Home |
Case
Histories | Games People Play
Download PDF Version
Games People Play
Category: Electronic Games
Methods: Focus Groups, Depth Interviews, Projective
Techniques, Motivational Research
Summary
At the dawn of the digital age, a major international manufacturer of electronic
systems and components assigned a team of engineers to develop digital games
for the new electronic devices then emerging. The engineers viewed this as an
opportunity to convert checkers, chess, and similar board games into electronic
versions. Consumer research revealed a far vaster realm of opportunity, a fantasy
world beyond the imaginations of the engineers.
Strategic Issues
Major technological breakthroughs in integrated circuits, microprocessors,
and other electronic components made possible a whole array of new products
and new possibilities. Our client, a Fortune 500 company, organized a number
of engineering teams to address different product categories of perceived opportunity.
One engineering team was assigned “games” and the task of developing
games for digital devices and media. The engineering team’s initial focus
was on converting various board games into digital or electronic versions, and
the engineers wanted some guidance, based on consumer research, about how best
to design electronic versions of these board games. Decision Analyst immediately
suspected that the engineers might be too rigid or too structured in their thinking,
and recommended that qualitative research (focus groups and depth interviews)
be the primary research method. Qualitative techniques would allow consumer
motivations related to games to be explored in depth, and the engineers could
view the interviews and perhaps expand their conception of what might be possible.
The engineers liked the idea of escaping their cubicles to watch consumers through
a one-way mirror, and the project was approved.
Research Objectives
Naturally, the overriding stated objective of the research was to help the
engineers convert board games into electronic versions, based on consumer feedback.
We were able to persuade the engineering team to allow us to set a research
objective of exploring consumer attitudes toward games in general—and
delving into consumer motivations related to games. The engineers felt the motivational
explorations would be a waste of time, but nevertheless agreed to give us that
freedom.
Research Design and Methods
A combination of qualitative methods was employed—focus groups and depth
interviews. A series of in-person focus groups were conducted in the United
States, spread across several major cities. Several focus groups among men,
divided into similar age groups, were conducted. Several focus groups were conducted
among women, following the same sampling pattern. In addition, a number of depth
interviews were conducted in each market. We wanted to observe the interplay
and interactions among respondents as they discussed games (hence, the groups),
but we also wanted to hear what individuals would say and do in the absence
of peer influence or pressure (hence, the depth interviews).
The discussion or interview guides were set up to begin very broadly and vaguely
on the subject of playing games and sports, so that respondents did not know
the purpose of the discussions or understand our motives—to minimize any
potential bias from our questioning. As the sessions evolved, we explored childhood
memories of playing games, explored adults playing games with other adults,
and explored adults playing games with children. We asked questions about the
joys of games and the disappointments. We used projective techniques, such as
role playing and story telling, to help uncover deeper emotions and feelings.
We probed into the psychology of game playing and the factors involved. Towards
the end of the sessions, we focused on board games and their conversion to electronic
media (the primary objective).
These sessions turned out to be remarkable in terms of participant involvement
and interest—and in the depth and expanse of revelations. It seemed that
everyone had very deep and strong feelings about games and game playing. The
longer respondents talked, the deeper and more intense the sessions became.
The results were not what the engineers expected.
Results
We learned that human beings are extremely competitive creatures, but these
competitive urges are suppressed at every turn. In the home, in school, in church,
and at work, open competition among individuals is actively discouraged in the
interests of social harmony and cooperation. In playing games, these deep-seated
competitive drives are unleashed and set free. It’s thrilling to compete
openly to win—where winning is a socially acceptable outcome.
We also learned that consumers were not much interested in playing board games,
or solving puzzles, or playing chess on computers or electronic media. What
the participants really wanted to do was sit in the cockpit and fly the airplane,
sit in the driver’s seat and race the car, drive the tank and shoot its
gun, and carry the rifle and grenades into the thick of battle. The respondents
wanted simulated action and conflict, and wanted to be participants in the competitive
action and excitement. We were thrilled with these qualitative discoveries.
They heralded the birth of a new industry. The rest is history.
Copyright © 2011 by Decision Analyst, Inc.
This case study may not be copied, published, or used in any way without written permission of Decision Analyst.
Qualitative Research Services
Decision Analyst has over 3 decades of qualitative research experience and
is one of the pioneers in adapting qualitative research to the Internet. Our moderators
can recommend the qualitative technique (online or in-person) best suited to your
research needs.
For more information on our Qualitative
Research services, please contact Gwen Ishmael by emailing gishmae@decisionanalyst.com
or calling 1-800-ANALYSIS (262-5974) or 1-817-640-6166.
Additional Resources from Decision Analyst
Related Services
Related White Papers
