Casual Players | HPWU (769) | Ingress (157) | Difference | Sig (p) | t
---|---|---|---|---|---
HPWU-Ingress | Mean | SD | Mean | SD
Traits |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aesthetic Orientation | 2.2224 | .83099 | 2.6497 | 1.03266 | -.42731 | .000 | -4.873
Immersion Orientation | 2.5246 | 1.30077 | 3.0357 | 1.54364 | -.51109 | .000 | -3.877
Goal Orientation | 2.7508 | 1.03899 | 3.2191 | 1.18404 | -.46826 | .000 | -4.606
Social Orientation | 3.5732 | 1.59722 | 3.1248 | 1.44123 | -.44837 | .001 | 3.257
Action Orientation | 3.3599 | 1.24719 | 3.0994 | 1.11600 | .26058 | .015 | 2.612
Gratification |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Socialization | 5.0683 | 1.34598 | 3.8654 | 1.32224 | 1.20282 | .000 | 10.234
Enjoyment | 2.8443 | 1.06558 | 2.5074 | .95823 | .33685 | .000 | 3.669
Trendiness | 6.0251 | 1.18668 | 5.8854 | 1.17894 | .13979 | .178 | 1.347
Competition | 2.8637 | 1.04660 | 2.3439 | .89039 | .51977 | .000 | 6.460
Challenge | 4.6808 | 1.29030 | 4.5138 | 1.28407 | .16695 | .140 | 1.479
Table 38. Casual Players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and Ingress Traits and Gratifications Hardcore Players | HPWU (288) | Ingress (105) | Difference | Sig (p) | t
---|---|---|---|---|---
HPWU-Ingress | Mean | SD | Mean | SD
Traits |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aesthetic Orientation | 2.1278 | .81488 | 2.5571 | 1.07208 | -.42937 | .000 | -3.730
Immersion Orientation | 2.3681 | 1.29392 | 3.3486 | 1.57701 | -.98052 | .000 | -5.709
Goal Orientation | 2.3826 | 1.10462 | 2.9295 | 1.12146 | -.54688 | .000 | -4.325
Social Orientation | 3.1750 | 1.57522 | 2.8229 | 1.44896 | .35214 | .046 | 2.002
Action Orientation | 2.8924 | 1.24836 | 2.7352 | 1.15575 | .15712 | .261 | 1.126
Gratification |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Socialization | 4.4983 | 1.47386 | 3.0429 | 1.20144 | 1.45541 | .000 | 9.975
Enjoyment | 2.3498 | 1.07403 | 2.1460 | .99992 | .20379 | .091 | 1.695
Trendiness | 5.9514 | 1.28119 | 5.8603 | 1.36640 | .09107 | .541 | .612
Competition | 2.1847 | .94918 | 1.8619 | .70368 | .32282 | .000 | 3.645
Challenge | 3.8194 | 1.33178 | 3.8508 | 1.32367 | -.03135 | .834 | -.209
Table 39. Hardcore Players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and Ingress Traits
and Gratifications

##  6\. Discussion

Our results suggest the distinctions between the core loops of the studied
games differ significantly, and as such, an understanding of the three games
is necessary to contextualize the results (Holm, 2019). We describe the games
and their loops in Section 2. To repeat, game mechanics in games are “rules”
of the game; for the sake of this discussion, this definition is too granular
(Brathwaite and Schreiber, 2009). Most of the momentary mechanics of the three
games are identical, chiefly due to their nature as LBG. For example, all
three games feature an exploration mechanic realized through actually walking
to physical locations. Game dynamics represent the emergent patterns of play
once mechanics are set in motion by players (Brathwaite and Schreiber, 2009).
Tondello et al. (Tondello et al., 2017) argued in favor of this level of
granularity for discussing games as it contextualizes game mechanics for
individual games. These game dynamics may then be arranged in sequences that
constitute the core loop of the game (Kiiski, 2019; Fan, 2016).

In this section, we discuss what the results of our Traits and Gratifications
analysis mean. Our study presents the largest survey of the traits and
gratifications of casual and hardcore players in the LBG Pokémon GO, Harry
Potter: Wizards Unite, and Ingress to date.

In terms of age, players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and Pokémon GO tended
to be under 36, while players of Ingress were older. This distinction may be
due to player bases naturally being pulled from existing fandoms, resulting in
their demographics overlaping. The player base of the three games is
relatively homogenous, with most studied players being college-educated or
better and male. Interestingly, the latest of the three games, Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite, has a nearly 50/50 male to female ratio, suggesting it has
gameplay elements that result in a broader appeal in terms of male and female
genders. While fewer studies exist for Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and
Ingress, these results appear to align with other demographic studies of
Pokémon GO (Hamari et al., 2019). Our results also indicate that approximately
2% of the surveyed players identify as non-binary.

Importantly, hardcore players play more, reinforcing previous assertions on
hardcore player behaviors (Ip and Jacobs, 2005). In all three LBG, players
tended to be casual players on the whole. The player base of Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite was the most casual, with 72.8% self-identifying as casual
players; Pokémon GO immediately followed at 67.6%, and Ingress was the least
casual at 60%. Broadly these numbers may indicate that players of these LBG
tend to be more casual than not. This may be an artifact of LBG
recontextualizing urban spaces as playful ones, blurring the boundaries of the
virtual game world and physical world (De Souza e Silva and Hjorth, 2009).

Assuming hardcore players are players with a generally higher capacity for
imaginative play, one may postulate that the opposite could be true for casual
players (Bateman et al., 2011). One may argue that the superposition of the
game over the real world reduces the requirement for imaginative play,
lowering the barrier for entry to non-hardcore players. This sentiment may not
necessarily explain the distinction between the three games, as they all
leverage the pervasive nature of LBG. The hardcore casual split may more
likely be the result of differences in the core loops and gameplay dynamics of
the three games.

In the case of the aesthetic trait, players both hardcore and casual had a
tendency to appreciate aesthetic experiences the same in most of the games,
Pokémon GO being the only outlier. In Pokémon GO, casual players were more
likely to have a higher affinity for the aesthetic trait than their hardcore
counterparts. As the aesthetic orientation targets the player’s preference
towards exploring the game world and experiencing the audio-visual components
of the game, this trait dimension may be less related to the actual gameplay
itself and more towards the overall experience (Tondello et al., 2019). As
there’s no obvious evidence to suggest that a higher preference for aesthetic
experiences as a hallmark of casual players within this dataset, the question
should be asked: why are Pokémon GO casual players more aligned to this
dimension? To better understand any possible explanations the three games
should be compared for how well they cater to aesthetic preferences.

