xbox live research paper

by Mikael Jakobsson Abstract Xbox Live achievements and gamerscores have become an integral part of Xbox 360 gaming. Based on the framework provided by Microsoft, the community has developed intriguing gaming practices where the individual games become pieces of a larger whole. This paper, based on a two year community study, explores how players have reacted and adapted to the system. To get at this shift in console gaming, the achievement system is seen as a massively multiplayer online game (MMO) where separate achievements are the functional equivalent of quests. By conceptualizing the achievement system as an MMO, the paper questions the dichotomy between PC/MMO and console gaming. The paper also goes into detailed descriptions of gaming habits and strategies that have emerged as gamers appropriate the achievement system, in particular looking at three player types: achievement casuals, hunters and completists. My conclusions are that the Xbox Live achievement system only partially functions as a reward system. More importantly, in terms of impact on player practices, it is an invisible MMO that all Xbox Live members participate in, whether they like it or not. On one hand, the different strategies and ways of conceptualizing the system shows how players have appropriated the technology and rules provided by Microsoft, and socially constructed systems that fit their play styles. On the other hand, many players are deeply conflicted over these gaming habits and feel trapped in a deterministic system that dictates ways of playing the games that they do not enjoy. Both sides can ultimately be connected to distinguishable characteristics of gamers. As a group, they are known to take pleasure in fighting, circumventing and subverting rigid rule systems, but also to be ready to take on completely arbitrary challenges without questioning their validity. Keywords.
The TrueSkill™ ranking system is a skill based ranking system for Xbox Live developed at Microsoft Research. Overview Most games have at their root a metric for judging whether the game’s goals have been met. In the case of matches involving two or more players (“multiplayer matches”), this often includes ways of ranking the skills of match participants. This encourages competition between players, both to “win” individual matches, and to have their overall skill level recognised and acknowledged in a broader community. Players may wish to evaluate their skills relative to people they know or relative to potential opponents they have never played, so they can arrange interesting matches. We term a match “uninteresting” if the chances of winning for the participating players are very unbalanced – very few people enjoy playing a match they cannot win or cannot lose. Conversely, matches which have a relatively even chance of any participant winning are deemed “interesting” matches. Many ranking systems have been devised over the years to enable leagues to compare the relative skills of their members. A ranking system typically comprises three elements: A module to track the skills of all players based on the game outcomes between players ( Update ). TA module to arrange interesting matches for its members (“Matchmaking”). A module to recognise and potentially publish the skills of its members (“Leaderboards”). In particular, the ELO ranking system has been used successfully by a variety of leagues organised around two-player games, such as world football league, the US Chess Federation or the World Chess Federation, and a variety of others. In video games many of these leagues have game modes with more than two players per match. ELO is not designed to work under these circumstances. In fact, no popular skill-based ranking system is available to support these games.
1.302.319.9448, 1.888.342.5573 number of registered customers reached number of completed orders exceeded customers with more than 7 orders satisfactory rate is FREE Title Page OFF FREE Reference Page OFF FREE Formatting OFF FREE Revisions* OFF * up to original instructions Word count:275 words per page(double spaced) Font family,size:Times New Roman,12 Pt Margin:1 inch (2.54 cm).
Authors: Pat Engebretson Dakota State University, 820 N Washington Ave., Madison, South Dakota, 57042, USA Ashley Podhradsky Dakota State University, 820 N Washington Ave., Madison, South Dakota, 57042, USA Cindy Casey DeSales University, 2755 Station Ave., Center Valley, Pennsylvania, 18034, USA Published in: · Journal International Journal of Mobile Network Design and Innovation archive Volume 5 Issue 1, October 2013 Pages 9-16 Inderscience Publishers Inderscience Publishers, Geneva, SWITZERLAND table of contents doi>10.1504/IJMNDI.2013.057144 2013 Article   Bibliometrics · Downloads (6 Weeks): n/a · Downloads (12 Months): n/a · Downloads (cumulative): n/a · Citation Count: 0.
Here are some of the Flash Research Assignments that I have done in Enterprise IT Architecture (MIS 2501) Flash Research Paper 1 – Data Centers and Networking Flash Research Paper 2 – Virtualization and Cloud Computing Flash Research Paper 3 – SharePoint Flash Research Paper 4 – WordPress Flash Research Paper 5 – Apple iTunes and App Store Flash Research Paper 6 – Xbox Live Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Name Email Website CAPTCHA Code* Comment Official badge awarded by the Department of Management Information Systems Click here to validate the recipientLeadership RolesAIS officerSpring 2015, Fall 2015AIS committee chairFall 2014ParticipationAssist at a department sponsored eventFall 2015Fox IT Career FairFall 2015IBIT small group meeting with industrySpring 2015IBIT/CDI Challenge or ConferenceSpring 2015Active AIS memberFall 2014, Spring 2015, Fall 2015Events AttendedFox IT AwardsSpring 2015AIS professional development workshopFall 2014, Spring 2015, Fall 2015 About Me Welcome Education Career Objectives Interests and Hobbies Internship Experience Contact Information Resume Academic Coursework Courses Flash Research Assignments Organizations Fox Management Information Systems Association of Information Systems National Society of Leadership and Success.
The TrueSkill™ ranking system is a skill based ranking system for Xbox Live developed at Microsoft Research. The TrueSkill ranking system is a skill based ranking system for Xbox Live developed at Microsoft Research. The purpose of a ranking system is to both identify and track the skills of gamers in a game (mode) in order to be able to match them into competitive matches. The TrueSkill ranking system only uses the final standings of all teams in a game in order to update the skill estimates (ranks) of all gamers playing in this game. Ranking systems have been proposed for many sports but possibly the most prominent ranking system in use today is ELO. So, what is so special about the TrueSkill ranking system? In short, the biggest difference to other ranking systems is that in the TrueSkill ranking system skill is characterised by two numbers: The average skill of the gamer (μ in the picture). The degree of uncertainty in the gamer's skill (σ in the picture). The ranking system maintains a belief in every gamer's skill using these two numbers. If the uncertainty is still high, the ranking system does not yet know exactly the skill of the gamer. In contrast, if the uncertainty is small, the ranking system has a strong belief that the skill of the gamer is close to the average skill. On the right hand side, a belief curve of the TrueSkill ranking system is drawn. For example, the green area is the belief of the TrueSkill ranking system that the gamer has a skill between level 15 and 20. Maintaining an uncertainty allows the system to make big changes to the skill estimates early on but small changes after a series of consistent games has been played. As a result, the TrueSkill ranking system can identify the skills of individual gamers from a very small number of games. The following table gives an idea of the average number of games per gamer that the system ideally.