skip to main content
10.1145/3235765.3235780acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

UPEQ: ubisoft perceived experience questionnaire: a self-determination evaluation tool for video games

Published:07 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In order to appeal to a growing market, game developers are offering a wide variety of activities. It is becoming necessary to understand which psychological need each activity caters for. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the development and evaluation of an instrument to assess which basic psychological needs are satisfied by different video games. This work is part of a growing effort in HCI to develop surveys able to capture subtle nuances of the player experience. This model, UPEQ, was developed by transforming a self-determination theory questionnaire into a video game specific survey. UPEQ consists of three subscale of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness, which, through two studies focusing on development and validation of the model showed significant correlations with other self-reported measures of sense of transportation to the game as well as enjoyment of and engagement with the game. Regression with in-game behavior of players tracked by game engine also confirmed that each subscale of UPEQ independently predicts playtime, money spent on the game and playing as a group.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 136(2), 151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrica, 43, 357--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bateman, C., & Nacke, L. E. (2010, May). The neurobiology of play. In Proceedings of the international academic conference on the future of game design and technology (pp. 1--8). ACM Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 624--634Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Canossa, A., Badler, J. B., El-Nasr, M. S., Tignor, S., & Colvin, R. C. (2015). In Your Face (t) Impact of Personality and Context on Gameplay Behavior. In FDGGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dörner, R., Göbel, S., Effelsberg, W., & Wiemeyer, J. (Eds.). (2016). Player Experience In Serious games: foundations, concepts and practice. 243--271. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. ESA (2017, April 19) "Industry Facts". The Entertainment Software Association, Retrieved from: http://www.theesa.com/about-esa/industry-facts/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Funk, J. B., Chan, M., Brouwer, J., & Curtiss, K. (2006). A biopsychosocial analysis of the video game-playing experience of children and adults in the United States. SIMILE: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 6 (3), 79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gentile, D. A., Choo, H., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011). Pathological video game use among youths: a two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, peds-2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (5), 578--589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2), 0--0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nacke, L. E., Bateman, C., & Mandryk, R. L. (2014). BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertainment computing, 5 (1), 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nath, T. (2016, June 13). "Investing in Video Games: This Industry Pulls In More Revenue than Movies, Music". Retrieved from:http://www.nasdaq.com/article/investing-in-video-games-this-industry-pulls-in-more-revenue-than-movies-music-cm634585.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Peng, W., Lin, J. H., & Crouse, J. (2011). Is playing exergames really exercising? A meta-analysis of energy expenditure in active video games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (11), 681--688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of general psychology, 14 (2), 154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30 (4), 344--360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Spearman, C. (1913). Correlations of sums and differences. British Journal of Psychology, 5, 417--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yee, N., Harris, H., Jabon, M., & Bailenson, J. N. (2011). The expression of personality in virtual worlds. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2 (1), 5--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23 (21), 1789--1805.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Van Lankveld, G., Spronck, P., Van den Herik, J., & Arntz, A. (2011, August). Games as personality profiling tools. In Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), 2011 IEEE Conference on (pp. 197--202). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tekofsky, S., Van Den Herik, J., Spronck, P., & Plaat, A. (2013). Psyops: Personality assessment through gaming behavior. In In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (In Press). FDG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Fung, B. (2015, June 19). The future of gaming is here. And it's literally huge. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/19/why-open-world-video-games-will-be-the-defining-genre-of-our-generation/?utm_term=.667054e08d17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. Handbook of self-determination research, 3--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Calleja, G. (2014). Immersion in virtual worlds. The Oxford handbook of virtuality, 222--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 141--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Tom Clancy's The Division {Computer Software}. (2016). Malmo: Ubisoft Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. UPEQ: ubisoft perceived experience questionnaire: a self-determination evaluation tool for video games

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      FDG '18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
      August 2018
      503 pages

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 August 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      FDG '18 Paper Acceptance Rate39of95submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader