Strangely Instructional

Documenting Shawn Kamesch's epic journey from technical writer to UX/content strategy professional

[shawnkamesch]

Early Access Games as an opportunity for good (or bad) UX testing

Well, I’m back. I came to realize, with each passing day in which I did not blog, that I’m unwilling and unable to keep up a semi-daily blog. So my plan moving forward is to blog according to the rate I come up with worthy topics. I'm not going to force a blog about a random thought that might or might not have relevance. The most fun I've had with this blog have been those longest posts about UX and games, where I really explore a space that I find new and interesting. So, that's the plan. And to warn everyone, this likely means most of my posts will be about the intermingling of video games and UX. What can I say? It’s where my passions meet.

And in that vein of thought, it has recently become clear to me why SOME video game developers don't seem to leverage UX within their teams' development cycles:

Early access.

As is often the case with these longer blog posts, I find myself compelled to provide a little background in case you haven't heard of early access games, or if you only have a marginal understanding of what they are.

First, a link to someone who's already explained it as well as (or better than) I ever would... this time, Wikipedia has it covered.

It is telling—and not altogether inaccurate—that at the time of writing this blog, there is only one subheader under the header titled "Approaches": Steam. 

To avoid sending you away from my blog TOO many times, I'll briefly summarize Steam for those who haven't gotten the memo. Steam is an online digital asset distribution system that has become something of a hub for PC gaming. In addition to facebook-like features (friends, badges, etc.), Steam has its own store (think Apple's iTunes store, but for PC games). There are no discs here; all games are purchased digitally and are downloaded through the Steam app (another reason Steam is such a one-stop shop). The player then launches the game through Steam as well, meaning a PC gamer could get everything they would ever need through Steam.

All told, Steam is a powerful entity in PC gaming, and generally the consensus is that it's a good step for the industry. PC gaming needed to solve the digital rights management problem just as music and movies did. Steam solved that as well with a built in DRM system that was largely the basis for its inception and its initial attraction for game developers. 

However, some steps that Steam has taken have been more controversial.

Enter early access games. 

With a platform to distribute them on, and the community feel that Steam provides, indie game developers started releasing their games early—while in alpha or beta testing phases—with the express intent to use the sales profit to fund the game's continued development and release. This enabled small development firms, even individuals, to create and release a game when other financial sources aren't available to them.

From the beginning, it has been a polarizing topic for gamers. They either loved it or hated it. Some players liked seeing games early, being part of the development process, watching a game build upon itself, all while funding the game's continued development... others pointed out that it was paying for an incomplete product—and there is no obligation on the developers' part to complete the game. They keep the money either way.

Since then, the controversy has bloomed as Steam expanded its rules around who could release an early access game. Larger game developers started divvying out early access games, and many wondered if they were simply releasing early to meet financial targets or, even worse, to get what money they could out of a hopelessly flawed project that they knew would ultimately fail. Either way, it wasn’t an altogether popular development.

But this post is not about that controversy, at least not directly. This post is about the part in bold above. Early access games allow players who are already excited about the game's pending completion to participate in the experience and provide feedback via Steam's own community forums (or through their own feedback loop). In essence, the developers are getting real-time user feedback—and their customers are paying for the opportunity to do so. 

To my knowledge, user testing has never been SOLD to testers. The exchange of money, gifts, or services usually flows in the opposite direction. It's not entirely without price; if a game does poorly at early access release, the negative feedback could drive off future buyers, and doom the project. Game developers have to be very deliberate and PR-conscious in their early access releases. And above all, they have to make the most of the burgeoning relationship they have with their customers. 

One company that appears to take this very seriously, and that has created a robust structure for collecting and responding to feedback, is Trendy Entertainment, the Florida-based game developer behind the Dungeon Defenders 2 early access release. 

In some ways, Trendy has pushed the envelope with early access releases, raising eyebrows at their pre-alpha release. But they appear to take the process very seriously. Trendy developed an "influence points" system. Each day a player played the early release, they earned influence points that would increase the weight of their comments and votes during times of feedback. 

