points and when? To answer this question, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 27 users of two popular gamified platforms, Duolingo and Habitica. Through reflexive thematic analysis, we constructed six different types of functionalisation variously proposed in prior gamification and personal informatics work but often not empirically supported. We highlight the importance of functional design detail (such as points should proportionally reward effort) and derive design guidelines.

Abstract Existing theories of how game use relates to mental health have important limitations: few account for both quantity and quality of use, differentiate components of mental health (hedonic wellbeing, eudaimonic wellbeing and illbeing), provide an explanation for both positive and negative outcomes or readily explain the well-evidenced absence of playtime effects on mental health. Many also lack the specificity to be readily falsifiable. In response, we present the Basic Needs in Games (BANG) model. Grounded in self-determination theory, BANG proposes that mental health outcomes of game use are in large part mediated by the motivational quality of play and the extent to which play quantity and quality lead to need satisfaction or frustration. We show how BANG addresses the limitations of current theories and aligns with emerging evidence on the etiologies of disordered play. Thus, BANG advances HCI theory on the impact of games and other interactive technologies on mental health.

Abstract Self-determination theory (SDT) has been widely successful in human–computer interaction (HCI). It offers ready concepts, measures, and theoretical propositions for third wave HCI topics such as user experience, fun, wellbeing, motivation, or user autonomy. Still, HCI applications of SDT have been partial, at times superficial, and disconnecting—leaving great unfulfilled potential which motivated the present special issue. In this introduction, we present SDT to interested scholars, chart its use across HCI to date, and outline six advances to move HCI toward more intentional applications of SDT. As the articles from this issue illustrate, future growth areas of SDT in HCI are in extending domain-specific models and applications, harnessing underused parts of theory, computational formalization, extending levels of analysis, facilitating design translation, and engaging in a cross-disciplinary dialogue on autonomy.

‘Juicy’ or immediate abundant action feedback is widely held to make video games enjoyable and intrinsically motivating. Yet we do not know why it works: Which motives are mediating it? Which features afford it? In a pre-registered (n=1,699) online experiment, we tested three motives mapping prior practitioner discourse—effectance, competence, and curiosity—and connected design features. Using a dedicated action RPG and a 2x2+control design, we varied feedback amplification, success-dependence, and variability and recorded self-reported effectance, competence, curiosity, and enjoyment as well as free-choice playtime. Structural equation models show curiosity as the strongest enjoyment and only playtime predictor and support theorised competence pathways. Success dependence enhanced all motives, while amplification unexpectedly reduced them, possibly because the tested condition unintentionally impeded players’ sense of agency. Our study evidences uncertain success affording curiosity as an underappreciated moment-to-moment engagement driver, directly supports competence-related theory, and suggests that prior juicy game feel guidance ties to legible action-outcome bindings and graded success as preconditions of positive ‘low-level’ user experience.

Video games have long been heralded as powerful learning tools. Yet half a century since the term “serious games” was coined (Abt, 1970), the evidence on whether and when games can afford learning ...

Players’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are among the most commonly used constructs used in research on what makes video games so engaging, and how they might support or undermine user wellbeing. However, existing measures of basic psychological needs in games have important limitations—they either do not measure need frustration, or measure it in a way that may not be appropriate for the video games domain, they struggle to capture feelings of relatedness in both single- and multiplayer contexts, and they often lack validity evidence for certain contexts (e.g., playtesting vs experience with games as a whole). In this paper, we report on the design and validation of a new measure, the Basic Needs in Games Scale (BANGS), whose 6 subscales cover satisfaction and frustration of each basic psychological need in gaming contexts. The scale was validated and evaluated over five studies with a total of 1246 unique participants. Results supported the theorized structure of the scale and provided evidence for discriminant, convergent and criterion validity. Results also show that the scale performs well over different contexts (including evaluating experiences in a single game session or across various sessions) and over time, supporting measurement invariance. Further improvements to the scale are warranted, as results indicated lower reliability in the autonomy frustration subscale, and a surprising non-significant correlation between relatedness satisfaction and frustration. Despite these minor limitations, BANGS is a reliable and theoretically sound tool for researchers to measure basic needs satisfaction and frustration with a degree of domain validity not previously available.