Ingress design-wise, and survey-wise, is the least aesthetically oriented
game. There are minimal options to adjust the player appearance and the UI is
deliberately designed to be more utilitarian. A recent update to the game
Ingress Prime addresses aesthetic concerns, but at the time of the survey, it
hadn’t been released (Kumparak, 2018). Both Pokémon GO and Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite were roughly the same on average in terms of players’ aesthetic
oriented traits. The user interface and aesthetics of these two games are
generally more advanced than the first iteration of Ingress, although all
three more or less share the same aesthetic means of world exploration as they
are LBG. As such the subjectively more appealing user interface may explain
why more players with a higher preference for aesthetics play Pokémon GO and
Harry Potter: Wizards Unite.

There is a key aesthetic difference between Pokémon GO and Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite, however, players may customize their avatar in the game world
in Pokémon GO. As such, a possible weakness in the model for modeling
aesthetics for games that do not have character customization may be present.
The notion presented by Kallio in their InSoGa gaming heuristic that suggests
that the game itself is a major contributor to player mentalities is supported
by this observation (Kallio et al., 2011). Taken a step further players with
particular trait mappings and gratifications may self select to games that
more naturally align with their preferences.

A self selection effect may be present in player affinity for immersion. In
all three games, players seemed to have the same affinity for immersion
orientation regardless of their classification as casual or hardcore. Players
of all three games had a preference for immersion, although to varying
degrees. It’s reasonable to assume that in the context of LBG, affinity for
immersion is a significant trait of players of the games, agreeing with the
notion that LBG appropriate the real world to playful ends as suggested by
Hamari et al. (Hamari et al., 2019). Players of LBG likely have an affinity
for immersion, as the playful behaviors of such games are generally pervasive.
A player with a lower immersion affinity may be put off by such game dynamics,
as it is not easy to play a game like Pokémon GO without being immersed in the
world of the game: the real world with virtual trappings. Our findings
indicate that in order of preference for immersion, the three surveyed games
ranked as such: Pokémon GO, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, then Ingress.
Interestingly, hardcore players of Pokémon GO and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
did not differ significantly in immersion preference.

However, casual players of Pokémon GO had a significantly higher affinity for
immersion. Avatar customization in Pokémon GO may act as a personal stake that
attracts players who have a higher affinity for immersion in the casual sphere
to Pokémon GO, once again reinforcing the InSoGa games heuristic assertations
(Kallio et al., 2011). Both Pokémon GO and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite players
had a higher immersion affinity than players of Ingress. This distinction may
be down to an issue of licensing, as unlike Pokémon GO and Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite, Ingress is a unique intellectual property. Both the Pokémon and
Harry Potter franchises are multimedia juggernauts with large existing
fanbases (Parkin, 2013; Kean, 2018). Due to the high popularity of these
franchises, there might be a higher population of potential players who
already have an affinity for immersion, because of their fandom for the
franchise. Ingress, on the other hand, is a newer franchise; players with
immersive affinities may be players of other games or experiences which
overlap with existing preferences. Studies of the impact of nostalgia on
Pokémon GO suggest that childhood brand nostalgia has a significant impact on
player habit (Harborth and Pape, 2019). While not directly immersion, habit
represents an analog of the immersion trait, particularly how well a game
embeds a player into its story.

As a group, hardcore players were more likely to have an affinity for the goal
trait. This result may suggest that the typical hardcore player of LBG is more
likely to play for the sake of clearing objectives. Such players may be more
attracted to games with well-defined objectives. Interestingly, at first
glance, this falls more in line with the original hypothesis presented in the
DGD1 which suggested hardcore/casual dichotomy was how willing the player was
to work to obtain victory (De Souza e Silva and Hjorth, 2009). This manner of
thinking, however, does not really answer the question of why hardcore players
enjoy goals. If the definition arrived at by the DGD1 is used, in which
hardcore players are considered “gamer hobbyists” (Bateman et al., 2011), as a
perceptual lens a possible explanation can be hypothesized. If individual
goals were considered contextualization of the core loop, each goal could be
thought of as an individual gameplay session. While each goal should not be
considered as a separate game, they do provide a framework for explorative
play, wherein a player may attempt different play styles to achieve the goal.

Gamer hobbyists are marked by the range and diversity of games played, as a
result, the breadth of possible experiences presented by objectives may allow
hardcore players to scratch the psychological itch that causes them to pursue
such a breadth of games. In terms of individual games, Harry Potter: Wizards
Unite players had the highest goal orientation. This is likely due to the fact
that complete the foundables registry is codified as core dynamic, once again
reinforcing Kallio’s assertion (Kallio et al., 2011). It should be noted that
historically the Pokémon franchise is notorious for its emphasis on completing
the pokédex, Pokémon GO does not enforce this nearly to the level that earlier
marketing had. Instead, the raising of a team for battles is more emphasized
by the core loop, while this is still a goal completion is less defined than
completing a checklist. However, the existence of the “Gotta Catch ‘em All”
mindset appears to have skewed the casual players of Pokémon GO significantly
more likely to enjoy goals than the casual players of Ingress. Interestingly,
while Ingress players had a lower affinity for goals than Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite, the hardcore of Ingress and Pokémon GO didn’t significantly
differ. This seems to support the idea that hardcore affinity for goal-based
play is higher in the absence of high goal focus in the core game loop.

Much like the goal trait, an affinity for the action trait appears to serve as
a predictor for the player’s status as a hardcore player. In all three games,
the hardcore players were significantly more likely to have an affinity for
challenges in the games they played. Once again, this aligns with the notion
that hardcore players are more interested in the intensity of gaming sessions
(Ip and Jacobs, 2005). This preference for intensity suggests that being a
gamer hobbyist (Bateman et al., 2011) should not be considered the sole
determinate of an individual’s status as a hardcore player. It would be more
illustrative to see if these affinities are consistent across multiple game
types, as it is possible that action and goal orientations are a quirk of the
hardcore LBG player. Interestingly, the casual player of Pokémon GO is more
likely to have an affinity for action than their Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
counterpart; likewise, the Harry Potter: Wizards Unite casual has a higher
affinity than the Ingress. This may be due to the framing of challenges in the
three games. The challenge/action of Ingress lies in the creation of fields
dynamic, which, as established in the assessment of the social trait, is an
elder game dynamic not necessarily reached by the casual players. In Pokémon
GO competition is derived from defeating other players in battle and capturing
gyms.

Gym battles tangibly pit player against player adversarially leveraging human
territoriality, as different teams of players are pitted against one another
for limited spatial resources. In a study of LBG, players expressed a drive to
capture and protect their home territory (a concept non-existent in the study
game), implying a tendency for LBG to evoke territoriality (Papangelis et al.,
2017a, b, c; Chamberlain et al., 2017). Interestingly, despite being available
at level one the territoriality dynamics of Ingress are somewhat less
accessible than Pokémon GO. Players challenging gyms are able to actually see
other players attacking the gym in Pokémon GO, while in Ingress other players
from your team aren’t easily visible in the game UI. Additionally, while
Pokémon GO gyms tend to have high level teams, they also leverage skillful
play to allow challengers of lower levels to take down gyms on their own. In
the case of Ingress portals captured by higher level players are not as easy
for new players to take down, requiring a heavier focus on socialization. As
casuals are apparently less affine to social dynamics this seems to be a
possible explanation for the disparity between the casuals of Pokémon GO and
Ingress. Meanwhile Harry Potter: Wizards Unite offers minimal competition,
instead focusing on the challenge of capture the foundables and participating
in co-op battles. The capturing of foundables likely is more emphasized in the
minds of the players as a goal-based dynamic, while the co-op battles lack the
inherent rivalry present in a pokémon battle.

