360 Achievements / "Accomplishments" Research

[Dave Baumann]

We've had a couple of threads into the "what does 360 Achievements bring" before, but now a reasearch firm has chimed in with some data mining based on achievements - some of the finding parrot our own thoughts, though it is quite interesting to see from a study perspective:

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17797

After examining 4,615 achievements incorporated in 124 retail and 63 downloadable game titles available for the Xbox 360 during the period November 1, 2005 through June 1, 2007, EEDAR found that in general that titles that have a higher volume of Accomplishments (EEDAR's platform agnostic term) correlate with both a higher Metacritic Metascore and higher gross sales in the U.S.

"The results showed a strong connection between a game title's diversity of Accomplishment types with that game's profitability – pointing to the idea that the more diverse the Accomplishments available to the user, the more enjoyable the game, higher review scores, more units sold," explained EEDAR.

"Consumers want their games to include both variety and abundance of Accomplishments," commented Geoffrey Zatkin, COO, EEDAR. "Our research shows that incentives such as Accomplishments impact sales choices such as which game title to buy and which platform to buy it on; they also extend the replayability of a title."

Unsurprisingly, considering the prevalence and growing importance of online features, EEDAR also found that titles that incorporate online elements into their Accomplishments generate 50 percent more money than those that do not.

We disagree that Achievements are a hardcore gamer phenomenon. While it may only be the hardcore gamers who go after the full 1000 Achievement points on every game they play, casual gamers still try to get some Achievements, and are happy when they do so.

If properly implemented, this [trophies] should be a huge boost for Sony. Currently, when compared to Xbox Live, the PlayStation Network is underused. The Trophy system has the potential to increase both the use of the PlayStation Network and of Home, and possibly to increase PlayStation 3 hardware and game sales. It will be interesting to see if, like the Xbox 360 Achievements, the Trophy system takes a while to catch on or if it immediately takes off due to greater consumer familiarity with Accomplishments.

Generally speaking I fall into the category of reviewing achievements before buying a game - thought that, to me, only makes a difference where the title is marginal in its appeal (i.e. it may be a tie breaker). Although they noted that "hardcore" gamers go for the 1000/1000, one thing they didn't touch on was the notion of a poorer title potentially getting more recognition due to achievements being attainable, as I think this happens as well (though often they will end up quickly in the trade-in bins, or as rentals).

The touched on the Sony Trophies for Sony, though it reamins to be seen if introducing this after 360 achievements will have an effect on multiplatform titles.

 

[RobertR1]

When I first saw achievements, I didn't care much for it. Then you realize that every games has them. You turn on your 360 and your gamer score is the first thing you see. You start playing games and see them pop up.

Because the achievements are present with everygame, the game score always present for you to see, the system conditions you into going after them. For some, this transition will take longer than other. It also depends how much gaming you do on the 360.

The system has won. I do play for achievement now as much anything. While I really ran from it in the beginning, the games are getting clever with it's usage and it adds another element of fun.

 

[Corwin_B]

"The results showed a strong connection between a game title's diversity of Accomplishment types with that game's profitability – pointing to the idea that the more diverse the Accomplishments available to the user, the more enjoyable the game, higher review scores, more units sold," explained EEDAR.

That could also be that good, well thought-out games have good, well thought-out Achievements ?

Most reviewers don't even bother mentioning Achievements, so I doubt they play a large role in a game's metascore.

Generally speaking, it seems the quality and diversity of Achievements has improved a lot since launch day. Now, many titles have just the right blend between Achievements you get while playing the game "normally", "hardcore gamer" stuff (that requires a huge amount of dedication to unlock), and some silly Easter Egg stuff (the 3 puzzle achievements in PGR4 are extremely well done, for example).

Also, I commend the developers of COD4 for opting out of online Achievements, since those seem to turn a good portion of Xbox Live in Achievement-boosting fests, where people will ruin games in order to boost their Gamerscore.

 

[Kanyamagufa]

Half the time, I look at some of the achievements and can't help but think that they are more of a special bonus recognition for something that a developer pulled off one day during game testing by accident, and everyone else thought it was awesome.

 

[Sethamin]

Let's not forget that correlation != causation. Just because games with better achievements sell more copies and get higher review scores, doesn't mean the achievements are the cause of that. It seems just as likely that varied and diverse achievements are a strong signal for a well-executed game. I would be interested to know if they still see the same correlation between achievements and sales when controlling for review score (e.g. does a game with better achievements sell more than another game with the same review scores but fewer achievements?).

The same goes for their assertion that multi-platform games with good achievements generate more revenue on the 360 than on other platforms. That could also be explained by other factors, such as install base, lead SKU status, XBL, or higher overall attach rates for 360.

 

[dlm]

The same goes for their assertion that multi-platform games with good achievements generate more revenue on the 360 than on other platforms. That could also be explained by other factors, such as install base, lead SKU status, XBL, or higher overall attach rates for 360.

While I agree with this to an extent, there's no shortage at least of anecdotal evidence pointing to achievements driving buying decisions on multiplatform games. I would be interested to see a more in-depth study on the topic, because it's an interesting debate with no really solid information.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who assigns attribute points to a game? Surely there's a system in place to ensure no massive inflation of gamerscore points, which prevent some games offering 200 point per achievement, but do MS ratify every game, or put a limit on how many achievement points a game can have, or anything similar?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Who assigns attribute points to a game? Surely there's a system in place to ensure no massive inflation of gamerscore points, which prevent some games offering 200 point per achievement, but do MS ratify every game, or put a limit on how many achievement points a game can have, or anything similar?

There's a limit of 1000 points per game or 200 points for an XBLA game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Makes sense. So how do achievements help Gamerscore fiends like Dave choose a titles? Easy at which they can be got, or variety of challenges, according to online walkthroughs?

 

[infinity4]

Retail games can be extended to 1250 points but 1000 must be available in game disc without additional purchase (DLC). I think arcade games can go up to 250 as well.

Condemned is the only game where it is virtually impossible to score 1000, only having 970 out there without DLC.

IMO achievements feel like achievements but most times they just give me more stress. Every time I see that I didn't get 1000/1000 out of a game and knowing that I am just not good enough to reach there in my life it is a bitter feeling... lol

 

[AlphaWolf]

Makes sense. So how do achievements help Gamerscore fiends like Dave choose a titles? Easy at which they can be got, or variety of challenges, according to online walkthroughs?

You'd have to look online at gamefaqs or something, I guess, most games have some really simple and straightforward achievements that you could plow through in a few minutes of the first time playing and others are really quite obscure that its unlikely you'd ever stumble upon.

 

[AzBat]

http://www.achieve360points.com/

 

[AzBat]

I take back all the dirty nasty things I have mumbled under my breath about Dave after he got all the points for Blue Dragon (1000), I think I am 12-20 hours into it and have I believe...20...whole...points...

Mumbled? I think I heard you quite clearly. I'm not saying I don't do it, cause I do too, but I agree he's amazing and insane at the same time. I just wished I had as much skill he has in his big toe. LOL

Tommy McClain

 

[Rangers]

Makes sense. So how do achievements help Gamerscore fiends like Dave choose a titles? Easy at which they can be got, or variety of challenges, according to online walkthroughs?

Games choose different paths how to award their 1,000 points.

Personally, I think simply beating a game on normal difficulty or higher is the best indication that you have demonstrated some mastery of that title. So I prefer games that do it like that. Halo 3 handled this fairly well for example. You would get 20 points for beating each of the first few levels, then 30 and 40 on the later levels. Then, 125 points for beating the game on each of normal, heroic, and legendary.

So beating the game on Heroic earned about 300 points. 125 for beating heroic+125 for beating normal (it automatically gives you the lower difficulty achievement when playing on higher)+50 for finishing the final level. Something like that. Beating the game on Heroic earned me I believe 540 points in total, and I only got a couple of minor task related achievements along the way (for example, killing three enemies at once with the needler earned me ten points, which happened naturally in the course of gameplay).

Call Of Duty 3 also disperses large points for simply beating the game. Again, the strategy I prefer.

Gears of War on the other hand, disperses much less points for simply beating the game. It tends to spread it's achievements out, and many of them can only be earned in online ranked play, which is very difficult, as you are playing amongst the hardcore there.

It does seem budget titles are more likely to have fewer, simplistic achievements. I believe a notorious achievement inflator was King Kong, which awarded 1,000 points simply for beating the game! Of course, word got around about that, and people who interested in inflating their gamerscore may seek out that game.

As much as I bashed Gears achievements though, in a way it is a good example of a game that I could see myself oneday striving to get all the achievements for, which would be an ardous grind. The worst offender by far is "seriously", 50 points for racking up 10,000 kills in ranked online. Talk about a beast to achieve, as the average skill level in ranked online is very high..

Half Life 2, because I guess it is "5 games in one" seems to pour on tons of little 5 and 10 point achievements achieved through gameplay, not beating levels. 99 achievements in all. Which means, I'm not earning that many points for playing through HL2..I dont mind too much, though, either. So it's hard to say one way is right or wrong.

 

[vazel]

I don't like achievements much but I admit I do them sometimes when I'm bored. I guess achievements with their list of things to do and incremental score showing progress is a game in itself. I still wish I could disable those pop-ups during gaming...

 

[infinity4]

Could you not disable messages or some sort of thing in guide button?

 

[vazel]

Ah yes what a relief. Weird it's all over the web when you Google for it I wonder why I just always wrote it off as not being able to be disabled.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Who assigns attribute points to a game? Surely there's a system in place to ensure no massive inflation of gamerscore points, which prevent some games offering 200 point per achievement, but do MS ratify every game, or put a limit on how many achievement points a game can have, or anything similar?

MS assigns the ground rules to the developers; the main restirctions were up to 1000 points on retail games and up to 200 points on Live Arcade games. MS are certainly open to devs/publishers pushing them - i.e. they used to have an upper limited of the 1000 points for retail games being distributed through 50 achievements, but this went out the window with The Orange Box with its 1000 points distributed over 99 achievements (though there is, effectively, nearly five games there) and Bethesda pushed for additional achievements for Oblivion: The Shivering Isles, so MS came up with the 250 extra achievement points for DLC on a retail game and 50 extra DLC points on Arcade games.

How, where, why those points are assigned in a game are completely up to the game developer and how into them they are. Some titles you can get the majority of them just by doing the game, other titles may make you complete all the extras and get 100% completion in the game (for a platformer type). Some games the achievements are fairly arbitrary, others, like Test Drive Unlimited, appeared to have the goals for the various aspects very structured around the achievements. There is already a very wide variety out there.

Even though the title was much derided, I still look back at Star Trek: Legacy as one that had some pretty interesting achievements in - one set had three achievements for completing the same level but to do it you had to replay the level in an entirely different manner, forcing you to think of alternate methods of doing of doing it entirely.

Makes sense. So how do achievements help Gamerscore fiends like Dave choose a titles? Easy at which they can be got, or variety of challenges, according to online walkthroughs?

"Some" achievements are easy to get, 1000/1000 achievements are often much more difficult. For me, I'm also looking to keep a high rating - for instance, although I'm achievement hunting quite frequently, I also like to maintain an average above 75% - right now I'm at 80% achieved ratio based on all the achievements I could have got from the titles I have played.

While I freely admit that I have a number of padders in my list, these ones will be rentals or borrowed, and in this regard I'm generally looking for those that I can get 1000/1000 in a fairly straightforward manner (although they can force you into learning things that you never would have otherwise - having never been into American Football I was forced into looking up what a "Sack" was in order to even understand what I was trying to do for one Madden achievement). Games which I may pick up more are achievable to reach 1000/1000 but challenging to do so - I've got 100% in titles such as Condemned, Lego Star Wars I I(anyone that tried the “Undefeated” achievements on the ship flying levels will know what I’m talking about), Warriors / Dynasty titles, N3, Test Drive Unlimited, Tomb Raider Legend, Star Trek Legacy, Oblivion, Dirt, Bioshock, Overlord and Blue Dragon but they were fairly challenging and/or lengthy to actually do. All of those titles I’d actually purchased as well, with only a few traded in again.

I take back all the dirty nasty things I have mumbled under my breath about Dave after he got all the points for Blue Dragon (1000), I think I am 12-20 hours into it and have I believe...20...whole...points...

Put some backbone into it man! I think I ended up at around 120 hours in that - it was a little 3 week opus for me!

So beating the game on Heroic earned about 300 points. 125 for beating heroic+125 for beating normal (it automatically gives you the lower difficulty achievement when playing on higher)+50 for finishing the final level. Something like that. Beating the game on Heroic earned me I believe 540 points in total, and I only got a couple of minor task related achievements along the way (for example, killing three enemies at once with the needler earned me ten points, which happened naturally in the course of gameplay).

Bullet Witch has a somewhat sadistic take on that. Completing each mode will unlock a harder mode, each with progressively more points for completing the new mode, up to "Hell" mode which has the sum total of 1 achievement point. Of course, if you've unlocked Hell mode, it means that you probably have 999/1000 points meaning that you really have to get that 1 point (even though it is a terrifically bad game and somehow your brain didn't melt playing it the previous 4 times!).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thanks for the info. It sounds a very clever decision by MS, and they deserve much credit for the idea. Could this also explain the higher than average attach rate for XB360, as gamers are as much playing for a high Gamerscore as an ordinary high-score? Like in 'ye good olde days' when you'd stuff coins into an arcade in pursuit of the top score, the competition with your fellow man was reason to expend money. Has the Gamerscore (am I confusing Gamerscore and Achievement scores here?) become a new rivalry that spurs gamers to grab new titles?

Thinking of Guild Wars, there's some really daft achievements in that game (IMO, obviously, and they'll be great for people who like them!), such as new armours that cost a lot, requiring a lot of effort to obtain, while giving no benefits. People pursue them as a 'badge of honour' along with other 'titles' for various achievements, like mapping an entire world or clearing all the levels of every monster. The latest GW:EN expansion adds a trophy hall to showcase everything you've collected. I'm wondering if the visual awards will be a bigger incentive, and perhaps Sony's Home could benefit a lot from that? If people get to show off to others their achievements by clothing or virtual possessions, is that going to be a bigger draw? Or appeal in a different way? I think a psychological force is the desire to have a complete set. If every game came with a hat for completing it, and you'd have to 'collect them all', that'd spur people on more than every game having a different reward. Live's simple points model is good in that respect.

Certainly a whole new interesting field of game development. Someone needs to gather serious stats on impact and penetration of the ideas.

 

[AzBat]

Shifty,

Check out the original "achievements" from Activision...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/activision/activision-patches-the-first-achievements-252429.php
http://www.digitpress.com/archives/cc_patches_2600.htm
http://www.atariage.com/2600/archives/activision_patches.html

Would be nice to see Activision or anybody else do something like that again. I would be so there.

Tommy McClain