Product design and psychology: The Exploitation of the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Video Game Design

Keywords: Sunk Cost Fallacy, Video Game Design, Player Behaviour, Psychological Manipulation, Game Engagement, In-Game Purchases, World of Warcraft, Clash of Clans, Game Progression, Ethical Implications, Gaming Addiction, Monetization, Product Design, Long-term Game Commitments, Psychological Principles in Gaming

Abstract:

This paper explores the concept of the sunk cost fallacy and its application within the realm of video game design. As a form of psychological manipulation, the sunk cost fallacy can significantly influence player behaviours and decisions. Through an in-depth study of specific examples, we provide a comprehensive understanding of this principle’s deployment and implications from a product design standpoint.

Introduction:

The rapidly evolving landscape of the video game industry continuously leverages psychological principles to drive user engagement and monetization. One such principle, the sunk cost fallacy, has increasingly gained relevance due to its powerful influence on player behaviour. This paper explores the intricacies of the sunk cost fallacy in gaming, elucidating its application and implications for both game designers and players.

Sunk Cost Fallacy in Gaming: Conceptualization and Design

The sunk cost fallacy refers to the human propensity to continue an endeavour once an investment in time, money, or effort has been made, even when the endeavour is no longer beneficial. In gaming, this can manifest through mechanisms like ongoing game progression, in-game purchases, or long-term game commitments.

Progressive games, where players advance through levels or achieve incremental upgrades, capitalize on the sunk cost fallacy by creating a sense of loss if the player discontinues the game. Similarly, in-game purchases, especially those enhancing player ability or status, can foster a sense of commitment and deter players from discontinuing their engagement.

Case Study: World of Warcraft

Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft provides an excellent example of the sunk cost fallacy in action. Players invest significant amounts of time levelling up their characters and progressing through the game. This investment often leads players to continue playing, even when they may no longer find the game enjoyable or beneficial, due to the fear of wasting their previous investment.

Case Study: Clash of Clans

Supercell’s Clash of Clans employs the sunk cost fallacy through its base-building mechanic and time-investment gameplay. Players invest considerable time and often real-world money to upgrade their base, train troops, and progress through the game. This investment leads to a reluctance to discontinue the game, even in the face of diminishing enjoyment, reflecting the sunk cost fallacy.

Implications for Game Design

While the sunk cost fallacy can be a potent tool for driving player engagement and in-game purchases, game designers need to be mindful of the potential ethical implications. Exploiting this principle can lead to situations where players feel obligated to continue playing, potentially leading to gaming addiction or financial issues. Designers must balance the drive for player engagement with promoting healthy gaming habits.

Conclusion

The application of the sunk cost fallacy in video game design presents a compelling mechanism for influencing player behaviour and enhancing game engagement. However, the ethical implications of this technique necessitate careful consideration and a responsible approach to game design. As the video game industry continues to innovate and evolve, it will be intriguing to observe how psychological principles like the sunk cost fallacy are utilized in an ethical and balanced manner.

References:

1. Arkes, H.R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.
2. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.
3. Przybylski, A.K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C.R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.
4. Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft. [Video Game]. United States.
5. Supercell. (2012). Clash of Clans. [Video Game]. Helsinki, Finland.
6. Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), 169–185.
7. Heidrich, K., & Charness, G. (2010). Investments in and payouts from relational contracts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(3), 380–394.
8. Jaffe, L. (1998). Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life. San Francisco, CA: Delacorte Press.
9. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.
10. Sutton, R. I. (1997). The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8(1), 97–106.
11. Thompson, L., Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60–75.
12. Zeelenberg, M., & van Dijk, E. (1997). A reverse sunk cost effect in risky decision making: Sometimes we have too much invested to gamble. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 677–691.