Of the studied games, only Ingress had a significant difference between
hardcore and casual players regarding the social trait. Hardcore players
tended to be significantly more social than casual. In Ingress, the create
fields dynamic intrinsically requires social interaction for effective play. A
solo player will struggle to maintain three portals (the requisite number to
generate a field), and gather enough resources to connect those portals to
generate a field. While a part of the core loop, it can also be considered a
part of the elder game of Ingress, meaning a player will need to devote more
time to the game to reach this gameplay dynamic. This may suggest that
hardcore players are more likely to dedicate more time to games, which would
support the assertion that hardcore players play longer sessions, more often
(Ip and Jacobs, 2005). This pattern does not emerge in the other games;
however, as social aspects of the two other games are more easily accessible
from the start of a player’s experience with the game.

When comparing the games, Pokémon GO players were significantly more likely to
enjoy social interaction than their Harry Potter: Wizards Unite counterparts.
As Pokémon GO emphasizes taking on gyms and raids in collaborative battles as
a core dynamic, this makes sense; however, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite also
has a core dynamic revolving around co-op play. It might be possible that the
emphasis on the collectible aspects of the gameplay overshadows the social
elements, and as such, players more focused on individual goals are more
likely to enjoy Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
casual players were more likely to enjoy socializing with other players than
their Ingress counterparts. Likewise, Ingress hardcore players are more likely
to have an affinity for the social trait than Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
hardcore players. This may reinforce the assertion that hardcore players of
Ingress are more driven by the social dynamics enforced by the create fields
dynamic, and casual players simply don’t engage in that behavior as much. It’s
also possible that the Harry Potter franchise is a higher motivator for
socialization in the casual set of players.

Traits target general player attributes, while gratification questions are
more targeted towards the manner in which a player experiences a specific
game. When surveyed for socialization gratification, hardcore players were
generally more gratified by the game-related social activities. This
reinforces the findings in assessing the social trait where hardcore players
were typically more attuned. Positive gratification from socialization agrees
with findings in which socialization positively influences continued play for
users of Pokémon GO (Alha et al., 2019). Additionally, this further supports
the view that hardcore players socialize over games, as presented by Bateman
and Nacke (Alha et al., 2019). Interestingly, in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
casual players were actually neutral to the socialization gratification,
perhaps suggesting Harry Potter: Wizards Unite’s core-loop is less suited to
social play, at least for casual players. The emphasis on goals and collecting
may once again focus players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite on a more solo
experience.

These findings also suggest that players are generally less satisfied by
social interaction than they expect themselves to be. In all three cases,
players were less gratified by socialization than they had assessed in the
trait section of the survey. This may suggest that players aren’t necessarily
good at predicting gameplay they enjoy. Tondello’s work on custom gamification
supports this, wherein traits were not necessarily good indicators of game
element selection (Tondello, 2019). It follows that while the players may have
an affinity for a specific trait, the execution of those elements may not
sufficiently gratify the players. Meaning this is less of a problem with the
player’s ability to identify what they like and how well the game delivers on
their perception of that gratification or dynamic. Ingress players are most
gratified by game-related social activity, once again reinforcing the
importance of social activity in the core loop of the game. Pokémon GO was
next, followed by Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, which lines up with the
emphasis on the social elements in the games’ core loops as described in the
discussion of the social trait.

Hardcore players are generally more gratified by their enjoyment of the game.
Questions pertaining to enjoyment were framed around how the player perceived
the gameplay itself, not side benefits of the games. The high gratification
for hardcore players suggests that the hardcore players of LBG enjoy games for
games’ sake, a defining trait of gamer hobbyists, reinforcing Bateman and
Nacke’s claim (Bateman et al., 2011). This is not to say that casual players
are incapable of enjoying games for games’ sake, in fact, casual gratification
was fairly high in all three games. Ingress players seemed to be the most
gratified by their enjoyment of the games; however, the only significant
difference is between the casual players of Ingress and Harry Potter: Wizards
Unite. Casual players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite are less gratified by the
enjoyment of the game than casual players of Ingress. This distinction may be
because Harry Potter: Wizards Unite has a tight coupling to the Harry Potter
franchise, meaning players may be more gratified by feelings of nostalgia or
appreciation of the franchise in general. This distinction appears to
partially support the finding that childhood brand nostalgia is positively
associated with hedonic motivation, an analog for enjoyment in behavioral
intention, however, Pokémon GO’s lack of difference is unexplained and
warrants further study (Harborth and Pape, 2019).

Of the gratifications surveyed, trendiness was the least gratifying,
unilaterally, aligning with Hamari’s initial findings on Pokémon GO (Hamari et
al., 2019). Regardless of the influence of trendiness on adoption, it seems
not to be a valuable gratification for playing LBG. Trends are responsible for
the initial adoption of a game, but not the continued interaction between
players and the game. For repeat play, games need to establish an affective
relationship with the player (Jenkins, 2008). Trendiness only provides the
initial dopamine hit to install the game on the player’s device; the gameplay
does not influence the actual gratification. There was a significant
relationship between the hardcore players of Pokémon GO and Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite. Pokémon GO hardcore players were more gratified by trendiness.
Players are swayed by fads, and this discretion may be an artifact of pogo’s
meteoric rise to prominence in 2016 (Fitzpatrick, 2016). Ingress had no
significant difference with any of the other games. This may be interpreted as
the game being less linked to trendiness, as it doesn’t have the built-in
franchise of the other games.

In each of the games, players receive gratification by competing with other
players in the context of the game. Hardcore players are significantly more
gratified by competition in all of the surveyed games, suggesting competition
is a common gratification for hardcore players of LBG. Gratification for
competition in hardcore players aligns with the findings of the socialization
gratification and social trait of this study. Competition represents a social
dynamic in LBG, as players fight for control over physical locations, they
interact with members of opposing teams in the game. The core loop of Ingress
revolves around a competitive struggle between two player factions (the
Resistance and the Enlightened), in which players vie for limited resources
(Hatfield, 2014). The social dynamic created by this struggle supports the
notion that hardcore players are gamer hobbyists (Bateman et al., 2011), as
competition provides an outlet for communication through gameplay dynamics.

