The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Multiplayer Games
Despite the growing worries about the influence of video games in the modern world, one cannot deny the major impact they’ve had on industry and culture. In tandem with the increasing popularity of mass-multiplayer online games, much concern has arisen in particular towards the concept of hacking and/or glitching a game in order to gain advantages over other players. In many cases, despite the general ambivalence or discouragement of cheating in video games, one will still find many players using hacks or mods to help have an advantage or, in some cases, “troll” other people. In accordance with this source (link below), which does a fair job explaining the concept of Game Theory in relation to competitive gaming like FPSs (First-Person Shooters), RTSs (Real-Time Strategy), and MMORPGs (Mass-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), I will attempt to use the idea of the Prisoner’s Dilemma to explain this phenomena the source has christened the “Glitcher’s Dilemma”.
Before we start, I am aware that there was another blog post about this particular topic back in 2012. I would like to expand the original blog post’s idea to include a more concrete example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I will be using Call of Duty as the main example in this post.
In Call of Duty, deathmatches are game types where players attempt to kill other players in order to gain points and win. However, there are cases where players are able to use hacks, mods, and/or glitches to advance their positions in the game. One particular example is the Javelin Glitch in Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 2, wherein a combination of buttons before dying would kill players within 30 ft., gaining a net increase in points. Here’s a payoff matrix that shows the possible outcomes for one Player and other players:
As you can see, the prisoner’s dilemma comes into full effect here. If a player decides to glitch while the others don’t then the glitching player will gain the most out of it while the other players won’t have that much fun. On the flip side, if the other players glitch and one player is stuck without the glitch or doesn’t use it, then that player will definitely have a bad time while others will have a load of fun. However, if everyone decides not to cheat, then the game will be relatively fun for everyone, and everyone glitching will cause a bunch of mayhem all around. The prisoner’s dilemma comes into play as players decide whether to glitch or not. Both other players and the Player don’t know if one or the other will glitch or not; both will think “I might as well glitch” in order to have the maximum payoff! This is almost exactly the same as the Prisoner’s Dilemma discussed in lecture, where both prisoners will confess in the face of not knowing what the other will do.
What’s interesting to note here however is that despite the dominant strategy to glitch for both players, there are there many games where gamers don’t glitch in matches. Why does this occur, if dominant strategy says to glitch? Of course, this is all dependent on whether if players are experienced with the game or not as well as on whether they really do prefer non-glitched games or not. Experienced players who played the game the longest would know the experience of playing non-glitched games and will make an effort to not glitch, to keep things fair. As we can see on the graph, if other players don’t glitch, then the Player (if he’s experienced) will also not glitch to keep things fair, which is an odd sentiment considering that the Player is looking out for the benefit of other players. This is the same with if one single experienced Player doesn’t glitch; other players would also not glitch to keep things fair. However, the minute someone glitches, other players will glitch as well. This phenomena is known as the “tit for tat” theory, where players will initially attempt to keep things fair but will resort to glitches, hacks, etc. if a person attempts to not play fairly. This concept cannot be displayed on a simple payoff matrix like this, since the behavior of people will defy dominant strategy. This is actually quite an interesting concept I would like to experiment more in the future, if both the “tit for tat” concept and the dominant strategy to glitch can coexist in one payoff matrix.
This kind of Glitcher’s Dilemma can be quite useful for both players and for companies willing to improve their user experience. I would imagine that game companies prefer that players don’t use glitches in their games. If this is the case, then a payoff matrix displaying all possible outcomes and their chances of occurring can help these developers decide where to allocate their research and resources into. Perhaps the payoff matrix can also be applied to help try to encourage players to work as teams in team deathmatches and teamed game modes instead of working on their own, as the original blog post tries to point out.
Resources:
Original Blog Post: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2012/09/29/game-theory-in-video-games-how-youre-in-a-prisoners-dilemma/
Source: http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/03/279/