Next Article in Journal
Integration of Service-Learning Theory and Social Capital Theory in Volunteering Work for Sustainable Development: A Study of the Role of Education Curricula in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Basic Mechanical Properties and Discrete Element Method Simulation of Permeable Concrete
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Esports Content Attributes on Viewing Flow and Well-Being: A Focus on the Moderating Effect of Esports Involvement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813311
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis

by
Minseok Lee
1 and
Chanmin Park
2,*
1
Department of Sport Industry Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Kinesiology, College of Arts & Sports, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13311; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151813311
Submission received: 30 June 2023 / Revised: 27 August 2023 / Accepted: 2 September 2023 / Published: 5 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of Sport Management in the Post-COVID19 Era)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to explore the participation preferences of players in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, a topic of growing relevance as PTE games gain increasing attention. These games offer players the unique opportunity to earn real-world rewards through virtual gameplay activities. By examining the factors that drive players’ decision-making in PTE games, we deepen our understanding of the intersection between virtual economies and real-world financial needs. The insights from this study can provide game developers and policymakers with valuable information to design and implement effective strategies that support individuals seeking alternative income sources and new economic models in the face of unprecedented challenges. To determine the prioritization of motivating factors among PTE game players, we utilized the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis as part of a three-stage process: a literature review (Stage 1), expert evaluation (Stage 2), and AHP analysis (Stage 3). The study derived 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay from literature review, divided into three primary elements, each with four sub-factors. These primary factors include Gaming Experience (comprising Fun factor, Game Quality, Game Genre, and Challenge), Financial Outcomes (consisting of Tokenomics, ROI, Game Company Reliability, and Coin Price), and PTE Game Awareness (including Management, Game Entry Timing, Game Platform, and Community). This study uncovers the three primary factors that encourage participation in PTE games, with Gaming Experience emerging as the most critical, followed by Financial Outcomes and PTE Game Awareness. This finding underlines the need for game developers to prioritize the gaming experience to ensure the development and sustainability of PTE games.

1. Background

With the advancement of digital technology, cryptocurrency has exerted a substantial influence on the global economy. Initially dominated by Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency market has since diversified to include various other entities, such as Ethereum (Layer 2) and Altcoin (Layer 3). Emerging concepts such as Decentralized Finance (De-fi) and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) represent the forefront of new technology, and these sophisticated systems are exerting considerable influence on the video game industry. Capitalizing on the capabilities of Web3, game developers are creating novel play-to-earn (PTE) games that empower players to retain ownership of their in-game assets and earn valuable rewards through gameplay.
PTE games, which have gained notable attention in recent years, offer players the opportunity to earn real-world rewards by engaging in virtual gameplay activities. These games employ blockchain technology to foster a secure and transparent environment where players can buy, sell, and trade their in-game assets akin to real-world market transactions. The gaming industry has evolved from “play-to-win” games, which necessitate skill enhancement to defeat opponents, to the “pay-to-win” model, and now to the “play-to-earn” games that facilitate earning money [1,2]. Existing video games provide opportunities for players to make money by selling in-game items, but these differ from PTE games due to the utilization of NFTs. The advent of NFTs has enabled in-game items to exist solely in the user’s digital wallet, thus allowing users to earn money by selling NFT items or by exchanging in-game coins for stable coins or fiat currencies (such as USD, KRW) at a centralized or decentralized exchange. Unlike traditional video game items, NFTs are owned entirely by the user.
PTE gaming involves players earning monetizable rewards through gameplay [3]. The most widely known PTE game, CryptoKitties, launched in late 2017, employs a simple structure of breeding and reselling digital kittens [4]. The prospect of earning money through gameplay has piqued considerable interest, especially in low-wage markets such as the Philippines and other developing countries, where it is viewed as a potential labor substitute [5]. Subsequently, a game named Axie Infinity emerged, introducing a mechanism to acquire game coins (Smooth Love Potion) via in-game NFTs and exchange them for fiat currency [6].
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted various societal aspects, including economic stability and individual financial circumstances. Amid job losses, reduced incomes, and economic uncertainty, PTE games might present an alternative avenue for generating income or supplementing financial resources [7].
Two primary methods of revenue generation through PTE games exist. The first involves purchasing in-game NFTs, replicating them, and selling new ones. The second entails selling game coins (cryptocurrencies) acquired through NFTs. Most PTE games require an initial entry cost to purchase the initial NFT, with early entrants collecting these and later accumulating wealth through gameplay.
Various games, such as Axie Infinity, Mir4 Global, Town Star, Decentraland, Sandbox, and CryptoKitties, have been developed as the concept of earning money through gameplay gained traction. However, the initial success of these games was short-lived, as gamers chose to cash in profits rather than reinvest and spend the coins earned in-game. This trend led to a rapid downfall of PTE games, resulting in a sharp decline in the market price of game coins and NFTs [1,8]. Regardless, the development of a sustainable PTE game could herald a new era in video gaming. Despite the potential for PTE games to be a temporary trend, they represent a novel game genre capable of revolutionizing the gaming industry. It is thus imperative to examine the factors motivating people to engage in PTE games and discern which factors are most prioritized by the players.
This study was designed to examine the participation priorities of PTE game participants. The existing prior research on PTE games is significantly limited, and studies on web3 and blockchain games [8,9] have primarily focused on their economic aspects. This research introduces novelty by investigating players’ behavior intentions to comprehend the PTE game phenomenon. Initially, we identified the motivating factors of PTE game participants from literature reviews and subsequently ascertained the priority of these factors in PTE gameplay. By probing the factors influencing players’ choices within PTE games, this research contributes to understanding the dynamic interplay between virtual economies and real-world financial needs, especially in a global crisis like COVID-19. The findings of this study could guide game developers and policymakers in crafting and implementing effective strategies to support individuals seeking alternative income streams and exploring innovative economic models amidst unprecedented challenges.