Competition also represents an intensity of gameplay, which aligns with the
action trait, supporting the view that hardcore players prefer intense
experiences (Ip and Jacobs, 2005). The multifaceted nature of competition
appears to support that Hardcore players are not merely gamer hobbyists or
action seekers, but a combination of the two groups. Breaking competition down
by games, Ingress stands supreme, with its players receiving the most
gratification from competition. As competition is key to the core loop of
Ingress, this comes as no surprise. When comparing Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
and Pokémon GO, casual players of Pokémon GO receive more gratification from
competition than their Harry Potter: Wizards Unite counterparts; however, the
opposite is true for hardcore players of the same games. Suggesting that the
competitive elements of Pokémon GO may be better suited to casual players,
while the competitive aspects of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite are better suited
to hardcore players. A more thorough investigation of the competitive dynamics
of the two games may be warranted to better tailor experiences for hardcore
and casual players.

Response to the challenge gratification was overall neutral or negative. As
both the challenge and competition gratifications appear to logically model
elements of the action trait, this is a fairly surprising finding. In each of
the games, hardcore players scored neutrally on this gratification, while
casual players scored negatively. While this generally indicates a greater
affinity for challenge in hardcore players, it appears to paint a broader
picture of LBG players in general when considered in terms of competition.
These findings suggest that while players of LBG express the action trait,
they are more gratified by action in a social context. Due to the pervasive
nature of LBG, players may have a different expectation of such games, wherein
socialization is more valued and enhances the gratification of gameplay
dynamics.

Our finding points to human territoriality driving gratification in LBG,
supporting and strengthening the findings of Papangelis et al. (Papangelis et
al., 2017a, b, 2020). The findings also suggest that this sense of
territoriality is experienced regardless of gender, as in all three games a
similar trend was observed with regards to the dichotomy of challenge and
competition. As previous research only observed this in males our findings
indicate a more broad trend amongst players of LBG. As this model has only
been applied in the context of LBG, further research is required to determine
if this split is an aspect of LBG or gaming in general. It’s possible that the
socialization offered by competition, on the whole, is a better gratifier for
players in games in the general context. In comparing the games, a significant
distinction was only found in casual players of Pokémon GO being less
gratified by challenge than casual players of Ingress. This affinity for
challenges may support the notion that players of Ingress as a whole are
skewed more towards the hardcore, assuming the assumption that hardcore
players are more tolerant of challenge is valid. Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
had no significant differences with the other studied games.

As alluded to before, Pokémon GO and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite are just an
element of two massive transmedia franchises (Parkin, 2013; Kean, 2018). In
both games, nostalgia was an apparent gratification regardless of the player’s
status as casual or hardcore. In Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, hardcore players
received significantly more gratification than their casual counterparts. As
nostalgia doesn’t exist in a vacuum, this may suggest that people with a
higher nostalgia for the Harry Potter franchise may be more likely to be
hardcore players of Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. Harry Potter: Wizards Unite
emphasizes gameplay dynamics around the franchise (foundables are items,
creatures, and people from the franchise as a whole). Overall this reinforces
the findings of Rauschnabel et al. and Hamari, which found nostalgia to be a
driving force for players of Pokémon GO (Hamari et al., 2019; Rauschnabel et
al., 2017).

The overall high gratification derived from nostalgia and the higher response
rate for Pokémon GO and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite may indicate that
nostalgia drives interest in LBG. While not measured Ingress is unique among
the studied games in terms of nostalgia. As a unique intellectual property at
the time of release Ingress has no childhood brand nostalgia experienced by
its contemporaries and there was no transmedia franchise to support the
gameplay. A recent anime***https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80992853 and book
series†††https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ingress-Niantic-Project-Files-
Book/dp/B01BOWID4Crepresents an effort by Niantic to build a broader
transmedia franchise in an effort to leverage an analog of this gratification.
Leveraging immersion Niantic even created integrated events for the anime
release in an effort to drive interaction (Sherman, 2018; Jones and
Papangelis, 2020). A study on the impacts of these efforts is warranted,
although an analog of the nostalgia gratification may need to be constructed.

Based on our findings it appears that in the context of LBG casuals may almost
be considered a baseline player. No single attribute, trait or gratification,
had a higher casual affinity than hardcore affinity. In fact casual only beat
out hardcore once in the case of the affinity for aesthetics in Pokémon GO. In
contrast hardcore players were more goal, social and action oriented and
received more gratification from socialization, enjoyment, competition, and
challenge. Our findings reinforce the notion that hardcore players may be
generally considered gamer hobbyists, however, they also appear to seek
intense gameplay experiences (Ip and Jacobs, 2005; Bateman and Boon, 2005).
Social dynamics on the whole appeared to increase gratification for LBG
players. Further application of the model to a non-LBG context should occur to
determine if this is a unique feature of LBG or a general trend in games as a
whole.

Interestingly, there also appears to be some discrepancy between the
measurement of traits and the perceived gratifications. Despite clear analogs,
such as the social trait and socialization gratification, gratification
appears to be lower than the measurement of the player’s trait on a similar
Likert scale. The mechanism for traits may not be indicative of
gratifications, or perhaps games may not properly deliver on the
gratifications measured. Similar trends were found to be existing in prior
work by Tondello, as such further study is recommended (Tondello, 2019).

Finally, gameplay dynamics and core loops appear to influence the players of
their games. Games with design elements conducive to certain traits appear to
attract players with those traits (e.g. goal affine players to Harry Potter:
Wizards Unite). Gratifications also appeared to have correlation to the
independent games, with variations in levels of gratification correlating to
the actual dynamics of those games. In sum, our findings point to a collection
of trends along the hardcore and casual players of the three studied game,
presenting a preponderance of commonality between the three games, while also
indicating discrete attributes borne from the individual game elements.

##  7\. Conclusion

This study presents one of the most comprehensive explorations of the links
between player traits and gratifications in LBG. Concurrent to the exploration
of LBG, this work presents the most extensive scholarly study of the player
bases of Pokémon GO, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, and Ingress. In particular,
our work sought to determine three attributes of the communities mentioned
above:

  1. (1)

The casual and hardcore players of the games.

  2. (2)

The traits casual and hardcore players manifest in the games.

  3. (3)

The gratifications which drive the casual and hardcore players in the games.

To this end, we deployed a survey with three components: a demographic
component, a version of Tondello’s trait instrument (Tondello, 2019), and a
version of Hamari’s gratifications instrument (Hamari et al., 2019). The
surveys were deployed to /r/PokemonGo, /r/HPWU, and /r/Ingress in mid-July
2019, and the responses were collected for ten days. After data filtering
(e.g. removing incomplete surveys or surveys with a single answer for all
items) 1071, 1057, and 262 surveys were collected for Pokémon GO, Harry
Potter: Wizards Unite, and Ingress, respectively. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis conducted on the data sets found the data sets to be valid,
and the factor loadings to be generally valid for the survey items.

