Study: Game Achievements = Better Games Sales

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I really enjoy going after achievements if they are well thought out. I do hope that studies like these do not persuade game developers to just start tossing in all sorts of ridiculous achievements just to increase the numbers though. That could defeat the purpose.

I'm not quite sure if this answers your exact concern, but it sounds along the lines of what you were thinking:

From Wikipedia

On February 1, 2007 Microsoft announced on their Gamerscore Blog some new policies that developers must follow related to Gamerscore and Achievements in future releases.[10] All games must have 1,000 Gamerscore points in the base game - the title could ship with fewer than 1,000 points, but anything added later must be free. Game developers also now have the option of adding up to 250 points via downloadable content (for a total of 1,250 points) - this content can be either free or paid. Xbox Live Arcade titles may add up to 50 points via downloadable content (for a total of 250 points).

I think I also remember reading that the base 1000 points had to be distributed within fewer than 50 total achievements, but that may not be official. I know The Orange Box had many more than 50, but perhaps that was given special rights due to the 5-games-in-1 situation.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I really enjoy going after achievements if they are well thought out. I do hope that studies like these do not persuade game developers to just start tossing in all sorts of ridiculous achievements just to increase the numbers though. That could defeat the purpose.

I'm not quite sure if this answers your exact concern, but it sounds along the lines of what you were thinking:

From Wikipedia

On February 1, 2007 Microsoft announced on their Gamerscore Blog some new policies that developers must follow related to Gamerscore and Achievements in future releases.[10] All games must have 1,000 Gamerscore points in the base game - the title could ship with fewer than 1,000 points, but anything added later must be free. Game developers also now have the option of adding up to 250 points via downloadable content (for a total of 1,250 points) - this content can be either free or paid. Xbox Live Arcade titles may add up to 50 points via downloadable content (for a total of 250 points).

I think I also remember reading that the base 1000 points had to be distributed within fewer than 50 total achievements, but that may not be official. I know The Orange Box had many more than 50, but perhaps that was given special rights due to the 5-games-in-1 situation.

This doesn't sound too bad. As long as those people in sales/marketing departments understand that more points does not directly equal more fun then it should be ok. If too many do not understand video games well and are blinded by numbers then that could be bad.

 

[hdeck]

there are actually people that won't buy games because they don't have tons of achievements? that's sad.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: hdeck
there are actually people that won't buy games because they don't have tons of achievements? that's sad.

I think it is more like people will buy games that have a lot of achievements. It's a fun perk. I don't think it stops them from buying titles which are simply good gaming.

 

[Engraver]

Any achievement I find worthwhile in a game is more than likely not going to be included in their achievement list.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: hdeck
there are actually people that won't buy games because they don't have tons of achievements? that's sad.

I think it is more like people will buy games that have a lot of achievements. It's a fun perk. I don't think it stops them from buying titles which are simply good gaming.

still, i can't believe people base their purchasing decisions on it. maybe it's just good games, regardless of achievements, sell higher than bad games. the good games just coincidentally have more achievements.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: hdeck
there are actually people that won't buy games because they don't have tons of achievements? that's sad.

I think it is more like people will buy games that have a lot of achievements. It's a fun perk. I don't think it stops them from buying titles which are simply good gaming.

still, i can't believe people base their purchasing decisions on it. maybe it's just good games, regardless of achievements, sell higher than bad games. the good games just coincidentally have more achievements.

I feel you. I personally don't base my purchases on that, but I can understand why people might do it. It's the fun addiction of collecting something which makes you feel accomplished. Much like baseball cards or aspects of an MMO. People like it.

Pokemon! Gotta catch'em all 😉

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: R Nilla
As everyone on Anandtech always loves to say, correlation != causation. Couldn't this simply be indicating that the companies who take the extra time to incorporate worthwhile achievements (rather than hastily coming up with a handful of easily-earned ones) are the ones who are taking the time to put out a quality, polished game in the first place? If you're rushing through the achievements, chances are you probably rushed through development of the entire game. Look at a game like Vampire Rain versus a game like The Orange Box. That may be a poor example since Orange Box consists of mostly ported material, but you get the idea.

Along with that theory, I'd say that games that actually take the time to include a variety of multiplayer achievements are most likely games that actually have a deep and rewarding online experience.

Exactly. It's sad when companies put their resources into doing these studies then can't even interpret the results.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

I once thought achievements were stupid, but seeing the ones in Orange Box I can understand them adding some structure for replay value.

I don't feel like trying to get them all though, many seem pretty silly. I got them all in TF2 just because I play that game so much.

EDIT: OK, the Irony achievement I got in Bioshock made me laugh harder than I had in some time playing a game. That one was gold.

 

[potato28]

I really don't care for achievements. I just like beating games to see the endings, and to have a little fun. I've been called a gamerscore whore because I beat games and get like 200-400 gs each time, but I really don't care for the system.

 

[rayfieldclement]

Why Worry about getting achevements though? Unless they (companies) give out monetary or non monetary prizes for achevements why worry about them?

 

[Yongsta]

Why Worry about getting achevements though? Unless they (companies) give out monetary or non monetary prizes for achevements why worry about them?

Why do some people care about how many posts they have on an internet forum? Bragging rights.

 

[Aikouka]

I bought Assassin's Creed Revelations for the 360 just so I could get the achievements. I already own it for the PS3. 😳

In my defense, it was on sale (and still is as of writing) at Target (B&M only) for $20!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Some achievements are retarded though. "You got to level 2 Congrats! Here's some free points for doing what you're supposed to do in the game!"

I've heard people talk about things like "If Uncharted didn't have trophies I wouldn't have bought it." I'm always like "woah man...why do you even play games then?" It's almost like getting a billion friends on facebook for them, no point.

 

[BD2003]

I've def bought the 360 version of games instead of the PS3 because of achievements. The 360 has the only worthwhile system because it's so visible and easily accessible. I don't really care for PS3 trophies because of the annoying sync process, difficulty in comparing, etc. Same with steam trophies, they're buried too far under the surface.

 

[American Gunner]

I've def bought the 360 version of games instead of the PS3 because of achievements. The 360 has the only worthwhile system because it's so visible and easily accessible. I don't really care for PS3 trophies because of the annoying sync process, difficulty in comparing, etc. Same with steam trophies, they're buried too far under the surface.

Wow, you are too busy to let your ps3 take a couple seconds to sync your trophy information?

 

[BD2003]

Wow, you are too busy to let your ps3 take a couple seconds to sync your trophy information?

Yep. Because its such a minor feature, if it's not responsive, I just don't want to deal with it at all. It's buried away under too many menus, with too much wait time between them all.

If a 360 cheevo pops, I just hit one button and the whole list of 50 comes up almost instantly. Just like patching or downloading anything on the ps3, it takes several times as long compared to doing it on the 360.

 

[viivo]

While I don't search out achievements or look them up online, I do enjoy those that are related to the game world or setting. Red Dead Redemption is a good example:

Spoiler

There is a secret achievement for putting a hogtied woman on the train tracks. This is a classic Western cliche everyone knows about and of course the first thing I did once getting the lasso. Seeing the achievement pop up just made it extra nice.