(This post is the first in a two-part series that recaps our GDC 2020 talk.)
While the underlying math can get complicated and there are many different algorithms for player segmentation, in the simplest terms, segment analysis identifies the distinct subgroups within an audience. So members of each segment share similar traits, but they are different from members of the other segments.
Presented in this way, it seems natural to conduct a player segment analysis on our data set of over half a million gamers who have taken the Gamer Motivation Profile. Intuitively, doing so would provide a taxonomy of gamers, as well as actionable segments for tailoring game design and marketing messaging.
But you may have noticed that in the 5 years that we had enough data to do this, we’ve never presented something like this for the full data set. So if this is so obvious to do, why haven’t we done it sooner? We’ll come back to this and the unexpected problems that emerge after walking through the player segments we uncovered.
The Gamer Motivation Profile
The Gamer Motivation Profile is a 5-minute survey that allows gamers to get a personalized report of their gaming motivations, and see how they compare with other gamers. Over 500,000 gamers worldwide have taken this survey. The 12 motivations that are measured in our model were identified via statistical analysis of how gaming motivations cluster together. You can get a more detailed description of our gamer sample here.
See how you compare with other gamers. Take a 5-minute survey and get your Gamer Motivation Profile
The 9 Player Segments
Here are the player segments that emerged when we conducted a clustering analysis of the ~500,000 gamers who have taken the Gamer Motivation Profile.
Acrobat: Acrobats are solo gamers who primarily want to take on challenging gameplay and they want to practice over and over again until they can take on the most difficult missions and bosses in the game. They enjoy games that are moderately paced, that require some thinking and figuring out the game mechanics on your own. What Acrobats really don’t care about is world-building and window-dressing. So in their popular games list, we see titles like Super Metroid, Tetris, and The Binding of Isaac.
Gardener: The Gardener is looking for quiet, relaxing task completion. They are looking for gameplay where the rules are presented upfront, as directly as possible, and where the gameplay itself is more spontaneous and reactive. When X happens, I need to do Y. There isn’t any stress or anxiety about having to plan things out 10 steps in advance. The Gardener enjoys task completion for its own sake—whether this is completing a level, collecting stars/trophies, or collecting collectibles. Among their popular games list, we see games like Candy Crush and Animal Crossing.
Slayer: Slayers want cinematic destruction with a purpose. They want chaos and mayhem in the context of a rich game world with an overarching story. Their low Discovery and Design score points to a willingness to experience highly curated experiences that are designed for them, instead of having a palette to customize with. So in their popular games, we see lot of on-rails action-adventure games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider.
Skirmisher: Skirmishers are centered on Action-Social motivations—the cluster of the first 4 motivations on top. They’re looking for fast-paced team arenas that aren’t too challenging and don’t require much thinking and planning. They want exciting arenas that they can easily hop into. The low completion score means they are fine with more match-based games where everything resets each match (instead of being persistent and cumulative). In their popular games list, we see online shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield. There’s a much lower % of female gamers among Skirmishers, and they are slightly younger than average.
Gladiator: Gladiators are much more likely to identify as hardcore gamers, and they want games to engage them using a broad spectrum of features. They are looking for an epic experience that provides team arenas, fast-paced explosive gameplay, power progression mechanics, challenging gameplay that requires strategic thinking, and a rich world setting with lots to explore and customize. We see a lot of MMOs and shooters in their list of popular titles, like Destiny, Gears of War, and Black Desert Online.
Ninja: Ninjas, like Acrobats, care about taking on difficult challenges. But Ninjas also want strategic decision making, fast-pacing, and competition. So they see video games as places to test their skill and wits against other players. The low Completion score again points to a preference for match-based gameplay where every match starts fresh, and Ninjas aren’t driven by in-game progression as much as they’re driven by skill-based mastery. In their popular games list, we see titles like StarCraft and Street Fighter.