2. Related Literature Review

2.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an analysis method introduced by Saaty [10] that synthesizes a systematic approach, utilizing statistical techniques, with subjective analysis drawn from expert input.
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is the process of selecting one alternative from a given set of alternatives based on their quantitative scores with respect to different criteria [11]. According to several prior studies, methods such as AHP, Stable Preference Ordering Towards Ideal Solution (SPOTIS), RANking COMparison(RANCOM), and Characteristic Objects METhod (COMET) have been used [11,12,13]. Multicriteria decision-making analysis (MCDA) is a potent research methodology that addresses intricate decision-making dilemmas within ambiguous contexts. Diverse MCDA methodologies, encompassing the Dimensionality Reduction Technique [14] and the Approach with q-rung Orthopair Fuzzy Preferences [15], have been advanced to scrutinize the decision-making mechanism.
In this study, we have chosen the AHP method as the research approach since the evaluation criteria exhibit a hierarchical structure, and AHP can effectively incorporate this hierarchical characteristic.
A multi-criteria decision model, AHP facilitates rational and systematic decision-making around specific content by creating a hierarchy of the relative importance of various interrelated factors. This is achieved through pairwise comparisons and weight estimations of these measured factors [16,17]. AHP is often used in research to rank items in a hierarchical structure and make decisions via one-to-one comparisons in a specified order [18]. AHP is advantageous in its capacity to break down complex decision-making problems into a hierarchical format, making them more comprehensible. Furthermore, it can convert qualitative data into quantifiable figures for analysis [19]. By combining theoretical foundations with expert insights, AHP analysis is adept at quantifying abstract concepts. In the gaming industry, several precedent studies have leveraged AHP analysis to investigate critical elements, such as key factors for gaming notebooks [20], the development of online role-playing games [21], and the performance evaluation of digital games [22]. A study by Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh [23] employed AHP to evaluate the quality of mobile puzzle games, and Khorsandi & Li [24] employed AHP to investigate video gaming addiction, laying a solid foundation for its use in discerning the most prioritized play elements in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games. Furthermore, Lotfi, Amine, & Mohammed [25] employed the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) in their exploration of video game genre preferences, while Wan Jr & bin Kamal [26] utilized AHP in their analysis of position and skillset selection within the League of Legends game.

2.2. Blockchain Game Technology

Blockchain technology, with its underlying Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), maintains a record of ownership and provides a mechanism for enhancing transaction reliability in a decentralized environment. Subsequent advancements introduced “Blockchain 2.0” applications, such as “Ethereum (ETH),” that allow various software codes to be stored in the DLT. This makes it possible to run an array of programs on the Ethereum layer [27], thereby leading to the development of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). NFTs provide a unique identifier to each token, thereby creating non-homogenous tokens. In PTE games, NFTs ensure that each item is unique and non-duplicable. Unlike conventional game environments where game assets are owned by the game company, in a blockchain game environment, players retain ownership of game assets via NFTs, and game coins can be paid as compensation for gameplay. The principal advantages of blockchain in gaming are as follows. (1) Ownership of in-game assets: Blockchain enables players to retain ownership. This facilitates transactions in a decentralized marketplace, with each transaction recorded on the blockchain for transparency and security. (2) Play-to-earn: Some blockchain-based games allow players to earn cryptocurrencies or other digital assets through gameplay. This incentivizes players to spend more time in the game, fostering a new economy centered on the game. Table 1 provides the history and genres of blockchain games, while Table 2 provides definitions of blockchain-related terms used in this study.