Language models are widely used for different Natural Language Processing tasks while suffering from a lack of personalization. Personalization can be achieved by, e.g., fine-tuning the model on training data that is created by the user (e.g., social media posts). Previous work shows that the acquisition of such data can be challenging. Instead of adapting the model's parameters, we thus suggest selecting a model that matches the user's mental model of different thematic concepts in language. In this article, we attempt to capture such individual language understanding of users. In this process, two challenges have to be considered. First, we need to counteract disengagement since the task of communicating one's language understanding typically encompasses repetitive and time-consuming actions. Second, we need to enable users to externalize their mental models in different contexts, considering that language use changes depending on the environment. In this article, we integrate methods of gamification into a visual analytics (VA) workflow to engage users in sharing their knowledge within various contexts. In particular, we contribute the design of a gameful VA playground called Concept Universe. During the four-phased game, the users build personalized concept descriptions by explaining given concept names through representative keywords. Based on their performance, the system reacts with constant visual, verbal, and auditory feedback. We evaluate the system in a user study with six participants, showing that users are engaged and provide more specific input when facing a virtual opponent. We use the generated concepts to make personalized language model suggestions.

Psychological need frustration—experiences like failure, loneliness, or coercion—is emerging as a promising explanation for why people disengage with games and other entertainment media, and how media may induce dysregulated use and ill-being. However, existing research on game-related need frustration relies on general instruments with unclear content validity for games. We also do not know how need frustration arises in video games, nor how it leads to disengagement. We therefore conducted a semi-structured interview study with 12 video game players, following grounded theory methods to develop a model of need-frustrating play. We find that need frustration is a common and impactful experience in games, with distinct antecedents not fully captured in existing measures. Felt need frustration arises when observed need-frustrating events negatively violate expected need frustration or satisfaction; repeated violations update players’ expectations, which lead them to modulate or quit play to reduce expected frustration exposure.

Flow and self-determination theory predict that game difficulty in balance with player skill maximises enjoyment and engagement, mediated by attentive absorption or competence. Yet recent evidence and methodological concerns are challenging this view, and key theoretical predictions have remained untested, importantly which objective difficulty-skill ratio is perceived as most balanced. To test these, we ran a preregistered study (n=309) using a Go-like 2-player game with an AI opponent, randomly assigning players to one of three objective difficulty-skill ratios (AI plays to win, draw, or lose) over five matches. The AI successfully manipulated objective balance, with the draw condition perceived as most balanced. However, balance did not impact play behaviour, nor did we find the predicted uniform 'inverted-U' between balance and positive play experiences. Importantly, we found both theories too underspecified to severely test. We conclude that balance and competence likely matter less for behavioural engagement than commonly held. We propose alternative factors such as player appraisals, novelty, and progress, and debate the value and challenges of theory-testing work in games HCI.

Video games are increasingly designed to provoke reflection and challenge players’ perspectives. Yet we know little about how such perspective-challenging experiences come about in gameplay. In response, we used systematic self-observation diaries and micro-phenomenological interviews to capture players’ (n=15) lived experience of perspective challenges in purposely sampled games including Hatoful Boyfriend, The Stanley Parable, or Papers, Please. We found a sequence of trigger, reflection, and transformation constituting perspective-challenging experiences, matching Mezirow’s model of transformative learning. Most of these were game-related or ‘endo-game’, suggesting that medium self-reflection could be an overlooked part of everyday game reflection and appreciation. Reflections were accompanied by a wide range of emotions, including frequent epistemic emotions, and emotions could change drastically even during short gameplay experiences. Actual perspective change or transformation was rare. We construct a model of granular types of triggers, reflections, and transformations that can aid reflective game design.