Every so often, Trendy would directly ask its customers to vote on which aspects of the game get developed next—or at all. The questions were as broad as: Would you prefer us to work on making boss fights more complex, add pet followers to the game, or make the story more robust? Such broad questions would stir strong opinions from the online community—similar to what you'd find in any online community. Arguments would ensue, polite and otherwise, and every bit of the discourse would be of value to Trendy. They could give more weight, if they desired, to users who had more "influence points" because they knew those players had experienced the game more, lending credibility to their opinions.

In short, Trendy has full discretion over what they implement, but they seem to honor the popular opinion. That is, when most people vote for “more complex boss fights”, that's what they deliver. And why wouldn't they? It enhances the experience for the majority of players, thus increasing the game's average user rating and reviews on Steam, which leads to more sales.

Aside from being pretty darn revolutionary, this early-access form of user experience testing raises an important, two-part question:

1) Should this early-access UX testing fully replace an internal, directly driven UX approach?

2) If the trend continues, and early access games continue to make profits, will the traditional UX approach be replaced, regardless of whether it is best for the industry or the end product? 

The answer to the first part is opinion-driven, but the second could shape the future of gaming. Trendy Entertainment has created a robust and driven system of responding to their customers' feedback and they’re not the only ones to do so. However, not all companies will take the time and money that is necessary to do it. Undoubtedly, some developers will take an easier path: they won't respond to feedback carefully and deliberately, perhaps they’ll accept the wrong feedback just because it's the loudest, rudest voice giving it. The result  would be poor-quality games that  sour the world's palate for early access games as a whole. Some would say that's for the best, but I believe there's a time and a place for everything. 

And that's why I urge game developers to be careful in their early access strategy. Take it seriously, make it count, and make sure you're doing it for the right reasons—to make your game as good as it can be.... not just to get early access to your sales.

[shawnkamesch]

Greetings, dear weblings, If you've read my blog before, you'll notice that the longest entries I write are about the juxtaposition of video games and user experience. I continue to see it as a fresh way to approach video game design and critique, and a new thought occurred to me as I was playing Ubisoft Montreal's new release, Child of Light.

During a time in which most video games sell based on their graphics level, their flash, their action scenes, their animation complexity... this beautiful work of art reminds the gaming community the standards of beauty and emotion that can be achieved in a video game. And yes, btw, video games can be art. Just like any other media. If that needs debate or evidence, let me know and I'll write a separate blog on that soon. Heck, I'll probably do it either way. Some quick background on the game itself before I turn to the topic at hand:

Child of Light is a side-scrolling platform, turn-based combat RPG with a clear love for visual design, music composition, storytelling, and letting as little as possible get in the way of that. A few choice screenshots that I hope will impress the beauty of its world upon you:

The events of the game swiftly whisk protagonist Aurora from late-19th-Century Austria into a land reminiscent of countless fairy tales. Her mission: to embark on a dangerous quest so she can return home to her father. Along the way, she encounters many characters and creatures, both friendly and sinister, and during every moment the player's eyes and ears are washed in radiant watercolor-style graphics and music straight from the most beautiful of lullabies. In short, the game is artistically brilliant. As I played it, I thought to myself, "the experience of this game is just phenomenal..." And I stopped myself and wondered: does the design alone make for a powerful and positive game experience? It didn't take me long to arrive at my conclusion, but the reasons are worth mentioning because they touch also on the relationship between the graphic design of a website or app, and its user experience. A website's design can be gorgeously executed, chock full of pretty flash animations that make you wonder if you're visiting a website or watching a highly polished cartoon. It can be covered in color palettes that make other websites cry because they can only wish they were as cool. But if those animations are meaningless, if the design is not responsive and intuitive, if the colors aren't also satisfying a greater purpose... the experience of the website will fizzle in a manner of seconds. Users will see right through the pretty facade and recognize a company whose website budget requires some interdepartmental tweaking. And so it is with video games. A game can possess the same beauty as Child of Light, but if it doesn't have the gameplay and story to back it up, players will stop after just minutes--unless you are playing the game purely for the visual experience, which is fine though it means you are that game's niche audience. Congratulations on finding the game that was meant for you. Fortunately, in my opinion Child of Light has the gameplay and story to support its stunning design, rounding out the experience to be wholly fantastic. I wouldn't say the gameplay is what makes the game stand out. That role is incontrovertibly held by the design aspect. But here's the one potentially controversial statement I will make: Truly outstanding design will do serious work covering up a poor user experience--if only to a certain extent. UXers would like to think that, no matter how good the visual design, a site or app will instantly fall apart without their good judgment. Undoubtedly, the best sites and software out there have both strong design and UX, but in websites, apps, and games the story is the same: powerful visual design can cover up (or distract the user from) minor and forgivable UX errors. That's all I have to say for today, readers. I'm on vacation next week and the week after, but I will try to write something on the "video games as art" topic before I leave.