3. Methods

This study adopted a systematic research methodology encompassing a literature review assessment (stage 1), expert evaluation (stage 2), and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) analysis (stage 3). The stages of the research applied to this study are detailed in Table 3, comprising literature research conducted in September 2022, expert evaluation in October 2022, and AHP analysis in November 2022. The expert evaluation went through two steps: factor selection in Stage 2 and ranking the factors in Stage 3.

3.1. Derivation of PTE Gameplay Factors through Literature Research

In this study, the factors of PTE game participation were first established according to the scale development study by DeVellis and Thorpe [31], who emphasized that the concept of measurement goals should be prioritized in developing specific factors. Our literature review utilized Google Scholar for international publications and RISS for Korean domestic sources, employing the following search terms: “play to earn (PTE, P2E)”, “non-fungible tokens (NFT)”, “motivation”, “playing intention”, “participating intention”, “AHP”, “esports”, and “fan behavior”.
The main factor of ‘Gaming Experience’ was derived from the research by Lee et al. [23], ‘Financial Outcomes’ was sourced from the study by Delic & Delfabbro [8], and ‘PTE Games Awareness’ was extracted from the work of Cho [1]. Subsequent sub-factors were derived from an initial factor pool based on prior research, with details provided in Table 4.

3.2. Confirmation of PTE Gameplay Factors through Expert Evaluation

In Stage 2, an expert evaluation was conducted on the PTE gameplay factors derived in Stage 1. The confirmed factors were determined by modifying, maintaining, or deleting factors based on a synthesis of expert opinions. The criteria for expert ratings are outlined in Table 5 [33].
This study employed snowball sampling to recruit experts with five or more years of experience in the gaming field and academic professionals who possess expertise in the emerging blockchain gaming industry. The rationale behind this selection lies in three aspects: firstly, the necessity to have a strong understanding of the video game field; secondly, the requirement to be familiar with the new blockchain gaming industry; and thirdly, the aim to advance the research in this area. The characteristics of the experts involved in this study are presented in Table 6.
In Stage 2, experts individually selected four factors from the factor pool derived from the literature research, with the factors being determined according to the weighted order of factors selected by the experts. The initial factor pool used for expert rating is displayed in Table 6. In the expert evaluation stage, each expert selected four factors in any order. These factors were then used in the AHP analysis based on their cumulative order.

3.3. Hierarchical Ranking of PTE Gameplay Factors through AHP Analysis

The study conducted an AHP analysis to evaluate the relative priorities of the top three PTE gameplay factors derived in the literature study—namely gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness—as well as 12 sub-factors. The participants in the AHP analysis were the same as those listed in Table 6. The experts who took part in this study included field and academic experts. Field experts comprised leaders of the Korean Cryptocurrency community, developers of blockchain games, staff of esports gaming teams, and highly involved gamers who invested more than KRW 100 million in PTE games. Academic experts included professors and researchers familiar with blockchain, esports, and video games. The factors used in the AHP analysis are listed in Table 7.
The AHP analysis was conducted to ascertain the relative importance and priority of the factors identified in Stages 1 and 2. Commonly, an Excel program or the Expert Choice program is utilized for AHP analysis, but this study employed the Social Science Research Automation (SSRA) website (ssra.or.kr) for the AHP analysis. The SSRA is a cloud-based social science research support system that offers tools for analyzing social science data statistically [37]. To enhance the reliability of this study, the consistency ratio of the research answers was analyzed to ensure consistent responses. The consistency ratio measures the logical correctness of the judges’ opinions in the AHP study. It is calculated by dividing the value of the consistency index by the value of the random index. A pairwise comparison matrix in an AHP analysis is generally considered consistent when the consistency ratio is less than 0.1 [38]. Three responses exceeding a consistency ratio of 0.1 were excluded from the AHP analysis, with the remaining 12 used for study analysis.

4. Results

This section presents the results of the priority analysis of the primary and secondary factors of PTE gameplay derived from this study.

4.1. Identification of PTE Gameplay Factors

To identify the factors influencing PTE gameplay, this study performed a thorough literature review and expert evaluations. According to Choi [39], when the number of sub-items composing the main items is identical during AHP analysis, the same weight and importance can be obtained, thereby reducing errors. Thus, twelve factors were identified and established as PTE gameplay factors: three primary and four secondary for each primary factor. Table 8 showcases the behavioral factors of e-sports fans derived in this study.

4.2. Priority Analysis of the Primary Factors of PTE Gameplay

An AHP analysis utilizing a hierarchical structure was employed to determine the priority of the PTE gameplay factors. Gaming experience, financial outcome, and PTE game awareness were classified as primary factors (Tier 1), with twelve secondary factors (four each) as Tier 2.
(1)
Importance and Priority of Primary Factors
The AHP analysis results on the relative importance and priority of the primary factors (gaming experience, financial outcome, and PTE game awareness) are presented in Table 8: Gaming experience (0.438) had the highest priority value, followed by financial outcome (0.379), and PTE game awareness (0.183) in sequence.
(2)
Importance and Priority of Gaming Experience Secondary Factors
Among the secondary factors of gaming experience (fun factor, game quality, game genre, challenge), the fun factor (0.368) had the highest priority value, followed by game genre (0.218), game quality (0.214), and challenge (0.201). Detailed results are shown in Table 9.
(3)
Importance and Priority of Financial Outcome Secondary Factors
Among the financial outcome secondary factors (tokenomics, ROI, reliability of the game company, and coin price), the reliability of the game company (0.307) had the highest priority value, followed by tokenomics (0.255), coin price (0.236), and ROI (0.201). Detailed results are shown in Table 10.
(4)
Importance and Priority of PTE Game Awareness Secondary Factors
Among the PTE game awareness secondary factors (game entry timing, management, game platform, and community), game entry timing (0.265) had the highest priority value, followed by management (0.256), game platform (0.243), and community (0.236). The detailed results are shown in Table 11.

5. Discussion

This study, which involved a literature review and expert evaluation, aimed to discern the factors motivating individuals to engage in PTE games. Additionally, it applied AHP analysis to determine the importance and priorities of these specific factors. The objective was to provide developers and providers of PTE games with insights into the development of such games and inform players about the efficiency of participation in different PTE games.

5.1. Derivation of PTE Gameplay Priority Factors

The study derived gaming experience (fun factor, game quality, game genre, and challenge), financial outcomes (tokenomics, ROI, reliability of the game company, and coin price), and PTE game awareness (management, game entry timing, game platform, and community) as priority factors in PTE gameplay.
Typical video gameplay elements include gaming factors. For instance, Ramadan and Hendradjaya [35] proposed factors like gaming, fun, balance, and function for game development testing. Aleem et al. [40] suggested a well-organized game structure enhances the gaming experience, signifying that game-related factors are generally acknowledged as gaming motivators.
However, financial outcomes and PTE game awareness are rarely found in gaming studies. Cho [1] noted the “revenue motive” of PTE games often surpasses the “experience motive.” This implies material motivations, as opposed to experiential ones, significantly contribute to the appeal of PTE games. Delic and Delfabbro [8] highlighted the need for players to purchase NFTs to maximize profits through PTE games. For wider adoption of PTE games, traditional video game experience factors must be fulfilled, along with consideration for financial outcomes and PTE game awareness related to cryptocurrency.

5.2. Priority Analysis of the Main Factors of PTE Gameplay

The importance and priority analysis of the main factors in PTE gameplay confirmed that the gaming experience is the highest priority, followed by financial outcomes and PTE game awareness. This result contrasts somewhat with previous studies focusing on PTE games’ financial outcomes and awareness characteristics. The discrepancy can be summarized by two reasons. First, PTE games are fundamentally video games. Although PTE games have emphasized the game monetization factor [29], their core remains the same as traditional video games. Video games are a familiar media element for most individuals. Reisinger [41] reported that over 90% of American children actively played computer video games, while Ferguson and Olson [42] found friends and fun were primary motivations for enjoying video games. Klimmt, Blake, Hefner, Vorderer, and Roth [43] proposed enjoyment was the main motivation for gaming, indicating games are played for their inherent fun and interest factor. Second, the profit from PTE games has often fallen short of expectations. Cho [1] highlighted limitations to PTE games’ profit structures, such as CryptoKitties, Axie Infinity, and DeFi Kingdoms. When the balance between play (P) and earn (E) collapsed in Axie Infinity, the demand for SLP—an in-game coin—did not increase, leading to simultaneous decreases in the prices of SLP and in-game NFTs. Similar phenomena were observed in Gala Games’ PTE game Town Stars. Profits from PTE games fell short of player expectations, leading to a focus on gaming experience and enjoyment.

