← CHI 2026 map

CHI '26 · Honorable mention · full-paper review · confidence medium-high

From Quarters Per Minute to Daily Quests and Seasons: Developer Perspectives on Temporal Design in Video Games

Thomas Byers , Martin Gibbs , Bjorn Nansen

DOI PDF Program page Page JSON

This is a solid qualitative contribution with a clear CHI-shaped reframing: temporal design is not just about pacing or retention mechanics, but about how studios operationalize time through tools, metrics, and organizational constraints. The heuristics are plausible and field-relevant, though their validation remains interpretive rather than empirical.

Axes Lens

Rare contribution shape, typical evidence profile. The point here is not a score. It is to show what kind of claim the paper makes, and whether the evidence pattern is unusual or baseline in this 268 -review set.

Review Summary

This paper’s main value is conceptual repositioning. Rather than treating temporal design in games as a narrow player-facing issue of pacing, scheduling, or engagement tuning, it shows how developers understand time through the practical realities of studio organization, analytics infrastructures, and metric-driven production. That shift is important because it moves the unit of analysis from the game artifact alone to the practice of making temporal decisions inside a socio-technical production environment. The contribution is not a new system or experimental result; it is a grounded practitioner account built from twenty semi-structured interviews across AAA, Indie, Mobile, and Live-service contexts, analysed with constructivist grounded theory. On that basis, the authors derive four temporal design heuristics intended to help organize decisions about how player time is structured and communicated in games and related attention-economy systems. The evidence supports a descriptive and generative framing, but the claims should be read as interpretive and field-building rather than validated design rules. The paper is strongest where it stays close to developer accounts and explicitly acknowledges limits: the sample is geographically concentrated, and the study does not include direct player feedback, so some conclusions about player experience are necessarily second-order. In CHI terms, this is a credible honorable-mention style contribution because it offers a useful lens and vocabulary for an underexamined design practice, while leaving open the need for broader validation, comparative studies, and testing of the heuristics in actual development settings.

What Changed

Canon before

Temporal design in games is commonly treated as a player-facing pacing, scheduling, or engagement problem; this paper shifts the lens toward developer practice and the organizational/data systems that shape temporal decisions.

Departure from common sense

The paper reframes temporal design as a developer-side, mediated practice shaped by organisational pressures, software tools, and metric targets rather than only as a player-facing pacing or feature-design issue.

Actual novelty

Its novelty is a grounded account of temporal game design derived from developer interviews, plus four temporal design heuristics intended to organise design decisions about player time in games and related attention-economy systems. The contribution is not a new engine or interface, but a field-level reframing that links studio context, analytics infrastructure, and retention logic into one practitioner-informed account.

Evidence

The paper is based on twenty semi-structured interviews with international game professionals across AAA, Indie, Mobile, and Live-service studios, analysed with constructivist grounded theory. The contribution is a practitioner-informed account of temporal game design and four heuristics. The authors also explicitly note geographic concentration and the absence of direct player feedback as limits.

Limits

Method limits

The evidence comes from a qualitative interview study rather than direct observation, experiments, or player-side measurement; the account is grounded in practitioner narratives and constructivist analysis.

Deployment limits

The heuristics are positioned for games and related attention-economy systems, but the study does not validate them in deployment or across broader non-game contexts.

Boundary conditions

Findings are bounded by the sampled studio types and by the fact that developers sometimes speculated about player experience rather than reporting direct user evidence; the sample is geographically concentrated in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Manual check: none

Position in field

This work extends CHI-style HCI inquiry into game design by treating temporal design as an organizational and infrastructural practice, not just an interaction or pacing concern, and by offering a grounded practitioner account with heuristic output.

Abstract

Time is central to how video games are played, monetised, and maintained – yet how developers understand and design for time is often overlooked. This study addresses that gap through twenty semi-structured interviews with international game professionals from AAA, Indie, Mobile, and Live-service studios. Using constructivist grounded theory, we develop a practitioner-informed grounded account of temporal game design as operating between organisational constraints, data infrastructures, and player engagement. We develop three core understandings informing this account: temporal design across studio contexts – how temporal priorities range across industry; tools of temporal design – the systems and metrics that collect and target player time; and data-centered temporal design – how temporal data informs game design. From this, we contribute four temporal design heuristics to help organise design decisions about how player time is structured and communicated in games and related attention-economy systems.