Our survey results appear to indicate distinct attributes for the casual and
hardcore players of the studied LBG. Remember, for the purposes of this study,
hardcore players are considered a grouping of players who favor more
committed, higher intensity play. In contrast, lower intensity, less committed
players are considered casual players. By situating these two types of players
within our instrumentation, we filter between heavy and light types of players
which affords us an ability to more finely contextualize our results. Hardcore
players were typically more affine for the studied traits and more gratified
by the gratifications presented. Hardcore players were usually found to be a
combination of gamer hobbyists, who derived gratification from socializing
over games and the games themselves, and intense players, who valued intense
gaming sessions (Bateman et al., 2011; Ip and Jacobs, 2005). Generally, our
studied players appeared to be more gratified by socialization in all of its
forms, perhaps indicating a general trend in LBG players in general. Finally,
the design of the games was generally determined to have an influence on the
measured gratifications of players and the traits expressed by those who
played.

The limitations of this work are as follows. First, in Hamari’s survey,
“outdoor activity” was included as a gratification (Hamari et al., 2019).
Through exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that outdoor activity
is a part of the “socialization” dimension in all three applications of the
survey. This is believed to be the result of our sample having different play
experiences from the original sample studied by Hamari et al. (Hamari et al.,
2019). Additionally, and more importantly, our participants likely interpreted
the questions as part of the socialization dimension in the questionnaire as
the questions are closely related to social activities (e.g. ”I play Pokémon
GO because I can meet friends outdoors”, and ”I play Pokémon GO because I can
meet strangers outdoors”).

As the literature and previous studies indicate that outdoor activity is an
important gratification of players of LBG, this shows a significant drawback
in this study of LBG players. Further research is required to explore outdoor
activity as a gratification. Due to societal changes and global pandemic in
2020 gratifications as a whole may need exploration as a whole. Changes in
socialization introduced by the global pandemic may impact the way players
experience LBG as a whole. It is possible that certain gratifications have
been emphasized (e.g. outdoor activity) or reduced (e.g. socialization) in
light of this event. As such many of the conclusions reached by this work may
need some reconsideration in a post-COVID-19 world. A study of changes to
player gratifications and impacts on players’ interactions with the core loops
of LBG are of particular interest.

Individuals in our survey self categorize as hardcore and casual. Self-
categorization is somewhat problematic, as player actions don’t necessarily
match the characterizations they give themselves. This particular drawback
might be highlighted by the observed disconnect between traits and
gratifications discussed in the discussion section, which requires further
work in its own right. More concretely, one individual in the study
categorized themselves as casual; however, it was determined based on
interactions that they would be better classified as hardcore (e.g. they would
go out to play at night). Further research is required into the casual and
hardcore players of LBG and their actions. In future work, it is suggested to
consider the casual/hardcore categorization as more of a continuum, rather
than the binary presented in this work.

This study was conducted when Harry Potter: Wizards Unite had just been
released, and Ingress had been updated to Ingress Prime. These recent changes
may have influenced the results and colored the responses given by players of
these games. In further work, it is recommended that a more “longitudinal”
approach be employed. In this approach, samples would be gathered at different
frames of time in an effort to reduce temporal artifacts. In this line of
thinking an investigation into the accessibility of mechanics is recommended
as well. As discussed there appears to be some impact on accessibility to
gameplay mechanics and gratifications. In this work, a hypothetical link was
presented between territoriality and the competition gratification, which
warrants further study.

Finally, all of the participants of this survey have been recruited through
Reddit. Usually, the most involved and dedicated players are the regulars of
such forums of discussion. As such, the results may have been skewed more
hardcore than more general recruitment. It is recommended for future research
into LBG that recruitment be performed through other avenues, particularly in-
game interactions, if possible. Overall, it is our belief that through the
usage of the above-outlined methods and exploratory studies traits and
gratifications may be leveraged to acquire a more full understanding of the
players of LBG.