5.3. Importance and Priority Analysis of Gaming Experience Sub-Factors

The fun factor (0.368) emerged as more important than others, indicating it could be the strongest motivation for playing PTE games. Previous studies [15,42,44] corroborate this finding. The game genre (0.214) was also prioritized. The various genres of video games—like action, adventure, puzzle, role-playing, simulation, strategy, multiplayer battle arena (MOBA), and first-person shooter (FPS)—each carry unique tasks [45]. Players choose the genre they perceive as most efficient for earning coins, possibly explaining why the game genre was the second-most prioritized gaming experience factor.

5.4. Importance and Priority Analysis of Financial Outcome Factors

The high importance of company reliability suggests that the sustainability of the game is a chief concern for PTE game participants. While tokenomics and coin price are critical to earnings management, the sustainability of PTE games—sometimes referred to as Ponzi games [1]—also merits attention. The PTE game market, not yet properly legalized, may carry various industrial risks [46]. Therefore, how large and enduring PTE game companies are can be interpreted as the most prioritized factor among financial outcome sub-factors.

5.5. Importance and Priority Analysis of PTE Game Awareness Sub-Factors

The results revealed that game entry timing is more important to players than the communities promoted by PTE game companies. Early and late entrants into PTE games have different economic experiences. Early entrants can purchase NFTs and reach their ROI during high demand for game coins. However, late entrants may have to purchase coins from early entrants who have already exceeded their ROI, creating a “death spiral” [1]. These circumstances may contribute to criticism of PTE games as Ponzi games [47] and concerns about their sustainability.

