Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript subjected to scrutiny delves profoundly into the enthralling, ever-expanding sphere of electronic entertainment, a subject which, despite its growing prevalence in contemporary society, remains fertile ground for academic exploration. This investigation focuses on player participation preferences in the framework of Play-to-Earn games, a specific area that undoubtedly provokes intellectual curiosity. Beyond this, the study also holds paramount pragmatic implications. As electronic entertainment, and Play-to-Earn games in particular, become more deeply entrenched in the daily lives of people worldwide, understanding these preferences becomes increasingly crucial. Authors demonstrate methodological soundness by implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This technique aids in the decomposition of the decision-making process into its constituent elements, thereby providing a nuanced perspective on the subject. Nevertheless, it would be recommended that the authors broaden their engagement with the relevant academic literature to further strengthen their study.

without remarks

Author Response

[General Comment] The manuscript subjected to scrutiny delves profoundly into the enthralling, ever-expanding sphere of electronic entertainment, a subject which, despite its growing prevalence in contemporary society, remains fertile ground for academic exploration. This investigation focuses on player participation preferences in the framework of Play-to-Earn games, a specific area that undoubtedly provokes intellectual curiosity. Beyond this, the study also holds paramount pragmatic implications. As electronic entertainment, and Play-to-Earn games in particular, become more deeply entrenched in the daily lives of people worldwide, understanding these preferences becomes increasingly crucial. Authors demonstrate methodological soundness by implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This technique aids in the decomposition of the decision-making process into its constituent elements, thereby providing a nuanced perspective on the subject.

Response: I am sincerely grateful for your thoughtful and thorough review of our manuscript. Your insights into the relevance and potential impact of our research, particularly in the burgeoning realm of Play-to-Earn games, are most enlightening and appreciated. Your recognition of our use of the AHP underscores the methodological rigor we strived for in our study. Thank you for your time, attention to detail, and the intellectual curiosity you brought to this review process.

 

 

[Minor Comment 1] Nevertheless, it would be recommended that the authors broaden their engagement with the relevant academic literature to further strengthen their study.

Response: Thanks for your kind reminders. We have increased the engagement with relevant academic literature by incorporating the following prior research :

Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J. M. (2020, July). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

Kizielewicz, B., & Kołodziejczyk, J. (2020). Effects of the selection of characteristic values on the accuracy of results in the COMET method. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 3581-3590.

Khorsandi, A., & Li, L. (2022). A Multi-Analysis of Children and Adolescents’ Video Gaming Addiction with the AHP and TOPSIS Methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9680.

Liu, X., Wang, W., Niyato, D., Zhao, N., & Wang, P. (2018). Evolutionary game for mining pool selection in blockchain networks. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 7(5), 760-763.

Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., & Sałabun, W. (2023). RANCOM: A novel approach to identifying criteria relevance based on inaccuracy expert judgments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 122, 106114.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled "Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming in COVID-19 Periods: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis" explores the participation preferences of players in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, with a focus on the factors that drive players' decision-making. The study aims to deepen our understanding of the intersection between virtual economies and real-world financial needs, particularly in the context of the global COVID-19 crisis. The insights from this study can inform game developers and policymakers in designing effective strategies to support individuals seeking alternative income sources and new economic models.

One of the strengths of this work is the selection of an interesting and relevant topic. The rising popularity of PTE games and their potential to reshape the economic landscape make it a valuable area of investigation. The proposed approach of utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis in a three-stage process, including a literature review, expert evaluation, and AHP analysis, is also commendable.

However, there are several weaknesses in this work that need to be addressed. Firstly, the language should be checked by a native speaker to ensure clarity and accuracy. Additionally, the article lacks enough novelty and the authors should clearly define the novelty of their contribution. It is important to highlight how this study differs from earlier works and the advantages and limitations of the approach should be clearly indicated.

Furthermore, the article would benefit from an extended literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of related research and establish the context for the study. The comparison and analysis of methods like SPOTIS, RANCOM, and COMET would add depth to the analysis and strengthen the overall findings. The rankings similarity should also be checked using coefficients such as rw and WS to provide a more thorough evaluation.

Another weakness is the low quality of the figures presented in the article. Clear and visually appealing figures are essential for effectively communicating the research findings.

In conclusion, the article presents an interesting topic and proposes an intriguing approach for examining consumer motivations in PTE gaming. However, improvements are needed in terms of language, novelty, literature review, method comparison, rankings similarity, and figure quality. Considering the aforementioned weaknesses, a major revision is recommended before the article can be considered for publication.

none

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

[Summary comment]

The paper titled "Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming in COVID-19 Periods: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis" explores the participation preferences of players in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, with a focus on the factors that drive players' decision-making. The study aims to deepen our understanding of the intersection between virtual economies and real-world financial needs, particularly in the context of the global COVID-19 crisis. The insights from this study can inform game developers and policymakers in designing effective strategies to support individuals seeking alternative income sources and new economic models.

 

One of the strengths of this work is the selection of an interesting and relevant topic. The rising popularity of PTE games and their potential to reshape the economic landscape makes it a valuable area of investigation. The proposed approach of utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis in a three-stage process, including a literature review, expert evaluation, and AHP analysis, is also commendable.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have gone through your comments carefully and tried our best to address them one by one. We hope the manuscript has been improved accordingly.

 

[Major comment 1] However, there are several weaknesses in this work that need to be addressed. Firstly, the language should be checked by a native speaker to ensure clarity and accuracy.

 

Response: Thank you very much for the comment. This study has undergone English language editing through Editige's premium editing service on January 14, 2023 (GSILQ_3). If you desire further enhancements, we will also seek additional English language editing from MDPI to improve the clarity and accuracy of the language.

 

[Major comment 2] Additionally, the article lacks enough novelty and the authors should clearly define the novelty of their contribution. It is important to highlight how this study differs from earlier works and the advantages and limitations of the approach should be clearly indicated.

 

Response: Thanks for the comment. We have endeavored to add the sentence “The existing prior research on PTE games is significantly limited, and studies on web3 and blockchain games(Delic & Delfabbro, 2022; Liu, Wang, Niyato, Zhao, & Wang, 2018) have primarily focused on their economic aspects. This research introduces novelty by investigating players' behavioral intentions to comprehend the Play-to-Earn phenomenon” to increase distinctiveness from earlier works. 

 

[Major comment 3] Furthermore, the article would benefit from an extended literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of related research and establish the context for the study. The comparison and analysis of methods like SPOTIS, RANCOM, and COMET would add depth to the analysis and strengthen the overall findings. The rankings similarity should also be checked using coefficients such as rw and WS to provide a more thorough evaluation.

Response: Thank you very much for the comment. Despite the availability of various research methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), the researcher has chosen to use the AHP method based on their judgment. The decision to use AHP is supported by the following reasons, and a literature review on AHP, TOPSIS, RANCOM, and COMET has been included to expand the scope of the literature research. As a result, the following sentence has been added to the study: “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is the process of selecting one alternative from a given set of alternatives based on their quantitative scores with respect to different criteria(Dezert, Tchmova, Han, & Tacnet, 2020). According to several prior studies, meth-ods such as AHP, Stable Preference Ordering Towards Ideal Solution(SPOTIS), RANking COMparison(RANCOM), and Characteristic Objects METhod(COMET) have been used(Dezert, Tchamova, Han, & Tacnet, 2020; Kizielewicz, & Kołodziejczyk, 2020; Więckowski, Kizielewicz, Shekhovtsov, & Sałabun, 2023). In this study, we have chosen the AHP method as the research approach since the evaluation criteria exhibit a hierarchical structure, and AHP can effectively incorporate this hierarchical characteristic.”