## References

  * (1)
  * Alha et al. (2019) Kati Alha, Elina Koskinen, Janne Paavilainen, and Juho Hamari. 2019.  Why do people play location-based augmented reality games: A study on Pokémon GO.  _Computers in Human Behavior_ 93 (2019), 114–122.
  * Althoff et al. (2016) Tim Althoff, Ryen W White, and Eric Horvitz. 2016\.  Influence of Pokémon Go on physical activity: study and implications.  _Journal of medical Internet research_ 18, 12 (2016), e315.
  * Bartle (1996) Richard Bartle. 1996\.  Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs.  _Journal of MUD research_ 1, 1 (1996), 19\.
  * Bartle (2005) Richard Bartle. 2005\.  Virtual worlds: Why people play.  _Massively multiplayer game development_ 2, 1 (2005), 3–18.
  * Bateman and Boon (2005) Chris Bateman and Richard Boon. 2005.  _21st Century Game Design (Game Development Series)_.  Charles River Media, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
  * Bateman et al. (2011) Chris Bateman, Rebecca Lowenhaupt, Lennart E Nacke, et al. 2011\.  Player typology in theory and practice.. In _DiGRA Conference_. DIGRA, Hilversum, The Netherlands, 1–24.
  * Bennett and Rundle-Thiele (2002) Rebekah Bennett and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele. 2002.  A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement approaches.  _Journal of Brand Management_ 9, 3 (2002), 193–209.
  * Berens (2000) Linda V Berens. 2000\.  _Understanding yourself and others: an introduction to temperament_.  Telos Publications, Santa Ana, CA, USA.
  * Brathwaite and Schreiber (2009) Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber. 2009.  _Challenges for game designers_.  Nelson Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  * Buckingham and Burn (2007) David Buckingham and Andrew Burn. 2007.  Game literacy in theory and practice.  _Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia_ 16, 3 (2007), 323–349.
  * Busch et al. (2016) Marc Busch, Elke Mattheiss, Rita Orji, Peter Fröhlich, Michael Lankes, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016.  Player type models: Towards empirical validation. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems_. ACM, New York, New York, USA, 1835–1841.
  * Chamberlain et al. (2017) Alan Chamberlain, Mads Bødker, Adrian Hazzard, David McGookin, David De Roure, Pip Willcox, and Konstantinos Papangelis. 2017\.  Audio Technology and Mobile Human Computer Interaction: From Space and Place, to Social Media, Music, Composition and Creation.  _Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact._ 9, 4 (Oct. 2017), 25–40.
  * De Souza e Silva and Hjorth (2009) Adriana De Souza e Silva and Larissa Hjorth. 2009.  Playful urban spaces: A historical approach to mobile games.  _Simulation & Gaming_ 40, 5 (2009), 602–625.
  * DeCoster (1998) Jamie DeCoster. 1998\.  Overview of Factor Analysis.  http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html
  * Elliott and Woodward (2007) Alan C Elliott and Wayne A Woodward. 2007.  _Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook: With SPSS examples_.  Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  * Fan (2016) Elva Fan. 2016.  _Deconstructing Pokemon Go’s fun_.  Prototypr.io.  https://blog.prototypr.io/deconstructing-pokemon-gos-fun-1a20dd459aa8
  * Field (2005) AP Field. 2005.  Discovering statistics using SPSS:(and sex, drugs and rock’n’roll). ISM introducing statistical methods.
  * Fitzpatrick (2016) Alex Fitzpatrick. 2016\.  _How ’Pokémon Go’ Took Over the World_.  Time Magazine.  https://time.com/4400791/pokemon-go-iphone-android-nintendo/
  * Fortes Tondello et al. (2018) Gustavo Fortes Tondello, Deltcho Valtchanov, Adrian Reetz, Rina R Wehbe, Rita Orji, and Lennart E Nacke. 2018.  Towards a trait model of video game preferences.  _International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction_ 34, 8 (2018), 732–748.
  * Gaskin et al. (2017) Cadeyrn J Gaskin, Sylvie D Lambert, Steven J Bowe, and Liliana Orellana. 2017.  Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: implications for the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0.  _BMC medical research methodology_ 17, 1 (2017), 40\.
  * Gosling et al. (2003) Samuel D Gosling, Peter J Rentfrow, and William B Swann Jr. 2003\.  A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains.  _Journal of Research in personality_ 37, 6 (2003), 504–528.
  * Hair et al. (1998) Joseph F Hair, William C Black, Barry J Babin, Rolph E Anderson, Ronald L Tatham, et al. 1998\.  _Multivariate data analysis_. Vol. 5.  Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.  Issue 3.
  * Hamari et al. (2019) Juho Hamari, Aqdas Malik, Johannes Koski, and Aditya Johri. 2019\.  Uses and gratifications of Pokémon Go: why do people play mobile location-based augmented reality games?  _International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction_ 35, 9 (2019), 804–819.
  * Hancock and Mueller (2013) Gregory R Hancock and Ralph O Mueller. 2013.  _Structural equation modeling: A second course_.  Iap, Charlotte, NC, USA.
  * Harborth and Pape (2019) David Harborth and Sebastian Pape. 2019.  How nostalgic feelings impact Pokémon Go players–integrating childhood brand nostalgia into the technology acceptance theory.  _Behaviour & Information Technology_ 0, 0 (2019), 1–21.
  * Hatfield (2014) Tom Hatfield. 2014\.  _Ingress: The game that reveals Google’s secret war to control London_.  The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/ingress-the-game-that-reveals-googles-secret-war-to-control-london
  * Henson and Roberts (2006) Robin K Henson and J Kyle Roberts. 2006.  Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice.  _Educational and Psychological measurement_ 66, 3 (2006), 393–416.
  * Holm (2019) Suvi K Holm. 2019\.  Player Types of Gamers: Critical Evaluation. In _Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 1–6.
  * IJsselsteijn et al. (2008) Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Wouter Van Den Hoogen, Christoph Klimmt, Yvonne De Kort, Craig Lindley, Klaus Mathiak, Karolien Poels, Niklas Ravaja, Marko Turpeinen, and Peter Vorderer. 2008.  Measuring the experience of digital game enjoyment. In _Proceedings of measuring behavior_. Noldus Maastricht, The Netherlands, 88–89.
  * Ip and Jacobs (2005) Barry Ip and Gabriel Jacobs. 2005.  Segmentation of the games market using multivariate analysis.  _Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing_ 13, 3 (2005), 275–287.
  * Jenkins (2008) Henry Jenkins. 2008\.  _Convergence culture: where old and new media collide_.  New York University Press, New York, New York, USA.
  * Jones and Papangelis (2020) Catherine Jones and Konstantinos Papangelis. 2020.  Reflective Practice: Lessons Learnt by Using Board Games as a Design Tool for Location-Based Games. In _Geospatial Technologies for Local and Regional Development_ , Phaedon Kyriakidis, Diofantos Hadjimitsis, Dimitrios Skarlatos, and Ali Mansourian (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 291–307.
  * Kaczmarek et al. (2017) Lukas Dominik Kaczmarek, Michał Misiak, Maciej Behnke, Martyna Dziekan, and Przemysław Guzik. 2017.  The Pikachu effect: Social and health gaming motivations lead to greater benefits of Pokémon GO use.  _Computers in Human Behavior_ 75 (2017), 356–363.
  * Kaiser (1960) Henry F Kaiser. 1960\.  The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.  _Educational and psychological measurement_ 20, 1 (1960), 141–151.
  * Kallio et al. (2011) Kirsi Pauliina Kallio, Frans Mäyrä, and Kirsikka Kaipainen. 2011.  At least nine ways to play: Approaching gamer mentalities.  _Games and Culture_ 6, 4 (2011), 327–353.
  * Kean (2018) Danuta Kean. 2018\.  _Harry Potter books turn out to be a wizard investment_.  The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/books/shortcuts/2018/mar/28/harry-potter-books-turn-out-to-be-a-wizard-investment
  * Kelloway (2014) E Kevin Kelloway. 2014\.  _Using Mplus for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide_.  Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  * Khalis and Mikami (2018) Adri Khalis and Amori Yee Mikami. 2018.  Who’s gotta catch’em all?: Individual differences in Pokèmon Go gameplay behaviors.  _Personality and Individual Differences_ 124 (2018), 35–38.
  * Kiiski (2019) Erno Kiiski. 2019\.  _Harry Potter: Wizards Unite–How Do Gameplay And Features Compare To The Competition?_ GameRefinery.  https://www.gamerefinery.com/harry-potter-wizards-unite-gameplay/
  * Kogan et al. (2017) Lori Kogan, Peter Hellyer, Colleen Duncan, and Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher. 2017.  A pilot investigation of the physical and psychological benefits of playing Pokémon GO for dog owners.  _Computers in Human Behavior_ 76 (2017), 431–437.