6. Conclusions and Suggestions

This investigation endeavored to elucidate the gameplay elements of Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, an emergent trend in the e-sports industry. The aim was to equip PTE game players with knowledge of sustainable game choices and provide developers with valuable insights for the creation and supply of PTE games. The salient findings of this research are as follows:
Firstly, gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness were key factors motivating individuals to participate in PTE games. Notably, the idiosyncratic nature of PTE games was underscored by the inclusion of financial outcomes and PTE game awareness, elements seldom found in conventional video games. Secondly, the gaming experience was the most prioritized factor, superseding financial outcomes and PTE game awareness. As such, it is incumbent upon game developers to prioritize enhancing the gaming experience for the cultivation and management of sustainable PTE games. Thirdly, the subfactors prioritized under the gaming experience were a high fun factor and a genre appropriate for PTE. It was also ascertained that higher company reliability under the financial outcome factor and a more suitable game entry timing under the PTE game awareness factor augment the enjoyment of PTE games.
Nonetheless, this study is not without limitations. Firstly, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis data were obtained via expert surveys. Hence, the decision-making foundation was constrained to expert opinions. Future research could benefit from utilizing the factors derived from this study to conduct a quantitative investigation targeting a broader demographic of PTE game players. Secondly, the significance of the results of this study lies in the fact that providers of blockchain gaming, in the process of creating and distributing PTE games, have ascertained that the financial outcome is not the most important factor, contrary to traditional perceptions. Therefore, subsequent studies need to investigate methods for enhancing the gameplay factors of PTE games to propose strategies for increasing the sustainability of PTE games. Thirdly, it is imperative to contemplate the potential risks and hurdles accompanying PTE games. Matters such as equitable remuneration, player rights, and regulatory frameworks warrant scrutiny to safeguard player interests and sustain the viability of these virtual economies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and C.P.; Methodology, M.L.; Validation, C.P.; Formal analysis, M.L.; Investigation, M.L.; Writing—original draft, M.L.; Writing—review & editing, C.P.; Supervision, C.P.; Project administration, C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to expediting procedure under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cho, E.H. Blockchain Game and Paradigm Shift in Game Industry. J. Korea Game Soc. 2022, 22, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Howard, K.T. Free-to-play or pay-to-win? Casual, hardcore, and hearthstone. Trans. Digit. Games Res. Assoc. 2019, 4, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Absolute Reports. Global Play to Earn Games Market Growth: Status and Outlook 2022–2028. 2022. Available online: www.absoluterports.com (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  4. Jiang, X.-J.; Liu, F. Cryptokitties transaction network analysis: The rise and fall of the first blockchain game mania. Front. Phys. 2021, 9, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Francisco, R.; Rodelas, N.; Ubaldo, J.E. The perception of Filipinos on the advent of cryptocurrency and non-fungible token (NFT) games. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Res. 2022, 6, 1005–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aguila, D.A.; Bartolata, J.M.; Estrañero, J.G. AXEing the Axie Infinity (AI): The AI of Modern Gaming, Business Model Stratagem, and Global Economy towards Cryptocurrency Era [College of Liberal Arts and Sciences]. Research Gate. 2022. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  7. De Jesus, S.B.; Austria, D.; Marcelo, D.R.; Ocampo, C.; Tibudan, A.J.; Tus, J. Play-to-Earn: A qualitative analysis of the experiences and challenges faced by axie infinity online gamers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Psychol. Couns. 2022, 1, 291–424. [Google Scholar]
  8. Delic, A.J.; Delfabbro, P.H. Profiling the Potential Risks and Benefits of Emerging “Play to Earn” Games: A Qualitative Analysis of Players’ Experiences with Axie Infinity. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, X.; Wang, W.; Niyato, D.; Zhao, N.; Wang, P. Evolutionary game for mining pool selection in blockchain networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2018, 7, 760–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dezert, J.; Tchamova, A.; Han, D.; Tacnet, J.M. The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), Rustenburg, South Africa, 6–9 July 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kizielewicz, B.; Kołodziejczyk, J. Effects of the selection of characteristic values on the accuracy of results in the COMET method. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 176, 3581–3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Więckowski, J.; Kizielewicz, B.; Shekhovtsov, A.; Sałabun, W. RANCOM: A novel approach to identifying criteria relevance based on inaccuracy expert judgments. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 122, 106114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Devi, P.; Kizielewicz, B.; Guleria, A.; Shekhovtsov, A.; Gandotra, N.; Saini, N.; Sałabun, W. Dimensionality reduction technique under picture fuzzy environment and its application in decision making. Int. J. Knowl. Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 2023, 27, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Krishankumar, R.; Pamucar, D. Solving barrier ranking in clean energy adoption: An MCDM approach with q-rung orthopair fuzzy preferences. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 2023, 27, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carver, S.J. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1991, 5, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saaty, T.L. Priority setting in complex problems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1983, EM–30, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Choi, E.G.; Choi, S.Y.; Hong, J.W. A Study of the Korean Ombudsman System: Finding Policy Alternatives using AHP. Korean J. Public Adm. 2013, 51, 95–119. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, D.H.; Kwon, Y.C.; Cho, G.S. The Activation Strategy of School Sport Club Utilizing SWOT-AHP Analysis. Korean J. Phys. Educ. 2022, 61, 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lei, H.T.; Hsu, P.Y.; Cheng, M.S. Key Factors for Suppliers of Gaming Notebook Keyboards with AHP. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Computer Symposium (ICS), Tainan, Taiwan, 17–19 December 2020; pp. 316–318. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lo, Y.F.; Wen, M.H. A fuzzy-AHP-based technique for the decision of design feature selection in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game development. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 8685–8693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moradi, N.; Malekmohammad, H.; Jamalzadeh, S. A model for performance evaluation of digital game industry using integrated AHP and BSC. J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng. 2018, 5, 97–109. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, H.H.; Jung, I.H.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, M.S.; Noh, G.Y. A Study on the Quality Evaluation of Mobile Puzzle Game using AHP. J. Korea Game Soc. 2016, 16, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Khorsandi, A.; Li, L. A Multi-Analysis of Children and Adolescents’ Video Gaming Addiction with the AHP and TOPSIS Methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lotfi, E.; Amine, B.; Mohammed, B. Application of analytic hierarchical process method for video game genre selection. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2014, 96, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wan, J.A., Jr.; bin Kamal, A.A. Weighting the Position & Skillset of Players in League of Legends Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. J. IT Asia 2021, 9, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zheng, G.; Gao, L.; Huang, L.; Guan, J. Ethereum Smart Contract Development in Solidity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 3–334. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boonparn, P.; Bumrungsook, P.; Sookhnaphibarn, K.; Choensawat, W. Social Data Analysis on Play-to-Earn Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) Games. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 4th Global Conference on Life Sciences and Technologies (LifeTech), Osaka, Japan, 7–9 March 2022; pp. 263–264. [Google Scholar]
  29. Delfabbro, P.; Delic, A.; King, D.L. Understanding the mechanics and consumer risks associated with play-to-earn (P2E) gaming. J. Behav. Addict. 2022, 11, 716–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Klimmt, C.; Hartmann, T. Effectance, self-efficacy, and the motivation to play video games. In Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 133–145. [Google Scholar]
  31. DeVellis, R.F.; Thorpe, C.T. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: Thousand Okas, CA, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, M.S. Investigating eSports Fan Behavior Priorities Using AHP Analysis. J. Korean Leis. Sci. 2022, 13, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Menor, L.J.; Roth, A.V. New service development competence in retail banking: Construct development and measurement validation. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 825–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, M.S.; Park, C.M. Derivation of Participation Factors in Tourism Products accompanied by Sports Celebrities and Analysis of Priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J. Sport Leis. Stud. 2022, 89, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramadan, R.; Hendradjaya, B. Development of game testing method for measuring game quality. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICODSE), Bandung, Indonesia, 26–27 November 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  36. Porter, J.R.; Kientz, J.A. An empirical study of issues and barriers to mainstream video game accessibility. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Bellevue, WA, USA, 21–23 October 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yoon, C.H. A Study on the Development of Automation System for Social Science Research Based on Cloud. Inf. Syst. Rev. 2015, 17, 217–238. [Google Scholar]
  38. Song, S.H.; Gwon, S.H.; Park, J.B.; Hong, S.K. Application of the Delphi Technique in Modifying AHP Method. Korea Manag. Sci. Rev. 2009, 26, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  39. Choi, M.C. Evaluation of Analytic Hierarchy Process Method and Development of a Weight Modified Model. Manag. Inf. Syst. Rev. 2020, 39, 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  40. Aleem, S.; Capretz, L.F.; Ahmed, F. Critical success factors to improve the game development process from a developer’s perspective. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 2016, 31, 925–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reisinger, D. 91 Percents of Kids Are Gamers, Research Says. CNet.com. 11 October 2011. Available online: www.cnet.com/news/91-percent-of-kids-are-gamers-research-says/ (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  42. Ferguson, C.J.; Olson, C.K. Friends, fun, frustration and fantasy: Child motivations for video game play. Motiv. Emot. 2013, 37, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Klimmt, C.; Blake, C.; Hefner, D.; Vorderer, P.; Roth, C. Player performance, satisfaction, and video game enjoyment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Entertainment Computing, Paris, France, 3–5 September 2009; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lee, M.S.; Lee, D.H. An Analysis of Participate Intention in Mobile Game of Babyboom Generations Applying UTAUT2 Model. Korean J. Leis. Recreat. Park 2021, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Smith, B.P. The (computer) games people play: An overview of popular game content. Play. Video Games 2012, 12, 48–63. [Google Scholar]
  46. Scholten, O.J.; Hughes, N.G.J.; Deterding, S.; Drachen, A.; Walker, J.A.; Zendle, D. Ethereum crypto-games: Mechanics, prevalence, and gambling similarities. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Barcelona, Spain, 22–25 October 2019; pp. 379–389. [Google Scholar]
  47. Heisenberg, J.R. Here Are the Similarities between P2E Gaming and Ponzi Schemes. Technext. 2022. Available online: technext24.com (accessed on 24 March 2022).