 

[Major comment 4] Another weakness is the low quality of the figures presented in the article. Clear and visually appealing figures are essential for effectively communicating the research findings.

Response: Thank you very much for the comment. <Figure 1> has been removed.

 

[Summary comment]

In conclusion, the article presents an interesting topic and proposes an intriguing approach for examining consumer motivations in PTE gaming. However, improvements are needed in terms of language, novelty, literature review, method comparison, rankings similarity, and figure quality. Considering the aforementioned weaknesses, a major revision is recommended before the article can be considered for publication.

Response: Thank you for your comment.  We made efforts to enhance the following aspects: language quality, novelty, literature review, and method comparison.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, Thank you for sharing your paper "Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming in COVID-19 Periods: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis". I think your approach has good potential, but as it stands, the work is hard to follow.

The contribution of the work is expressed in the following:

- coverage of research in order to review and define the results of previous research.

- a model is presented that defines factors in two levels.

- the achieved results are presented.

- Based on the presented coverage of the literature, it can be concluded that a critical approach to existing models was carried out.

- Clearly presented work results.

The paper has potential and can be accepted after the following MAJOR corrections: 

Let me start with some general comments that would improve the quality of the work:

- If literature is cited, be sure to use the surname of the first author accompanied by et. al.

- From the work, it is not possible to conclude how many steps were there in the final synthesis of the experts' opinions?

- It is not clear on what basis the competences of the experts were determined?

- The sensitivity check of the defined model is not presented?

- What is the stability of the defined criteria?

- You stated that the sources for defining factors are different literature titles. It remains unclear why no user or "expert" research was conducted on possible new factors or criteria?

- In conclusion, it remains unclear what the tasks would be for subsequent research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

[Summary Comment] Dear Authors, Thank you for sharing your paper "Examining Consumer Motivations for Play-to-Earn Gaming in COVID-19 Periods: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis". I think your approach has good potential, but as it stands, the work is hard to follow. 

 

The contribution of the work is expressed in the following: 

- coverage of research in order to review and define the results of previous research.

- a model is presented that defines factors in two levels.

- the achieved results are presented.

- Based on the presented coverage of the literature, it can be concluded that a critical approach to existing models was carried out.

- Clearly presented work results. 

 

The paper has potential and can be accepted after the following MAJOR corrections

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have gone through your comments carefully and tried our best to address them one by one. We hope the manuscript has been improved accordingly.

 

[Major Comment 1] If literature is cited, be sure to use the surname of the first author accompanied by et. al..

Response: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the references, if the study is accepted, they will be revised to align with the journal's format.

 

[Major Comment 2] From the work, it is not possible to conclude how many steps were there in the final synthesis of the experts' opinions?

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, experts participated in two stages: factor selection in Stage 2 and AHP analysis in Stage 3.

To clarify, I have added the sentence "The experts went through two steps, including factor selection in Stage 2 and ranking the factors in Stage 3."

 

[Major Comment 3] It is not clear on what basis the competences of the experts were determined?

Response: Thank you for your comments. To clearly define the criteria for expert competency, the following sentence has been added: “This study employed snowball sampling to recruit experts with five or more years of experience in the gaming field and academic professionals who possess expertise in the emerging industry of blockchain gaming. The rationale behind this selection lies in three aspects: firstly, the necessity to have a strong understanding of the video game field; secondly, the requirement to be familiar with the new industry of blockchain gaming; and thirdly, the aim to advance the research in this area.”

 

[Major Comment 4] The sensitivity check of the defined model is not presented? 

