Measuring the effect of game updates on player engagement: A cue from DOTA2
Entertainment Computing, ISSN: 1875-9521, Vol: 43, Page: 100506
2022
- 5Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In game updates research, there has been little research on what kind of updates elicit what kind of reactions from players. In this paper, we test the efficacy of three game update patterns, namely major but infrequent updates, minor but frequent updates, and irrelevant updates on enhancing player engagement in the context of DOTA2. Surprisingly, we find that not all feature updates will have a positive effect on player engagement. Specifically, in the vast majority of cases, players will significantly be stimulated to engage in the game after major but infrequent updates (range from 11% to 49%). By contrast, minor but frequent updates may work ineffectually and even present a hazard to player engagement (range from −4.7% to 5.9%, 3 times is positive and 3 times is negative). Finally, player engagement has no obvious difference before and after irrelevant updates. Furthermore, we find that although players will have more leisure time after the outbreak of COVID-19 due to the mandatory quarantine policy, their intentions to play games will be reduced, which further void the effect of game updates. Also, updating the game during a big game event might not be a good opportunity as updating at this moment will make the benefits that should be brought less obvious. Our results offer theoretical and managerial implications to scholars and the game industry on how to improve player engagement by properly releasing game update patches.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952122000301; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100506; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132441420&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1875952122000301; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100506
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know