Table 1. The history and types of blockchain games.
Table 1. The history and types of blockchain games.
YearGameCompanyGenreIn-Game Coin (Ticker)
2013BitVegasMurdersceneCasinoUsing BTC
2016Spells of GenesisEverdreamSoftTCGUsing Klatyn
2017CryptoKitties
Decentraland		Dapper Labs
Decentraland Foundation		Virtual pet
Metaverse		Using ETH
Decentraland (MANA)
2018Axie InfinitySky MavisCCGAxie Infinity (AXS)
2021DeFi Kingdoms
Town Star
Mir4 Global		DeFi Kingdoms Team
Gala games
Wemade		GameFi
Simulation
MMORPG		DeFi Kingdoms (JEWEL)
Town (TOWN)
Wemix (WEMIX)
2022Spider TanksGala gamesPvP BrawlerSilk coin (SILK)
Table 2. The definitions of terms.
Table 2. The definitions of terms.
TermDefinition
BlockchainA type of distributed ledger technology (DLT) that uses cryptography using blocks
Blockchain gameA digital video game that uses blockchain technology
CryptocurrencyDecentralized digital currency that uses a distributed ledger to record and prove ownership
PTE gameA blockchain game that acquires goods using NFTs and coins collected during gameplay
NFTNon-fungible token
In PTE games, NFT is a technology to prove an item’s ownership.
Table 3. The stages of the research.
Table 3. The stages of the research.
StageResearch MethodsPrior Research
Stage 1Literature reviewBoonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat [28]; Cho [1]; Delfabbro, Delic, & King [29]; Delic & Delfabbro [8]; Klimmt & Hartmann [30]; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh [23]
Stage 2Expert evaluationDeVellis, Thorpe [31], Lee [32];
Menor & Roth [33]
Stage 3AHP analysisSaaty [10];
Lee & Park [34]
Table 4. The initial factor pool derived through literature research.
Table 4. The initial factor pool derived through literature research.
Main
Factor
(Number)		Sub-Factor PoolPrior
Research
Gaming
Experience
(13)		Fun factor, difficulty, Vicarious Satisfaction,
level of immersion, game completeness		Ramadan, & Hendradjaya [35]
game quality, challengeLee et al. [23]
graphics, sounds, game genre, control,
degrees of freedom		Klimmt, & Hartmann [30];
Porter & Kientz [36]
storyLee [32]
Financial
Outcomes
(12)		Tokenomics, ROI, coin exchange, coin price, investment amount, stability, coin reward,
efficiency, economy size		Delfabbro, P., Delic, A., & King, D. L. [29]
coin usage, game company’s reliability,
game company reputation		Cho [1]
PTE game
Awareness
(11)		community, a reflection of opinionsBoonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat [28]
game platformPorter & Kientz [36]
psychological happinessDelic, & Delfabbro [8]
legal protection, sociability, social perspective, game entry timing, socioeconomic situationCho [1]
game management of the company, marketingDelfabbro, P., Delic, A., & King, D. L. [29]
Table 5. The criteria for expert ratings.
Table 5. The criteria for expert ratings.
Evaluation Criteria for the Suitability of the Question
Is the content of each question directly related to playing a PTE game?
Is the content of the questionnaire specific and accurate?
Does the question feel too difficult or obvious to the respondent?
Is there any overlap with another question in the sub-area of the question?
Does the question fall into that area?
Table 6. The characteristics of the experts.
Table 6. The characteristics of the experts.
Expert
Classification		Detailed ClassificationNumber
Field ExpertsCryptocurrency experts3
eSports experts2
Video game developer3
Highly involved PTE game-player3
Academic ExpertsProfessor2
Researcher2
Total15
Table 7. The behavior factors of PTE gameplay factors.
Table 7. The behavior factors of PTE gameplay factors.
Main
Factors		Sub-FactorsContentsPrior Research
Gaming experienceFun factorHow fun is the game?Klimmt, & Hartmann [30]; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh [23]; Ramadan, & Hendradjaya [35]
Game qualityOverall game quality
Game genreIs the genre suitable for PTE games?
ChallengeGame structured to provide adequate challenge
Financial outcomesTokenomicsWell-constructed coin structure
(burn and usage system)		Cho [1]; Delfabbro, Delic, & King [29]
ROI (return on investment)ROI (return on investment)
Reliability of game companyReliability of the PTE game company
Coin priceThe market price of coins obtained through PTE games
PTE game AwarenessManagementProper game managementBoonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat [28]; Cho [1]; Porter & Kientz [36]
Game entry timingProper PTE game entry timing
Game platformPlatform of the game being implemented
(ex., PC, mobile)
CommunityDegree of active game community
Table 8. The relative importance and priority of the main factors.
Table 8. The relative importance and priority of the main factors.
FactorPriorityRank
Gaming experience0.4381
Financial outcome0.3792
PTE game awareness0.1833
C.I. (consistency index) = 0.0006, C.R. (consistency ratio) = 0.001
Table 9. The relative importance and priority of gaming experience sub-factors.
Table 9. The relative importance and priority of gaming experience sub-factors.
FactorPriorityRank
Fun factor0.3681
Game genre0.2182
Game quality0.2143
Challenge0.2014
C.I. (consistency index) = 0.017, C.R. (consistency ratio) = 0.019
Table 10. The relative importance and priority of financial outcome sub-factors.
Table 10. The relative importance and priority of financial outcome sub-factors.
FactorPriorityRank
Reliability of game company0.3071
Tokenomics0.2552
Coin price0.2363
ROI0.2014
C.I. (consistency index) = 0.011, C.R. (consistency ratio) = 0.012
Table 11. The relative importance and priority of PTE game awareness sub-factors.
Table 11. The relative importance and priority of PTE game awareness sub-factors.
FactorPriorityRank
Game entry timing0.2651
Management0.2562
Game platform0.2433
Community0.2364
C.I. (consistency index) = 0.002, C.R. (consistency ratio) = 0.003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, M.; Park, C. Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13311. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151813311

AMA Style

Lee M, Park C. Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13311. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151813311

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Minseok, and Chanmin Park. 2023. "Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13311. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151813311

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop