Credit Card Tank Bustin’:

F2P Design in Armored Warfare

Janne Paavilainen
Game Research Lab, University of Tampere
Jones: “Have no fear, Stitch is here,
and I never go to combat without my
plastics!”

Heartbreak Ridge (1986)

 Re
v
Mo enu
de e
l

Introduction G
De ame
sig
n

● Case study on F2P multiplayer game Armored Warfare

○ 6 month study, one researcher Pl
a
Ex yer
p.

○ 100 euros spent, played 264 hours and 7 minutes

○ Analytical play, partial completion

● Triangle of revenue model, game design, and player experience

○ How do these interconnect from a paying player’s perspective?

● Studying F2P game mechanics with concepts from behavioral

economics and behavioral psychology
The Game
● Armored Warfare (2015, Obsidian Entertainment)
○ Modern era 3D tank shooter game
○ Currently in open beta, free-to-play
○ Over 80 combat vehicles in 9 tiers (levels)
○ Five vehicle classes (MBT, LT, Recon, TD, SPA)

○ PvP and PvE game modes

■ PvP is 15 vs. 15 players, with 15 minute time limit
■ PvE is five player team vs. AI, with 10 minute time limit
Progression and Rewards
● Player is rewarded with Reputation and Credits
○ Reputation is used to unlock new content, Credits for buying new content
■ Vehicle reputation
■ Global reputation - can be used for any vehicle (5% of earned Rep.)
■ Locked reputation - can be converted to Global Reputation with Gold

○ Gold is the premium currency which can purchased with real money
■ Faster progression (premium time, reputation/credit conversion...)
■ Exclusive content (premium vehicles…)
■ Customization (decals, camo...)
■ Sociability (team creation...)
Play Experience
● Fair-to-Play, no obvious paywalls or aggressive monetization
● Development paths elicit curiosity - lots of “lore” to study
● Early progression does not create need to pay
● Game encourages to play both PvE and PvP, and different
development paths to unlock special upgrades
● Buying your way up to the top is not a smart move
● In higher tiers grinding becomes unbearable and premium account
and premium vehicles become very tempting
Behavioral Economics & Behavioral Psychology
In F2P game design

● Hamari, J. (2011). Perspectives from Behavioral Economics to Analyzing Game Design

Patterns: Loss Aversion in Social Games. Presentation in Social Games Workshop in
CHI’2011 conference.

● Lewis, C., Wardrip-Fruin, N. & Whitehead, J. (2012). Motivational Game Design Patterns
of ‘Ville Games. In Proceedings of FDG’12.

● Research on this area has been bit quiet for now despite talks about F2P game design
and “psychological trickery” taking (unethical) advantage of cognitive biases etc.

● How are these biases apparent in Armored Warfare?

Quota Anchoring
(Camerer et al., 1997)

● Tendency to set up artificial, (ir)rational progress quotas

● AW provides wide spectrum of quota points in different scales

○ Reputation & credit goals
○ Tier development
○ Vehicle upgrades
○ Starting new development path
○ Achievements
● There is always something - big or small - to be achieved
● Retention mechanic
Ego Depletion
(Baumeister et al., 1998)

● Person has a limited resource of willpower

● Exponentially growing reputation and credit

requirements in higher tiers
● Constantly reminding about benefits of
premium account
● Expectations, motivation, visualization
● Monetization mechanic
Goal-Gradient Effect
(Kivetz et al., 2006)

● The closer the goal, the faster and more motivated the person is to
complete it

● Visual and numerical progress indicators

● Retention & monetization mechanic

Hedonic Treadmill
(Brickman & Campbell, 1971)

● Person tends to remain at a relatively stable level of happiness

despite of achieving major goals

● New vehicle does not meet expectations, game is not easier now
● New vehicle might actually be worse than previous, due being
non-upgraded stock model (vs. players with upgraded vehicles)
● Player wants to upgrade the vehicle quickly
● Retention and monetization mechanic
Endowment Progress Effect
(Nunes & Drèze, 2006)

● Free progression motivates to pursue further progression

● Related to Hedonic Treadmill, the player is inclined to upgrade the

vehicle fast with Gold to match up with others (“free progression!”)
● Progression is more expensive in higher tiers, for lower tiers EPE
might result instantly to Goal-Gradient Effect
● Monetization mechanic
Insensitivity to Income Changes
(Bowman et al. 1999)

● Tendency to continue consumption at the same

rate regardless of negative income changes

● Higher tier development is very “expensive”

● Player has already accumulated Locked
Reputation when reaching higher tiers
● Buying larger amounts of gold due economic
reasoning (“more is cheaper!”)
● Monetization mechanic
Sunk-Cost Fallacy
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)

● The more we invest time and resources to something, the harder it is

to leave it behind and move forward

● Premium time is sold with bulk sales (“more is more”)

● Neglect to play results to discomfort and guilt
● Meeting daily bonuses become especially important
(e.g. Quota Anchoring) due cumulative bonus system
● Retention mechanic
Some Not-So-Final Thoughts
● Behavioral economics & psychology can offer framework and
vocabulary for understanding F2P game design
● Comprehensive literature review and mapping theories to actual
design features (ARMS*) would be needed as a next step
● Comparison studies between different F2P games

● Perhaps economics and psychology could learn something from

F2P game design and player behavior as well?

* Acquisition, Retention, Monetization, Sociability

References
1. Baumeister, R. F.; Bratslavsky, E.; Muraven, M.; Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 74 (5), 1252–1265.
2. Bowman, D., Minehart, F. & Rabin, M. (1999). Loss Aversion in a Consumption-Savings Model. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
38 (2), 155-178.
3. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. (1971). Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-Level Theory: A
Symposium. New York: Academic Press, 287-302.
4. Camerer, C, F., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. (1997). Labor Supply of New York City Cab Drivers: One Day at a Time. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 111, 408-41.
5. Hamari, J. (2011). Perspectives from Behavioral Economics to Analyzing Game Design Patterns: Loss Aversion in Social Games.
Presentation in Social Games Workshop in CHI’2011 conference.
6. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 313–327.
7. Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress,
and Customer Retention. Journal of Marketing Research, (February 2006), 39-58.
8. Lewis, C., Wardrip-Fruin, N. & Whitehead, J. (2012). Motivational Game Design Patterns of ‘Ville Games. In Proceedings of FDG’12,
9. Nunes, J., & Drèze, X. The Endowed Progress Effect: How Artificial Advancement Increases Effort. Journal of Consumer Research, 2006, 32
(4), 504-12
 Thank you!

T-90A model
janne.paavilainen by Kyle Nelson
@uta.fi http://www.knminis.com/