[ux-studio]

For more cool UX stuff follow us on Pinterest: http://bit.ly/1DGzYIa

[uxrecherche-deactivated20220319]

New research suggests that how old you feel has a bigger impact on your productivity than how old you are. Playground offices FTW! June 23, 2015 at 12:00PM

[shawnkamesch]

As a purveyor of the ping pong, I wanted to spread word about this research. Play more!

[ux-studio]

For more cool UX and design stuff check out our Pinterest here: http://bit.ly/1DGzYIa

[shawnkamesch]

A simple statement seems to be tragically hard to find these days.

[shawnkamesch]

Analyzing the UX of the freemium mobile game

Dear weblings, 

If you watched the last SuperBowl, or if you've watched a modicum of television since, you'll have come across a commercial that looks something like this:

You may have even read about it in the news, as it was a new milestone for mobile gaming. The woman above is Kate Upton posing as (what I am guessing is) Athena in a high-budget commercial for the mobile, freemium game titled Game of War. 

Now, before we go further, if you think I just made up the word "freemium", please see 148apps' summary of different types of games these days.

Okay, if you just read that article, you're bound to be experiencing a wave of dizzying thoughts and emotions, wondering how mobile games could have gotten so complicated. What happened to Snake? Why is the game industry more sinuous and inexplicably tangled as the snake itself?

The answer, of course, is money. 

And that's why this post is about mobile games. Money leads to business, business leads to jobs, and therefore I hope this blog post will be seen as forward-looking.

There's a first time for everything. 

As I mentioned above, Game of War and its bold marketing strategy has already been picked clean by mainstream media and the internet as a whole. Another widely known title, Clash of Clans, has also been criticized and analyzed to the point of tears. Therefore, I'll turn to a newer title from South Korean developer Com2Us: Summoners War: Sky Arena.

So, to review the key part of the 148apps article above, freemium games are free to download and play, but they have in-app purchases (paid for with real money). In the case of Summoners War, as with most such games, these purchases will net you in-game currency and in-game items. You see, in Summoners War the overarching goal is to acquire and strengthen a collection of monsters (think Pokemon, roughly). The stronger yours are, the further you advance and the more you succeed. You can acquire these monsters slowly over time without paying a penny out of pocket, or you can pay money and get more monsters and get them faster. 

Now here's where it gets brilliant—and devious.

Each time you use currency or items to summon a monster, it's like pulling the lever on a slot machine. Most of the time you get something common, worthless. But once in a while, you win something that startles you in its rarity:

What follows is this: you can pay real money in this game—unbelievable amounts—and still get nothing from this "slot machine"... you just pulled the handle more times. Meanwhile, other lucky individuals (who haven't paid a dime) can pull the "slot machine" once and hit the jackpot:

In essence, it's gambling. And many have gotten addicted.

Players have spent hundreds, even thousands of dollars on this game, and it's just a single game played on a phone or tablet. It staggers the mind. 

And why do they spend so much money? That's where I finally get into the User Experience of the game, and how it impacts the gameplay and revenue for Com2Us' Summoners War.

1) Random Number Generator (RNG)

This part comes first because it must be understood to proceed further in understanding. RNG is, in essence, the slot machine, and a critical part of the game's back end. When a player uses an in-game currency to summon, the game generates a random number that corresponds to a given monster. For example, that silly little dragon above. The trick is, the odds of getting the number that corresponds to Mr. Dragon are waaaaaay lower than the odds of getting Mr. Slime:

As a result, many players are susceptible to spending real money in the hopes that, with enough pulls of the slot machine, they'll get lucky. Just as the casino gambler repeatedly says "one more hand, I just know this will be the one that turns my luck around", so the gamer gambler repeatedly thinks the next summon will be that dragon. 

Players obsess over this RNG factor. The players even have a potentially offensive, running joke, "praying to RNGesus" for a lucky summon. 

Yep, it's to that point.

2) Community Building

But why even care whether you get a slime or a dragon, right? It's just a game! 

True, and yet for some players, it's more. Com2Us wisely (and again, deviously) added a robust chat system in the game:

See that notification within the chat window, indicating that Dr4GoNz just got "Ifrit"? This is the game telling everyone else in the chat channel that this lucky player got a really good monster. If any of the players in that channel taps the "Ifrit" icon, they get to see what the monster is:

Many players in chat respond with "Gz" or "Gratz", congratulating the lucky player, and others just sit in envy. But for all of these players, it's a reminder that people are getting these elusive rare monsters. The other players will think, "Certainly it's my turn to get lucky soon!

In addition, some players make online friends via the game's chat system, and sign on to talk to those friends. The sense that other people are out there—simultaneously allies and competition—makes it feel more important to get stronger monsters in your collection. It sounds absurd to most of us, but the players who become most immersed in this game tie some measure of their self-esteem to their monsters. It may be a small amount, but there it is. 

3) Intuitive UI 

The "Home Screen" of Summoners War looks something like this:

First of all, that pink crystal icon on the left? It shimmers at all times. Guess what that's for? A special sale, an opportunity to spend your real money. It says “Limited”, but it's been there for as long as I downloaded the game months ago.

Greed aside, nearly everything in the game is interact-able, and leverages tried and tested iconography to assist in navigation:

- The crossed swords is a common icon for "Battle" in games, and if you have any doubts, you can read the word directly below it. 

- The Monster icon similarly leverages imagery from past games, reaching as far back as Nintendo games of the early 90s. 

- In the top right corner of the Challenge icon, you'll see a red '2'... just like with your iPhone, that means there are two new notifications within. 

The image in the background is the player's island where their collection of monsters resides. Tapping any of these monsters gives you a closer look at it. Tapping any of the "buildings" on your island pulls up a separate menu for that building, to allow you to use it for its intended function (e.g., to summon a new monster). 

And at all times, you can see your in-game currencies in the top right: Energy, Arena Invitations, Mana, and Crystals—and all four can be bought with real money.

4) Bright, colorful design

UX and Design often overlap in projects, and so I would like to also touch on the design of this game. As you've seen in the above screenshots, it's a bright and colorful game, with charming cartoonish graphics and pixie-like characters with oversized heads and exaggerated body forms. One must consider the game's Korean roots, but this design also appeals to many American consumers, particularly youths. And mobile game developers know this.

Clash of Clans (est. $1M daily revenue):

Candy Crush (est. $900K daily revenue):

Hay Day (est. $150K daily revenue):

Are you detecting a pattern?

There's no mystery to the appeal of a cheerful world full of happy-looking creatures. But when the graphics are polished and meticulously constructed, that appeal can be lasting. 

These factors, and others, all contribute to an addicting user experience that intrigues me. Many players get frustrated when they feel unlucky, but they keep coming back for more, because that occasional “payout” feels all the more rewarding.

As for me... I'm a free-to-play player, and will never spend a dime on a f2p mobile game. I'm a reluctant gambler even when the payout is in cash. When the payout is a "digital property" with value fully dependent on the game's existence and operation? No, not for me, thanks. 

But I can imagine it, which is why I'm able (and compelled) to explain this phenomenon. Many players are youths without a full understanding of the money they spend. Others are adults that are prone to impulsive spending or gambling. And Com2Us isn't the only developer seizing the opportunity.... far from it.

If you brush aside any judgments about the business model, one must cede it makes money. There is plenty of criticism of these freemium games, and perhaps their market (and their time in the sun) is limited. But one can and should learn from these things, and recognize lessons that can be gleaned from these successful experiments.

[shawnkamesch]

25 posts! This toddler of a blog has just touched its first hot oven... it’s growing, and it’s learning. Please bear with the screaming in the meantime.

[shawnkamesch]

Looking back

Well readers, I didn’t do as much blogging about ConFab as I had planned, but that was mostly because I found the twitters to be a more relevant and immediate venue for interaction during the conference. I’m excited about the new connections made, and about my visual realization of a known fact: there’s a large community of content strategists out there. 

If you came to this blog via twitter because you just connected with me... welcome. I hope you find something in here worth reading. If not, that’s okay. If this blog accomplishes nothing more than recording my journey to a new career, it will have done its job. 

I’ve had a few posts that have relayed existing information; next post, I plan to write something new, a Shawn Kamesch original. I’m thinking of analyzing a phone app--possibly a game--and presenting on that. 

Stay tuned!

[shawnkamesch]

Friday, 22 May, 2015: ConFab concluding keynote speaker, Gerry McGovern, reminding us of the reasons content strategy becomes more and more critical with each passing year. 

[shawnkamesch]

ConFab day 1: midday

Greetings from ConFab! Keynote was awesome; kudos to Jonathan Colman for taking us on a riveting journey. From there, I attended Laura Creekmore's practical talk on selling content strategy as not a cost, but an asset. Then, I heard from Ahava Leibtag's take on emotion-driven decision making and how it affects your content strategy approach. More to come! Now Michael Metts is starting his session, so I will leave to take notes. Farewell for now!

[shawnkamesch]

Looking Forward

Well, the first day of ConFab (for me) is tomorrow! I couldn’t fork over the extra dough for today’s workshop events, but I hope that those who are in attendance are having a great time. 

This is my first time attending a multi-day conference like this, and certainly also my first ConFab. I’m stoked by the opportunity to be around an abundance of intelligent individuals with similar but different minds and opinions. I feel as though recently I’ve been afforded very little time to participate in ideation and discussion, and it will be refreshing to join in the greater content strategy community. 

Hope to see you there!

[shawnkamesch]

Silent No More

My lapse in blog entries is going to be entirely undone this week, as I will be thinking and writing much before, during, and after ConFab (May 21-22). Expect to see a veritable flurry of monologues on content strategy, UX, and IA this week. Stay tuned.

[shawnkamesch]

UXPA event Thursday night

Hello readers!

Sorry for the slow posting rhythm lately... multiple areas of my daily life decided to gang up together and mug me, and I wasn’t carrying my mental mace... 

Given the constraints on time, I’ll use this opportunity to plug for Thursday night’s UXPA event. It’s titled “Competitive Analysis: Strategic UX Spy Games” and it features Lyle Kantrovich’s take on the landscape of competitive intelligence from a UX-centered lens and framework. 

Should be a good time! Hope to see you there. 

[shawnkamesch]

Mentorship: Post-wrap-up thoughts

Last night’s mentorship wrap-up event was a really great opportunity to reflect on what was given (by mentors), what was gained (by mentees), and really a time to marvel on how each mentor/mentee pair managed to set up a rhythm and system of partnership that worked for them. 

After a brief introduction—as well as some eating and mingling—we split into small groups and discussed our experiences. Everyone at the table where I sat had a profoundly positive experience; even some of the mentors got something out of it. 

The most interesting conversations came out of the next phase of the event, where mentors sat together at one table and the mentees at their own tables. We had candid discussions—without concern about offending the mentors—about what went well and what didn’t. 

On one hand, it turned out that the mentor-free environment didn’t change much. We mentees truly did have remarkable experiences that we each were grateful for. What stood out to me was how DIFFERENT each partnership was. One mentee was in job interviews, getting assigned design challenges as part of the process, and his mentor was giving advice on how to troubleshoot problems. Another mentee was doing contract work one day a week, and his mentor helped him overcome obstacles and barriers. Despite these differences, each partnership was a success. The mentor and mentee quickly aligned on the mentee’s needs and the mentor’s potential offerings, and really complex and creative relationships emerged. 

It was pretty cool. If somehow you’re reading this, and are interested in participating in the “second season” of this mentorship program (tied to the UXPA of Minnesota), drop me a line. 

[shawnkamesch]

UXPA Mentorship wraps up

A real quick post here, before I head off to the event itself....

Tonight is the wrap-up celebration / recap to the UXPA MN’s new mentorship program, created and coordinated by Kristen Sewell and Meghan Hatalla. 

Through this program, I have been able to speak with, learn from, exchange ideas with, and tour the workplace of Rob Stenzinger, and for that I’m grateful to all three of these people. 

It has been a great experience, and I have the opportunity to talk briefly about that experience tonight. After the event—likely tomorrow—I will post in more detail how the experience went for me. 

And so, I’ll leave this one here, and for those of you going to the event: I’ll see you soon.

[shawnkamesch]

Quicker isn’t always better

Came across a really engaging article in UX magazine today, written by Tal Mishaly. 

Within, it describes a case where a bank came under fire from the online community due to an apparently faked progress bar (the bar continued to progress to completion despite no internet connection. Some were outraged that what the user perceives is deliberately unattached to what is happening in the back end. This article, however, takes a more thoughtful, balanced approach, pointing out other parallel examples of this sort of “watch while you wait” screen. In short, it was a false loading bar, but it’s something to stare at so you 1) believe that the process is working, and 2) feel like it’s a valuable process that’s being completed for you. 

I won’t steal the author’s story by going into it more here. I have linked the article above, and I encourage you to read it. I find it a good general reminder that things that we often accept as universal truth (e.g., quicker is better) should forever be challenged. Question the known, behave like a scientist, because as Galilei and Newton and countless others discovered, the “truth” changes over time. 

But be strong as you do so, dear webling, because Galilei and Newton would also tell you: it’s not always easy to be the first to argue for the new reality. 

[shawnkamesch]

User Experience Critique and Response: GTA V / GTA Online (Part 2 of 2)

I want to again start a video-game-centered post with the disclaimer that I do NOT intend for this entire blog to be centered on video games. I want this blog to be my journey as I learn, explore, and eventually land a career in UX or Content Strategy. 

This just happens to be what’s on my mind right now. I want to share my thoughts on how to improve the user experience for a product that is used by millions of people. 

Knowing me, of course it starts with a video game. 

Anywho, without further ado, part 2 of 2, just for you. 

Playing Online with a Friend

Problem: Joining a session with a friend is remarkably difficult for a multiplayer game.

At the center of the appeal around online mode is the ability to play with one or more of your friends. Sounds great, right?

It is—when you get it to work. 

Here’s the background. Let’s say you're in online mode, and so is your friend. You've even joined a party together via your gaming console (non-gamers, this means you can talk to one another while you play, via your Xbox or Playstation system). Most games can sense who is in your party and enter you into a game together. 

Not GTA Online. Not even close. Is can detect your party, but it doesn’t do a darn thing about it.

Instead, one player must either invite the other player to their session, or opt to join the other player's existing session directly. Either step requires a similar number of button presses to the Switching Game Modes section from my previous post, and the process is neither simple nor intuitive. The key issue that follows is that sessions fill up; each session has a capacity of 16 players. So, the following scenario is FAR too common:

1) Shawn navigates the (terrible) pause menu to join Peter's session. 

2) Game confirms that he wishes to join Peter's session (it has taken 15 button presses to get to this point, so confirmation feels entirely unnecessary.

3) Shawn enters a long loading screen, where he knows he may or may not successfully enter the session. Peter indicated that his session had two open slots, so you would expect it to be predictable (Spoiler: it's not). 

“Hmm, this loading screen is taking a while. Oh well. Once I get in, we’ll have fun.”

4) Shawn's loading screen is interrupted with a message: he can't join Peter's session because it is full. This perplexes both parties because Peter still sees two open slots in his session. The game asks if Shawn would like to join a queue for Peter's session. 

5) Shawn selects OK and encounters another loading screen while the game finds and loads a random online session until such a time that a spot opens up in Peter's session. 

“Wow, another loading screen? I was just here a minute ago. I’m sure it’s gonna work itself out.”

6) During this long load time, Shawn's position in the queue has arrived. But the game isn't ready for this. Only once the long load time is completed, Shawn's session is immediately interrupted with a message indicating that his spot in the session is ready. Does he wish to join? 

7) Shawn selects Yes, and enters another loading screen. 

“&*%$.”

So far, we're close to the ten-minute mark from step 1. Shawn's last message implied that he had a spot reserved for him, that he would be placed into Peter's session and the actual gameplay would begin... right?

8) Wrong. Shawn's loading screen is interrupted so the game can notify Shawn that Peter's session is once again FULL. Would he like to join a queue to enter the session?

And with bad luck, this cycle can continue until you quit out of frustration, and the only game you played was "Watch the loading screens."

And before this, there was no queue system. You were just told it was full. Which is worse? I'm honestly not sure. 

Millions of players have encountered this issue. The game has been released for over 18 months. The queue system has been in the game for over six months. And this issue still exists.

Solution: Minimize loading by "looking before you leap"

The solution to this problem is found more in the programming than the UI, but one smart UX designer at Rockstar Games could have put a stop to this nonsense. Businesses always have programming/development restrictions, but when pitted against the extremely dissatisfying experience for the player, a better solution should have been found and implemented.

Note: The perfect solution is a feature within game that merely senses a party of 2-4 players and automatically finds a session with the right number of open spots, and places them in a session together. The following solution is second-best, but more feasible.

Instead of the scenario described in the "Problems" section, this should be the process, as told from the player's point of view:

1) Shawn selects to join Peter's session.

2) Before exiting Shawn from the session, data is gathered from Peter's session, to determine if an open spot exists for Shawn (note: the game already collects session data in advance like this, in other situations).

3a) If a spot is available, it is held for Shawn and Shawn is loaded into Peter's session. This spot would NOT be nabbed by someone who loaded in more quickly, or by someone who was being thrown into their first session upon starting the game. The spot is held for Shawn until he fills it--with a five-minute timeout in case of the player shutting their game off.

3b) If a spot is not available, Shawn is kept within his existing session, and is told that Peter's session is full. Would he like to enter a queue for Peter's session?

4) Shawn selects OK and enters the queue. He remains in his session and no loading screen is required.

5) Shawn is soon notified that a spot in Peter's session has opened and it is his turn in the queue. Does he wish to join? Uh, yeah, that’s what this is all about. 

6) Shawn selects Yes, and the same process follows as that in step 3a. That spot is reserved for five minutes while Shawn loads (the ONLY loading screen in the process) into Peter's session, where his spot is waiting, still open, for his arrival.

The game, in its current state, actually maximizes the number of loading screens and circular flows, rather than minimizing them. Instead of making players wait for their queue while loading into a new random session, allow them to stay in their existing sessions and continue playing until a spot is opened in the full one. 

I like to call this "look before you leap".

So simple! And yet so NOT implemented.

Entering and Exiting "Instance"-type scenarios

Problem: Players spend time waiting for instances in a lobby, rather than in-game; matchmaking is slow.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term "instance", see this stellar definition. In short, the online mode of the game allows a player to join other players seeking the same specific mission or job to work together in an iteration of the world that is cut off from other players for the sake of immersion and to prevent sabotage--deliberate or otherwise--from all players outside the instance.