Do people use games to cope with adverse life events and crises? Research informed by self-determination theory proposes that people might compensate for thwarted basic psychological needs in daily life by seeking out games that satisfy those lacking needs. To test this, we conducted a preregistered mixed-method survey study (n = 285) on people’s gaming behaviours and need states during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2020). We found qualitative evidence that gaming was an often actively sought out and successful means of replenishing particular needs, but one that could ‘backfire’ for some through an appraisal process discounting gaming as ‘unreal’. Meanwhile, contrary to our predictions, the quantitative data showed a “rich get richer, poor get poorer” pattern: need satisfaction in daily life positively correlated with need satisfaction in games. We derive methodological considerations and propose three potential explanations for this contradictory data pattern to pursue in future research.

Games have become a popular way of collecting human subject data, based on the premise that they are more engaging than surveys or experiments, but generate equally valid data. However, this premise has not been empirically tested. In response, we designed a game for eliciting linguistic data following Intrinsic Elicitation – a design approach aiming to minimise validity threats in data collection games – and compared it to an equivalent linguistics experiment as control. In a preregistered study and replication (n=96 and n=136), using two different ways of operationalising accuracy, the game generated substantially more enjoyment (d=.70,.73) and substantially less accurate data (d=-.68, -.40) – though still more accurate than random responding. We conclude that for certain data types data collection games may present a serious trade-off between participant enjoyment and data quality, identify possible causes of lower data quality for future research, reflect on our design approach, and urge games HCI researchers to use careful controls where appropriate.

Microtransactions have become a major monetisation model in digital games, shaping their design, impacting player experience, and raising ethical concerns. Research in this area has chiefly focused on loot boxes. This begs the question whether other microtransactions might actually be more relevant and problematic for players. We therefore conducted a content analysis of negative player reviews (n=801) of top-grossing mobile and desktop games to determine which problematic microtransactions are most prevalent and salient for players. We found that problematic microtransactions with mobile games featuring more frequent and different techniques compared to desktop games. Across both, players minded issues related to fairness, transparency, and degraded user experience, supporting prior theoretical work, and importantly take issue with monetisation-driven design as such. We identify future research needs on why microtransactions in particular spark this critique, and which player communities it may be more or less representative of.

Within the wider open science reform movement, HCI researchers are actively debating how to foster transparency in their own field. Publication venues play a crucial role in instituting open science practices, especially journals, whose procedures arguably lend themselves better to them than conferences. Yet we know little about how much HCI journals presently support open science practices. We identified the 51 most frequently published-in journals by recent CHI first authors and coded them according to the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines, a high-profile standard of evaluating editorial practices. Results indicate that journals in our sample currently do not set or specify clear openness and transparency standards. Out of a maximum of 29, the modal score was 0 (mean = 2.5, SD = 3.6, max = 15). We discuss potential reasons, the aptness of natural science-based guidelines for HCI, and next steps for the HCI community in furthering openness and transparency.

In a wide range of social networks, people's behavior is influenced by social contagion: we do what our network does. Networks often feature particularly influential individuals, commonly called "influencers." Existing work suggests that in-game social networks in online games are similar to real-life social networks in many respects. However, we do not know whether there are in-game equivalents to influencers. We therefore applied standard social network features used to identify influencers to the online multiplayer shooter Tom Clancy's The Division. Results show that network feature-defined influencers had indeed an outsized impact on playtime and social play of players joining their in-game network.

Do game design elements like badges have one, fixed motivational effect or can they have several different? Self-Determination Theory suggests that people situationally appraise the functional significance or psychological meaning of a given stimulus, which can result in different motivational states, but there is little empirical work observing actual functionalisations of game design elements. We therefore conducted a qualitative in-the-wild diary and interview study with 81 university students who reported on their experiences with badges on two popular gamified online learning platforms, Khan Academy and Codecademy . Participants functionalised badges in nine distinct ways that only partially align with prior theory. Functionalisations shaped experience and motivation and prompted function-aligned behaviour. Badge design details fostered but did not determine different functionalisations, while no user or context characteristics were identified that reliably linked to particular functionalisations. We conclude that future research may need to conceptualise game design elements in a more differentiated way to capture what aspects support different motivational functions.