  * Kumparak (2018) Greg Kumparak. 2018\.  _Niantic overhauls Ingress to make it more welcoming for new players_.  Tech Crunch.  https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/05/what-is-ingress-prime/
  * Law et al. (2018) Effie L-C Law, Florian Brühlmann, and Elisa D Mekler. 2018\.  Systematic review and validation of the game experience questionnaire (geq)-implications for citation and reporting practice. In _Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 257–270.
  * Lindqvist et al. (2018) Anna-Karin Lindqvist, Darla Castelli, Josef Hallberg, and Stina Rutberg. 2018.  The praise and price of pokemon GO: A qualitative study of children’s and parents’ experiences.  _JMIR serious games_ 6, 1 (2018), e1.
  * Liu et al. (2014) Charles Zhechao Liu, Yoris A Au, and Hoon Seok Choi. 2014\.  Effects of freemium strategy in the mobile app market: An empirical study of google play.  _Journal of Management Information Systems_ 31, 3 (2014), 326–354.
  * Liu et al. (2012) Yan Liu, Bruno D Zumbo, and Amery D Wu. 2012.  A demonstration of the impact of outliers on the decisions about the number of factors in exploratory factor analysis.  _Educational and Psychological Measurement_ 72, 2 (2012), 181–199.
  * Lumley et al. (2002) Thomas Lumley, Paula Diehr, Scott Emerson, and Lu Chen. 2002\.  The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets.  _Annual review of public health_ 23, 1 (2002), 151–169.
  * McCrae and Costa Jr (1989) Robert R McCrae and Paul T Costa Jr. 1989.  Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality.  _Journal of personality_ 57, 1 (1989), 17–40.
  * Nacke (2010) Lennart E Nacke. 2010\.  Wiimote vs. controller: electroencephalographic measurement of affective gameplay interaction. In _Proceedings of the international academic conference on the future of game design and technology_. FDG, Monterey, California, USA, 159–166.
  * Nacke et al. (2014) Lennart E Nacke, Chris Bateman, and Regan L Mandryk. 2014\.  BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey.  _Entertainment computing_ 5, 1 (2014), 55–62.
  * Nunnally (1994) Jum C Nunnally. 1994\.  _Psychometric theory 3E_.  Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, USA.
  * Orji et al. (2013) Rita Orji, Regan L Mandryk, Julita Vassileva, and Kathrin M Gerling. 2013.  Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. In _Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 2467–2476.
  * Papangelis et al. (2020) Konstantinos Papangelis, Alan Chamberlain, Ioanna Lykourentzou, Vassilis-Javed Khan, Michael Saker, Hai-Ning Liang, Irwyn Sadien, and Ting Cao. 2020.  Performing the Digital Self: Understanding Location-Based Social Networking, Territory, Space, and Identity in the City.  _ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact._ 27, 1, Article 1 (Jan. 2020), 26 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3364997
  * Papangelis et al. (2017a) Konstantinos Papangelis, Melvin Metzger, Yiyeng Sheng, Hai-Ning Liang, Alan Chamberlain, and Ting Cao. 2017a.  Conquering the city: Understanding perceptions of mobility and human territoriality in location-based mobile games.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies_ 1, 3 (2017), 1–24.
  * Papangelis et al. (2017b) Konstantinos Papangelis, Melvin Metzger, Yiyang Sheng, Hai-Ning Liang, Alan Chamberlain, and Vassilis-Javed Khan. 2017b.  ”Get Off My Lawn!”: Starting to Understand Territoriality in Location Based Mobile Games. In _CHI EA ’17 Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM Press, 1955–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053154
  * Papangelis et al. (2017c) Konstantinos Papangelis, Yiyang Sheng, Hai-Ning Liang, Alan Chamberlain, Vassilis-Javed Khan, and Ting Cao. 2017c.  Unfolding the interplay of self-identity and expressions of territoriality in location-based social networks. ACM Press, 177–180.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3123024.3123081
  * Park et al. (2011) Jowon Park, Yosep Song, and Ching-I Teng. 2011.  Exploring the links between personality traits and motivations to play online games.  _Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking_ 14, 12 (2011), 747–751.
  * Parkin (2013) Simon Parkin. 2013\.  _Pokémon – from bugs to blockbuster_.  The Guardian.  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/oct/11/pokemon-blockbuster-game-technology
  * Rammstedt and John (2007) Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P John. 2007.  Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German.  _Journal of research in Personality_ 41, 1 (2007), 203–212.
  * Rauschnabel et al. (2017) Philipp A Rauschnabel, Alexander Rossmann, and M Claudia tom Dieck. 2017.  An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go.  _Computers in Human Behavior_ 76 (2017), 276–286.
  * Ryan and Deci (2000) Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000.  Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.  _Contemporary educational psychology_ 25, 1 (2000), 54–67.
  * Sherman (2018) Jennifer Sherman. 2018\.  _Ingress Game Gets ’Real-Time Story’ That Connects With Anime_.  Anime News Network.  https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2018-07-30/ingress-game-gets-real-time-story-that-connects-with-anime/.134869
  * Sicart (2015) Miguel Sicart. 2015\.  Loops and Metagames: Understanding Game Design Structures.. In _FDG_.
  * Tabachnick et al. (2007) Barbara G Tabachnick, Linda S Fidell, and Jodie B Ullman. 2007\.  _Using multivariate statistics_. Vol. 5.  Pearson, Boston, MA, USA.
  * Tondello (2019) Gustavo Fortes Tondello. 2019\.  _Dynamic Personalization of Gameful Interactive Systems_.  Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Waterloo.
  * Tondello et al. (2019) Gustavo F Tondello, Karina Arrambide, Giovanni Ribeiro, Andrew Jian-lan Cen, and Lennart E Nacke. 2019\.  “I don’t fit into a single type”: A Trait Model and Scale of Game Playing Preferences. In _IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction_. Springer, Paphos, Cyprus, 375–395.
  * Tondello et al. (2016) Gustavo F Tondello, Rina R Wehbe, Lisa Diamond, Marc Busch, Andrzej Marczewski, and Lennart E Nacke. 2016.  The gamification user types hexad scale. In _Proceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 229–243.
  * Tondello et al. (2017) Gustavo F Tondello, Rina R Wehbe, Rita Orji, Giovanni Ribeiro, and Lennart E Nacke. 2017.  A framework and taxonomy of videogame playing preferences. In _Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 329–340.
  * Vanden Abeele et al. (2015) Vero Vanden Abeele, Pieter Tierens, Thomas Hendrickx, Lee De-Wit, Bob De Schutter, and Luc Geurts. 2015\.  Game-based Experiments on Human Visual Attention. In _Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games_. Foundations of Digital Games, FDG, Pacific Grove, California, USA, 1–9.
  * Wagner-Greene et al. (2017) Victoria R Wagner-Greene, Amy J Wotring, Thomas Castor, Jessica Kruger, Sarah Mortemore, and Joseph A Dake. 2017.  Pokémon GO: Healthy or harmful?  _American journal of public health_ 107, 1 (2017), 35\.
  * Watanabe et al. (2017) Kazuhiro Watanabe, Norito Kawakami, Kotaro Imamura, Akiomi Inoue, Akihito Shimazu, Toru Yoshikawa, Hisanori Hiro, Yumi Asai, Yuko Odagiri, Etsuko Yoshikawa, et al. 2017\.  Pokémon GO and psychological distress, physical complaints, and work performance among adult workers: a retrospective cohort study.  _Scientific reports_ 7, 1 (2017), 1–7.
  * Williams et al. (2009) Dmitri Williams, Mia Consalvo, Scott Caplan, and Nick Yee. 2009\.  Looking for gender: Gender Roles and Behaviors Among Online Gamers.  _Journal of Communication_ 59, 4 (2009), 700–725.
  * Winkler et al. (2006) Niels Winkler, Martin Kroh, and Martin Spiess. 2006\.  _Entwicklung einer deutschen Kurzskala zur zweidimensionalen Messung von sozialer Erwünschtheit_.  Technical Report. DIW Discussion Papers.
  * Yan et al. (2019) Wen Yan, Qian Chen, Xuemei Zhang, Marko Elovainio, and Yan Huang. 2019.  The Chinese version of attitudes towards guidelines scale: validity and reliability assessment.  _BMC medical research methodology_ 19, 1 (2019), 40\.
  * Yee (2005) Nick Yee. 2005.  Motivations of play in MMORPGs. In _Proceedings of DIGRA 2005_. DIGRA, Vancouver, Canada, 1–8.
  * Yee (2006) Nick Yee. 2006.  Motivations for play in online games.  _CyberPsychology & Behavior_ 9, 6 (2006), 772–775.
  * Yee and Ducheneaut (2015) Nick Yee and Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2015.  The gamer motivation model in handy reference chart and slides.
  * Yee et al. (2012) Nick Yee, Nicolas Ducheneaut, and Les Nelson. 2012\.  Online gaming motivations scale: development and validation. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 2803–2806.