Sounds good, right? Except there are a few problems. Scenario time!

Let's say Shawn wishes to join one of these heists that were recently added to the game. These heists require several smaller "setup" missions, so your first step is to navigate through several gameplay hurdles (again, avoiding details on strict-gameplay issues) and enter the "lobby" for the first setup mission. There you are matched with (usually) three other players. If Shawn wants to play one of these missions with Peter, he can invite him, but half the time Peter won't receive the invite unless he was in Shawn's online session beforehand, which isn't always easy to arrange (see "Playing Online with a Friend" above). A reboot of the game may be in order to fix this, or you try again at entering the same session together. Meanwhile, Peter is receiving countless other invites to heists from people he doesn't know.

Let's say Shawn gets Peter to successfully join his heist and Peter is now in the lobby with him. Great job, well done, drinks all around! But hold on, the mission requires four players; Shawn and Peter still need two more players to begin any part of the heist setup--or the heist itself. So Shawn tells the game to auto-invite people who are currently playing. The problem? Countless people will show as joining, but then disappear. One player will join the lobby, but leave soon after because a fourth player isn't found in a timely fashion. Sometimes, nothing happens at all. No one joins, and Shawn and Peter sit there for five, ten minutes, until they realize they only have one option left: quit the heist before it even began.

By the way, if Shawn and Peter had been in the same session previously, exiting this lobby may split them up again if the game tries to place them in a session that has only one open slot. So now they must try to get in the same session again. Yep, it's that bad. 

But hey, let's say Shawn and Peter find two other players, they enter the "instance" and succeed at the mission! Great! This group of four players would ALL like to continue on to the next part of the setup together. After all, this first part worked well. They succeeded. Well, too bad. The game doesn't offer that option, and all four players must return to the main game before the next part can begin. Good luck getting all those same players in your next session!

By the time Shawn and Peter complete the four setup jobs and then the heist, what should have been 2 hours of frantic, frenetic fun turned into 4 hours of friggin' frustrating fatigue. What could have been a phenomenal online gaming experience has turned into "can we successfully navigate a menu and session management system that is fundamentally flawed?" By the end, you’re filled with pride, not for completing the heist itself, but for successfully navigating the awful menu system and UI task flow.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous to me. Something must be done.

Solution: Minimize time spent outside of gameplay and make the lobby as quick and simple as possible.

The principles behind this solution mirror the previous section: minimize the number of loading screens, minimize the time spent in a menu (and outside of the actual gameplay), and streamline the process of gathering a party before throwing them together in a lobby menu. I’ll put forth a proposed scenario told from the the players’ point of view. Let's call the heist initiator Shawn again. I don't know why, but I like the name.

So Shawn uses his in-game "phone" menu to set up a heist. Shawn is prompted—still within the phone menu, not a lobby—to initiate matchmaking. He is given an option to invite (and save a spot for) his friends and/or party members. Then he resumes playing the game while the search continues in the background.

Peter, Shawn's friend, gets the invite. He accepts, but instead of being taken to a lobby, he is told that his spot is held but that matchmaking for the other players is still in progress. Peter resumes playing the game while the search continues in the background. 

Then, two things happen:

1) Other players who are trying to start the same mission are offered a chance to join in Shawn's session instead; and 

2) Other players with similar levels of experience receive an invite to join in, and the first two to accept can join. 

When four total players have accepted the mission, they are notified that their party is full and they are loaded into the lobby together. At that point, the organizer navigates through the few remaining necessary settings and the mission begins. 

And then I propose that, after the mission is a success, the game offers an option to keep their party and launch directly into the next mission. How this doesn't already exist is mind-blowing!

And this wraps up Part 2 of 2 of my GTA online critique. I hope you enjoyed it, and I promise that my next post will NOT be video-game related.

No promises about the one after that.