Response: Thank you for your comments. This study is research utilizing AHP analysis, in which a model is considered appropriate if the Consistency Ratio (CR) is less than or equal to 0.1. The CR is presented in Table 9-12, and the reliability of the research can be verified through the sentence " To enhance the reliability of this study, the consistency ratio of the research answers was analyzed to ensure consistent responses. The consistency ratio measures the logical correctness of the judges' opinions in the AHP study. It is calculated by dividing the value of the consistency index by the value of the random index. A pairwise comparison matrix in an AHP analysis is generally considered consistent when the consistency ratio is less than 0.1 (Song, Gwon, Park, & Hong, 2009). Three responses exceeding a consistency ratio of 0.1 were excluded from the AHP analysis, with the remaining 12 used for study analysis. ".

 

[Major Comment 5] What is the stability of the defined criteria?

Response: Thank you for your comments. This study is conducted using AHP analysis, where a model is deemed fitting if the Consistency Ratio (CR) is 0.1 or less. As the CR values of the factors presented in this study are below 0.1, we have determined that the stability of the defined criteria has been secured.

 

[Major Comment 6] You stated that the sources for defining factors are different literature titles. It remains unclear why no user or "expert" research was conducted on possible new factors or criteria?

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, we aimed to place greater emphasis on determining the priorities of individual factors rather than on developing participation factors for the PTE game. For this process, the researcher initially categorized the factors by reviewing multiple references, and the research was conducted in the order of factor confirmation and ranking through experts. Please consider this part when proceeding with the review.

 

[Major Comment 7] In conclusion, it remains unclear what the tasks would be for subsequent research.

Response: Thanks for your question. To clarify the subsequent research, the following sentence has been added. “The significance of the results of this study lies in the fact that providers of blockchain gaming, in the process of creating and distributing PTE games, have ascertained that the financial outcome is not the most important factor, contrary to traditional perceptions. Therefore, subsequent studies need to investigate methods for enhancing the gameplay factors of PTE games, in order to propose strategies for increasing the sustainability of PTE games.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper explores the participation preferences of players in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, prioritizing 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay arranged into three groups including Gaming Experience, Financial Outcomes, and PTE Game Awareness. The authors apply AHP which seems an adequate method for the task. The choice of experts involved in the AHP seems right (they have vastly different backgrounds), and the final consistency ratio is acceptable (much below 0.1). 

The chosen topic is original and the presented results can be valuable to PTE game developers, policymakers, and researchers.

 

There are however huge issues with the paper that require changes before it can be published:

 

1. The authors description of their contribution is somewhat misleading; they write that "the study identified 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay". In fact, the factors were identified using literature survey, and AHP was used only to prioritize them. This should be made clear in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.

 

2. The literature survey is insufficiently described. The reader is not informed how the list of relevant works has been established: what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way.

 

3. It is not clear what are the factors found in the literature. Table 6 lists 36 factors (it is not clear if these are all found in the literature as no sources are provided for them), tables 7/8 list just 12 (with sources provided in Table 8). 

 

4. It is also not clear what exactly was the procedure applied to reduce the set of factors from 36 to 12, and there are no results presented that would document it (experts' assessments?).

 

5. It is also not clear how the factors were formed out of sub-factors. 

 

6. It is also not clear what were the factors other than the three included - the sentence "The study conducted an AHP analysis to evaluate the relative priorities of the top three PTE gameplay factors identified in the study" implies there were more than three initially.

 

7. I do not really see any connection to COVID-19 - there are no longitudinal data provided that would show that the experts' opinions changed after COVID-19. Please add such results or remove the mention of COVID-19 from the title and abstract.

 

8. The paper does not meet standards of scientific writing as it contains many ungrounded statements. For instance, in the abstract we read: "In conclusion, PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era." but the paper does not report any research results regarding reshaping the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era, significantly or not, so such a statement cannot be its conclusion.

 

9. The relevant work review on AHP should be more international (it's focused on Korean authors now).

 

10. Other remarks:

- what is the purpose of Table 8 as Table 7 has all its contents and more?