Applied games are increasingly used to collect human subject data such as people's performance or attitudes. Games afford a motive for data provision that poses a validity threat at the same time: as players enjoy winning the game, they are motivated to provide dishonest data if this holds a strategic in-game advantage. Current work on data collection game design doesn't address this issue. We therefore propose a theoretical model of why people provide certain data in games, the Rational Game User Model. We derive a design approach for human subject data collection games that we call Intrinsic Elicitation: data collection should be integrated into the game's mechanics such that honest responding is the necessary, strategically optimal, and least effortful way to pursue the game's goal. We illustrate the value of our approach with a sample analysis of the data collection game Urbanology.

For millennia, magicians have designed illusions that are perceived as real regardless of their impossibility, inducing a sense of wonder in their audience. This paper argues that video game designers face the same design challenge - crafting believable and engaging illusions - and that the practice of magic provides an untapped wealth of design principles and techniques for game designers. To support this claim, the paper introduces two key principles of magic, affording perceived causal relations and forcing perceived-free choice. It then presents techniques to create and exploit these effects and discusses their parallels and applications in game design, encouraging game designers and researchers to further explore the field of magic for testable theories and applicable techniques.

Casual creators are a type of design tool identified by Compton & Mateas, characterised by an orientation towards enjoyable, intrinsically motivated creative exploration, rather than task-oriented designer productivity. In our experiments holding rapid game jams with Wevva, a casual creator for mobile game design, we have noticed, however, that users seem to vary considerably even within the context of using a casual creator. Some people focus on designing specific games, while others explore the design space extensively, or even focus exclusively on prodding the edges of the design space looking for its possibilities and limits. We hypothesise that the latter group of users is driven primarily by curiosity about a casual creator and its design space. This results in different patterns of behaviour to the former group (of design-oriented users), which may worth characterising and perhaps explicitly designing for.

Human computation games lack established ways of balancing the difficulty of tasks or levels served to players, potentially contributing to their low engagement rates. Traditional player rating systems have been suggested as a potential solution: using them to rate both players and tasks could estimate player skill and task difficulty and fuel player-task matchmaking. However, neither the effect of difficulty balancing on engagement in human computation games nor the use of player rating systems for this purpose has been empirically tested. We therefore examined the engagement effects of using the Glicko-2 player rating system to order tasks in the human computation game Paradox. An online experiment (n=294) found that both matchmaking-based and pure difficulty-based ordering of tasks led to significantly more attempted and completed levels than random ordering. Additionally, both matchmaking and random ordering led to significantly more difficult tasks being completed than pure difficulty-based ordering. We conclude that poor balancing contributes to poor engagement in human computation games, and that player rating system-based difficulty rating may be a viable and efficient way of improving both.

Autonomy experience constitutes a core part of the intrinsic motivation of playing games. While research has explored how autonomy is afforded by a game's design, little is known about the role of the social context of play. Particularly, engaging with serious games or gamified applications is often obligatory, which may thwart autonomy. To tease out contextual factors that affect autonomy, we conducted a qualitative interview study that compared game-play experience in leisure and work contexts. We found that leisure contexts, particularly solitary play, support autonomy through a time and space shielded from outer demands, the license to (dis)engage with and configure the situation to fit one's spontaneous interests, and a lack of social and material consequence. Thwarted autonomy occurs both in leisure and work contexts when players' spontaneous interests mismatch socially demanded gameplay. We discuss implications for entertainment and applied gaming.

The idea that game design can inspire the design of motivating, enjoyable interactive systems has a long history in human-computer interaction. It currently experiences a renaissance as gameful design, often implemented through gamification, the use of game design elements in nongame contexts. Yet there is little research-based guidance on designing gameful systems. This article therefore reviews existing methods and identifies challenges and requirements for gameful design. It introduces a gameful design method that uses skill atoms and design lenses to identify challenges inherent in a user’s goal pursuit and restructure them to afford gameplay-characteristic motivating, enjoyable experiences. Two case studies illustrate the method. The article closes by outlining how gameful design might inform experience-driven design more generally.