##  Appendix A Survey

###  A.1. Section 1 - Demographics and playing-related factors

In this section we will ask you a few questions to find out more about you.

Gender

  * •

Male

  * •

Female

  * •

Non-Binary

Age

  * •

Under 15 years

  * •

15 to 20 years

  * •

26 to 30 years

  * •

31-35 years

  * •

36-40 years

  * •

41-45 years

  * •

46-50 years

  * •

Over 51 years

Occupation

  * •

Working full time

  * •

Working part time

  * •

Unemployed

  * •

Retired/Pensioner

  * •

Student

Country of residence

  * •

List of countries

Education

  * •

University degree

  * •

College degree

  * •

Vocational degree

  * •

High school

  * •

Others

I typically play GAMENAME:

  * •

Many times every day

  * •

Once a day

  * •

A few times a week

  * •

Once a week

  * •

A couple of times a month

  * •

Rarely

How long each game session usually lasts?

  * •

Less than 15 minutes

  * •

16-30 minutes

  * •

31-45 minutes

  * •

46-60 minutes

  * •

1-2 hours

  * •

2-3 hours

  * •

3-4 hours

  * •

4-5 hours

  * •

5-6 hours

  * •

6 hours or more

Would you consider yourself a casual or a hardcore GAMENAME gamer?

  * •

Casual

  * •

Hardcore

###  A.2. Section 2 – Player traits

Notes: 7-point Likert Scale for all items (Strongly agree to Strongly
disagree)

In the following section we will ask few questions that will help us
understand what kind of gamer you are. In contrast with the rest of the
questionnaire, the questions in this section are general and not specific to
Harry Potter Wizard Unite.

Aesthetic orientation

  1. (1)

I like games which make me feel like I am actually in a different place.

  2. (2)

I like games with detailed worlds or universes to explore.

  3. (3)

I like to spend some time exploring the game world.

  4. (4)

I like to customize how my character looks in a game.

  5. (5)

I often feel in awe with the landscapes or other game imagery.

Narrative orientation

  1. (1)

I usually skip the story portions or the cutscenes when I am playing. (R)

  2. (2)

Story is not important to me when I play games. (R)

  3. (3)

I enjoy complex narratives in a game.

  4. (4)

I like games that pull me in with their story.

  5. (5)

I feel like storytelling often gets in the way of actually playing the game.
(R)

Goal orientation

  1. (1)

I like to complete all the tasks and objectives in a game.

  2. (2)

I usually do not care if I do not complete all optional parts of a game (R)

  3. (3)

I like completing games 100

  4. (4)

I feel stressed if I do not complete all the tasks in a game.

  5. (5)

I like finishing quests.

Social orientation

  1. (1)

I like to play online with other players.

  2. (2)

I like to interact with other people in a game.

  3. (3)

I don’t like playing with other people. (R)

  4. (4)

I like games that let me play in guilds or teams.

  5. (5)

I often prefer to play games alone. (R)

Challenge Orientation

  1. (1)

I like it when goals are hard to achieve in games.

  2. (2)

I enjoy highly difficult challenges in games.

  3. (3)

I like it when games challenge me.

  4. (4)

I usually play games at the highest difficulty setting.

  5. (5)

I like it when progression in a game demands skill.

###  A.3. Section 3 - Gratifications

Notes: 7-point Likert Scale for all items (Strongly agree to Strongly
disagree) except nostalgia which is Yes/No.

In this section we ask you questions that will help us understand how and why
you play GAMENAME.

Challenge

  1. (1)

I feel proud when I master an aspect of the game

  2. (2)

It feels rewarding to get to the next level

  3. (3)

I feel excited when I return foundables to their proper location

  4. (4)

I feel excited when I win a battle

  5. (5)

I enjoy finding new and creative ways to work through the game

Competition

  1. (1)

I like to prove that I am one of the best players

  2. (2)

I get upset when others do better than me

  3. (3)

I get upset when I am unable to earn enough points

  4. (4)

It is important to me to be one of the skilled persons playing the game

Enjoyment

  1. (1)

I play GAMENAME because it is exciting

  2. (2)

I play GAMENAME because it is entertaining

  3. (3)

I play GAMENAME because it is fun

  4. (4)

I play GAMENAME because it is a good pastime

  5. (5)

I play GAMENAME because it is a habit

  6. (6)

I play GAMENAME because it occupies my free time

Trendiness

  1. (1)

GAMENAME enables me to look trendy

  2. (2)

GAMENAME enables me to look cool

  3. (3)

GAMENAME enables me to look stylish

Socializing

  1. (1)

GAMENAME enables me to maintain friendships

  2. (2)

GAMENAME enables me to improve relationships

  3. (3)

GAMENAME enables me to make new friends

  4. (4)

I like to play GAMENAME because my friends play the game

  5. (5)

GAMENAME enables me to participate in relevant discussions

  6. (6)

GAMENAME enables me to be part of a group

Outdoor activity

  1. (1)

I play GAMENAME because it motivates me to go out

  2. (2)

I play GAMENAME because it motivates me to explore new places

  3. (3)

I play GAMENAME because I can meet friends outdoors

  4. (4)

I play GAMENAME because I can meet strangers outdoors

Nostalgia (Yes/No for this section; no 7-point Likert Scale)‡‡‡These questions
are not included in the Ingress survey.

  1. (1)

I used to read Harry Potter books

  2. (2)

I used to play Harry Potter PC/Console games

  3. (3)

I used to watch Harry Potter cartoons/anime series/movies

  4. (4)

I used to collect Harry Potter merchandise (e.g. toys, stickers, trading
cards, etc.)

  5. (5)

I have been a fan of Harry Potter even before the launch of GAMENAME