- it's COVID-19 not Covid-19

- the formatting of the references section is appalling

- authors affiliation data are missing details

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

 

[General Comment] The paper explores the participation preferences of players in Play-to-Earn (PTE) games, prioritizing 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay arranged into three groups including Gaming Experience, Financial Outcomes, and PTE Game Awareness. The authors apply AHP which seems an adequate method for the task. The choice of experts involved in the AHP seems right (they have vastly different backgrounds), and the final consistency ratio is acceptable (much below 0.1).

 

The chosen topic is original and the presented results can be valuable to PTE game developers, policymakers, and researchers.

 

There are however huge issues with the paper that require changes before it can be published

Response: Thank you very much for your comments that helped us improve this manuscript. We have done our best to improve this article.

 

[Major Comment 1] The authors description of their contribution is somewhat misleading; they write that "the study identified 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay". In fact, the factors were identified using literature survey, and AHP was used only to prioritize them. This should be made clear in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Throughout the study, the term "identify" has been changed to "derive", and where necessary, the phrase "derived from literature review" has been used to prevent any misleading interpretations.

 

[Major Comment 2] The literature survey is insufficiently described. The reader is not informed how the list of relevant works has been established: what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, the literature review method was used to initially generate a factor pool. The research of (Boonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat, 2022; Delfabbro, Delic, & King, 2022; Delic, & Delfabbro, 2022) was used for the keyword 'PTE game', and (Klimmt, & Hartmann, 2006; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh, 2016; Lee, 2022) was used for the keyword 'game participation'.

 

[Major Comment 3] It is not clear what are the factors found in the literature. Table 6 lists 36 factors (it is not clear if these are all found in the literature as no sources are provided for them), tables 7/8 list just 12 (with sources provided in Table 8).

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, experts performed two main roles. The first was to select four sub-factors from the 36 factors presented in <Table 6> that were deemed appropriate for the main factor (Stage 2). The second role was to conduct an AHP analysis on the factors derived from that part (Stage 3). The prior research related to the content derived before (Stage 2) is presented in <Table 3>, and the prior research concerning the actual factors applied in the AHP is presented in <Table 7>.

 

[Major Comment 4] It is also not clear what exactly was the procedure applied to reduce the set of factors from 36 to 12, and there are no results presented that would document it (experts' assessments?).

Response: Thank you for your comments. The point at which the factors are reduced from 36 to 12 is (Stage2). This content has been revised in the research with the following sentence. “In Stage 2, experts individually selected four factors from the factor pool derived from the literature research, with the factors being determined according to the weighted order of factors selected by the experts. The initial factor pool used for expert rating is displayed in Table 6. In the expert evaluation stage, each expert selected four factors in any order. These factors were then used in the AHP analysis based on their cumulative order.”

 

[Major Comment 5] It is also not clear how the factors were formed out of sub-factors.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In (Stage1), we selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games, and listed sub-factors suitable for each main factor through literature reviews(Boonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat, 2022; Delfabbro, Delic, & King, 2022; Delic, & Delfabbro, 2022; Klimmt, & Hartmann, 2006; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh, 2016; Lee, 2022).

 

[Major Comment 6] It is also not clear what exactly was the procedure applied to reduce the set of factors from 36 to 12, and there are no results presented that would document it (experts' assessments?).

Response: Thank you for your comments. This is superseded by the answer to Major Comment 4.

 

[Major Comment 7] I do not really see any connection to COVID-19 - there are no longitudinal data provided that would show that the experts' opinions changed after COVID-19. Please add such results or remove the mention of COVID-19 from the title and abstract.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the discussion among the researchers of this study, we acknowledge that it seems more reasonable to remove the parts about COVID-19 from the title and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

 

[Major Comment 8] The paper does not meet standards of scientific writing as it contains many ungrounded statements. For instance, in the abstract we read: "In conclusion, PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era." but the paper does not report any research results regarding reshaping the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era, significantly or not, so such a statement cannot be its conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the discussion among the researchers of this study, we acknowledge that it seems more reasonable to remove the parts about COVID-19 from the title and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

 

[Major Comment 9] The relevant work review on AHP should be more international (it's focused on Korean authors now).