Bounty Hunter: Where the Slayer wanted an on-rails curated cinematic experience, the Bounty Hunter wants a game world that they can make their own through customization and exploration. So where the Slayer had low Discovery and Design scores, we see above-average Discovery and Design scores here for the Bounty Hunter. Bounty Hunters are also interested in power progression through leveling up their characters and upgrading their weapons. So they want to see their characters grow and become powerful in the context of the world. This is also something that differentiates them from the Slayer, who didn’t care about power progression and seemed to be more interested in the moment-to-moment experience of the game. So here in the Bounty Hunter’s popular games, we see titles like Saints Row, Far Cry, and Mass Effect.
Architect: The Architect wants planning and decision-making that leads to progression and task completion in the game. They also want games with interesting settings and stories. They strongly prefer solo gameplay, without teamwork or competition, so they have full control over their gameplay experience. And they prefer games that are slow-paced, relaxing, and serene. This is a player segment that wants to plan and build something tall and enduring. They want to build something over time and have it not be destroyed. In their popular games list, we see titles like Europa Universalis and Civilization.
Bard: And finally, Bards are social players who want to chat and interact with other players in game worlds that are rich with lore, stories, discovery, and customization. They want to be part of a grand story in a community of other players that together craft and shape the world and the stories that get told. For them, the game is a theatrical stage. They care very little about power progression and task completion, and want to just experience the game world organically. In their popular games, we see titles like The Secret World and Final Fantasy XIV.
So What’s The Problem With These Segments?
While this segment model is clean and provides a taxonomy for gamers broadly speaking, the problem is that the segments read like caricatures of genres. There’s a lot of nuance and granularity among players, but when you try to segment all players, then the resulting segments are necessarily coarse.
This becomes much more apparent when you try to apply the segment model to specific game titles. If you make an Open World Action-Adventure game and we apply this segment model to it, the largest block of players in your audience will be Bounty Hunters (maybe 40-60% of them) and that’s not really helpful to know. So the problem is two-fold: there’s a very high proportion of a specific player segment, and none of the segments quite capture the nuances of the specific genre.
So the segment model is great if you only care about things from 50,000 feet up high. But almost all of us are typically working in the context of specific genres if not specific game titles.
In the next post, we’ll walk through a segment solution for Civilization VI gamers specifically as an example of what happens if we explore player segments within the context of a specific genre/title. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date with our data-driven insights on gaming. When new findings are released, you’ll be the first to know.
At the risk of sounding like someone who has way too much time on his hands, I am genuinely interested in the 19 segment stable solution point – not because I can use them in my day job, but just out of sheer scientific curiousity out of where I fit on a more granular level. And also to see if I can intuit reasons for why these particular segments exist.
No worries. We actually presented this (briefly) in the GDC talk. I’ve added the model summary chart under the toggle for “larger number of segments”.
In the talk, I also spent some time to discuss how even though 19 is too many from a business standpoint, it’s likely great for a gamer-facing profiling app because we know things like the 16 MBTI types (and I’m not making any endorsement/claims about the validity of the MBTI) are just the right level of granularity–a sense of being part of a unique tribe.
So I think that distinction is also important–what the segment model is for. Most game companies we work with typically want something between 4-8 segments. Our intuition is that gamers getting their player type assessment would prefer something around 12-20 player types.
Ah, yes, Myers-Briggs – the model that has its uses as a broad-strokes tool, but is all too often used far too inflexibly (I think it’s still useful if you treat the dichotomies as malleable traits of different strengths the way that the Big Five Model does with its parameters rather than as fixed types and consequently discard the ‘hierarchy’ of cognitive functions since I know my actually measured strength/focuses don’t match the ‘fixed’ ordering that my type is supposed to have).
That said, there are quite a few development companies and publishers like Ubisoft who have put quite a bit of effort into trying to match said types to gaming styles…
What percentage of gamers would fall firmly within one of the 9 or 19 segments if they were to receive individual assessments on segmentation?
My profile puts me well above average for challenge & strategy + discovery & destruction slightly above/below average. Everything else well well below average. Which seems a rough fit to any of the segments.
@Kieron – Based on our current data set, about 50% of gamers would fall firmly somewhere in the 9 segment model (i.e., have a very clear primary segment with no close secondary segment). The remaining have a primary but a close secondary, so would be better expressed as a Primary-Secondary pair (like Gladiator-Skirmisher).
