The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS)
A complete theory of motivation in the arena of gaming must not
simply catalog observations of player behavior (e.g. “players like
carrots” or “players pursue challenges”) but should also be able to
describe the underlying energy that fuels actions in the first place
(i.e. our “motivational lightbox”). Our research shows that this
underlying motivational energy takes the form of three basic
psychological needs: Those of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which comprise the major components of what we call the Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS).
Over the last two years, we have conducted a variety of studies both in
our game testing lab and with thousands of gamers in the field. Across
the board, when games satisfy these motivational needs, it has
significant implications for the player experience and the game’s
success.
Methodologically, the PENS approach is easy to administer because it
efficiently targets specific experiences related to need satisfaction
and yields almost immediate feedback. These measures can be easily
tailored to apply to specific design or gameplay ideas, or to more
fully developed titles. Despite this simplicity, we’ll show some pretty
exciting predictive relationships with a wide range of outcomes. It is
the ease of the methodology combined with its predictive power that
leads us to believe this approach is a strong addition to a developer’s
playtesting arsenal, even during very rapid iteration of ideas.
Let’s look at each of the motivational needs in the PENS model more
closely, and how they comprise the motivational lightbox that powers
the outcomes developers strive to achieve.
Competence: The Need Behind Our Love of Challenge
Competence can be defined very simply as the intrinsic need to feel effective
in what we are doing. Numerous studies have shown that in both our work
lives and our leisure that we are intrinsically motivated to seek out
opportunities to experience competence and the satisfaction that
accompanies it. No matter what we’re up to, feeling effective energizes
us and motivates further action, while feeling ineffective decreases
motivation and brings a negative psychological impact.
Why do players find it rewarding to go through the exact same game
content multiple times on harder and harder difficulty settings? Why do
game challenges so captivate players and bring such exhilaration when
conquered? Because overcoming game challenges satisfies the intrinsic
need for competence and allows us to stretch our abilities, perhaps in
a more immediate and direct way than many activities in “real” life.
Whether its reaching the next level of Geometry Wars or unlocking “Insane” difficulty in Gears of War,
the game is rewarding when it offers more opportunities to satisfy
competence – and it is this satisfaction that gamers intrinsically
value.
So we believe that the need for competence unifies and explains the
energy behind many experiential outcomes coveted by developers such as
“optimal challenge” and “flow”. But to demonstrate that a need for
competence and the other components of the PENS motivational model are
behind important outcomes (e.g. perceived value, enjoyment) we need to
show that measuring competence satisfaction has predictive power as a
playtesting method.
Table 1 summarizes the predictive value of competence satisfaction
in relationship to a variety of relevant variables and across multiple
game genres. As the table shows, gameplay competence is significantly
related to the player’s enjoyment and sense of immersion, as well as
how much value the player feels the game provides and a variety of
other commercially relevant variables. This predictive value held true
regardless of genre, thus demonstrating that the need for competence is
globally meaningful as a playtesting tool.
Table 1 clearly demonstrates the strong predictive power of brief
but carefully designed and validated PENS assessments of competence
satisfaction. We should note that this approach can be applied in
multiple ways during development, measuring how well specific design
iterations meet competence needs, as well as illuminating how needs are
differentially being satisfied at various points along the gameplay
progression. As to the kinds of measurement questions themselves,
remember that the goal with this method is to focus on underlying need satisfaction (experience of effectiveness) rather than emotional
outcomes (such as fun and enjoyment). We find it valuable to ask
players questions related to the experience of competence with regard
to both gameplay and game mechanics (e.g. controls), and have
consistently found both to have strong relationships to positive
outcomes.
Notice in the above table that not only are the results strong for
competence across the board, but where they are slightly less strong –
for example, the relationship between competence and immersion in
strategy games – makes conceptual sense. Feeling competent at adjusting
city production during a round of Civilization IV is not as likely to
“pull you in” to the game world nearly as much as making an uber
headshot during a heated round of Counter Strike. As we’ll see below,
other motivational needs, notably autonomy, shine more brightly behind
the enjoyment and immersion in strategy games.
Let’s look at autonomy next, as it is the second motivational need in the PENS model.