Designing an Attractive Metaverse: Research on Design Factors Influencing Audience Satisfaction with a Virtual Space Based on QCA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title must say “Metaverse: Virtual Worlds”. Considering there are several types of Metaverse.

 

What is wrong with the current design? Are there any studies to prove that the current design is having issues. Write the explanation about that in your manuscript based on valid academic references

 

The structure of this paper needs to be improved.

 

Line 51 - must start with the definition of Metaverse, and the type of metaverse. Metaverse is NOT always a virtual world.

 

Line 128 - virtual world is not metaverse only. the virtual world is type of Metaverse

 

Line 136 - What does it mean by configuration framework? Where do you get the configuration framework? is there any references? What are the steps to form this configuration framework if you come up with this?

 

Line 253 - add a table of summary of the measurement to make it easier to the reader.

 

Table 1 (condition) and table 2 (antecedents) - why not in the same order as section 3.2? Starts with Human-Machine Interface, …

 

Separate the Discussion section with the Conclusion. Put the Conclusion at the end of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Taking aspects of design and ergonomics into account when analyzing attractiveness of digital worlds is from my perspective a very relevant approach.

A framework of factors influencing audience satisfaction is proposed. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is applied to analyze a sample of digital open world games. Conclusions are drawn from the analysis results.

Detailed Comments:

·       The abbreviation QCA in the abstract should be avoided.

·       Other abbreviations, e. g. MMORPGs, NPC, need to be introduced.

·       Chapter 1 – 1. Paragraph: This paragraph misses literature references

·       Chapter 2.1 – It would be helpful to have a clearer definition of what is meant in this paper with the terms “Metaverse”, “Virtual World” and “Virtual Space”.

·       The title of Section 3.1.1 needs to be changed!

·       Chapter 3.2.2 – It is not very intuitive why “cloud gaming” is a relevant and the only indicator for ease of use. This should be elaborated further.

·       Chapter 3.2.6 – I can follow the argument that games and virtual worlds in Metaverse context have an overlap such that games can serve as a sample to answer the research question. But, in the Metaverse, virtual worlds are open and users a free to what they want to do there. Thus, correlating “value proposition” to a strong story with tasks that a user must fulfil does not fit the Metaverse idea, in my opinion.

·       From the framework in Figure 1, I have the impression, that “atecedents interaction” shows independent variables, while “Audience Satisfaction” is the dependent variable.
I cannot clearly see, how the dependent variable is measured for the 102 games, in order to evaluate the framework and the influence of the individual antecedents. This should be clarified.

·       Chapter 5.1.2 – It should be discussed what the limitations of the study are. I would argue that a limitation lies in the fact that conclusions for Metaverse virtual worlds should be drawn from a sample of games. I think, gamers and users of the Metaverse have to some extent different expectations, especially related to service provisioning.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.