We’re chewing on implementing this two-tier system on the profile assessment app. That would allow us to keep a relatively short taxonomy (9 segments), but have it express a lot of crossover/nuance via 81 possible labels (9 Permute 2 + Singular 9).
I’m wondering about whether there could be multiple secondaries though, since I’m not sure which Primary-Secondary pair I’d fall into if I had to fit myself into one.
In the 19-segment solution, you have two segments named “Engineer”.
I’m ashamed I didn’t notice it earlier (Papers Please citation notice for me, I guess). I would propose that the mislabeled one is the one in the lower row and that a label that would be suitable is ‘Conqueror’ based on the listed top motivations.
Ah. Good catch. It gets hard to come up with evocative and unique names once the namespace gets crowded. I’m tempted to leave the double Engineer as is, so folks can chew/ponder on how they might change one of those two labels to get it to fit.
And yes, @Luke, a Papers Please demerit for you. I think I had also considered a militaristic label for the 2nd Engineer, but the Completion+Power drive is more gear/level-grindy building up mentality (rather than about domination), which I think is why I tried to re-use Engineer accidentally.
Ah, I see – the Challenge aspect is why I saw the domination part as the core motivation here since that’s what intuitively seems to be the result of Challenge + Power – the desire to grow more powerful so as to be able to fight on par with more powerful and challenging foes as opposed to continuing to spar with the weak ones that no longer pose a threat to your more powerful self. (Which combined with Completion, well, when you complete dominating one area, you move on to the next, so…)
Given that a gear-based level-up motivation seems to tie to the class-build, min-maxing based model of MMOs based on the provided examples, gear tends to go hand-in-hand with equipment in general, so new proposed title – ‘Gadgeteer’. I know it doesn’t capture the completionist drive so well, but sometimes specific tools are needed to fight certain types of enemies and ongoing tinkering with gear in order to make it even stronger than before evokes a certain image (Iron Man anybody?). Of course, I’m curious to see what titles other s may propose too.
I’m interested in the 19 player segments as well! Do you happened to have the reference PDF for that? I find the 9 player segments one to be useful. So I’m curious to see what the other 10 segment profile looks like in more granularity.
For the time being, we don’t have plans to share more granular information about the 19-segment model, but that may change if we decide to provide gamers (who come through our profile app) with their segment label based on that model.
Hey, Nick, outstanding work as usual. If I were working on a game, I’d prefer to use the most granular solution possible. Because it’s a wide field, you never know where a lucrative niche resides. Can’t find that without knowledge(outside sheer dumb luck, but I disregard that).
One question though: What segment would be Design -> Excitement -> Story -> Fantasy? Is it something in the Souls region?
Hi Nick,
Great work and I’m very interested in using this framework. Can we see the proportion of these various motivation segments?
I ask because sometimes it’s important to consider if the Acrobat segment makes up 90% of your sample, with the others fight for the remainder.
Happy to look at the source sample myself if that’s available somewhere.
[…] Killers, Achievers, Socializers and Explorers. But currently we can go even deeper. Companies like Quantic Foundry or Game Refinery introduced their own systems to clasificate player’s motivation which are […]
[…] Yee, N. (2020). Player segments based on gaming motivations. Retrieved from https://quanticfoundry.com/2020/08/17/player-segments/. […]
It’s interesting how Dota 2 and League of Legends as popular games falls into the category of Ninja while Mobile Legends and Vainglory (arguably, the same games genre-wise but mobile instead of on PC) falls into Gladiator instead.
Wonder what is the reasoning behind the decision to put them in different player segments or if it is automated, what aspect of the game can cause players of different types to like one more than the other (PC over mobile and vice versa).
Hi Surik – The popular games are derived from the segment analysis and not hand selected. So once we identified the segments, we then tabulated the games that are mentioned disproportionately by players in each segment (i.e., more likely than the baseline frequency). It struck me that Mobile Legends and Dragon Nest are both games that are more popular in Southeast Asia (I believe), so it may be that these games are showing up because there are more Gladiator players in Southeast Asia (with a more Competition + Completion profile). This also reminds me of the motivation differences we saw in US vs Chinese gamers: https://quanticfoundry.com/2018/11/27/gamers-china-us/