Response: Thank you for your comments. In using the AHP method related to gaming, we ended up utilizing a study by a Korean author due to the aim of presenting prior research using the AHP method. We have added the research of the international author (Khorsandi, & Li, 2022).

 

[Other remarks 1] what is the purpose of Table 8 as Table 7 has all its contents and more?

Response: Thank you for your comments. <Table 7> lists the factors and previous studies as research methods, while <Table 8> lists the PTE gameplay factors derived as research results. Although the placement of content might appear similar due to their consecutive arrangement, we understand and, if the reviewer wishes, we will remove the table.

 

[Other remarks 2] it's COVID-19 not Covid-19

Response: Thank you for your comments. The notation of "Covid-19" within the study has been entirely revised to "COVID-19".

 

[Other remarks 3] the formatting of the references section is appalling

Response: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the references section, if the study is accepted, it will be revised to align with the journal's format.

 

[Other remarks 4] authors affiliation data are missing details

Response: Thank you for your comments. Dr, Minseok Lee is a research professor at the Department of sport industry studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. He is focusing on research about the sustainability of esports and the enhancement of quality of life through leisure activities. Dr. Chanmin Park is a professor at the Department of Kinesiology, at Inha University, Incheon, Korea. He is researching the behavior of sports consumers, and in particular, conducting studies on management and preventive policies related to the potential risks that consumers may face.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made commendable efforts in improving the quality of their paper, reflecting their dedication to enhancing the work. The initial concerns regarding limited sources and original contribution have been addressed, indicating a more rigorous approach to the research. However, the reviewer notes the opportunity to further enhance the paper by extending the discussion of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods, particularly in light of recent trends in the field.

 

To better contextualize their work, the authors could consider incorporating references to contemporary studies that explore MCDA techniques in the context of emerging trends. For instance, they could reference the paper titled "Dimensionality Reduction Technique under Picture Fuzzy Environment and Its Application in Decision Making." This addition would provide valuable insights into how MCDA is currently being applied to address complex decision-making problems under picture fuzzy environments, enhancing the relevance of the authors' work.

 

Additionally, the authors may benefit from referencing the study titled "Solving Barrier Ranking in Clean Energy Adoption: An MCDM Approach with q-rung Orthopair Fuzzy Preferences." This research exemplifies how MCDA methods are being employed to tackle specific challenges in the domain of clean energy adoption, potentially offering valuable parallels to the authors' own research.

 

By incorporating these recent and contextually relevant works, the authors can demonstrate a deeper understanding of the current trends in MCDA research and how their own work aligns with and contributes to the field. Such minor revisions would strengthen the paper's significance and applicability within the context of modern decision-making practices.

 

In conclusion, the improved paper showcases the authors' commitment to enhancing the quality of their research. By extending the discussion of MCDA methods and connecting their work with current trends through relevant references, the authors can further elevate the impact and relevance of their contribution. These suggestions represent a minor revision that would significantly improve the overall context and scholarly standing of the paper.

none

Author Response

[General Comment] The authors have made commendable efforts in improving the quality of their paper, reflecting their dedication to enhancing the work. The initial concerns regarding limited sources and original contribution have been addressed, indicating a more rigorous approach to the research. However, the reviewer notes the opportunity to further enhance the paper by extending the discussion of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods, particularly in light of recent trends in the field.

 

Response: We deeply appreciate your comprehensive and insightful evaluation of our manuscript. Your discernment regarding the significance and prospective contribution of our research, especially within the rapidly evolving sphere of MCDA studies, is profoundly enlightening. We are indebted to you for your dedication, meticulous scrutiny, and the academic rigor you have introduced to this review process.

 

[Minor Comment 1] To better contextualize their work, the authors could consider incorporating references to contemporary studies that explore MCDA techniques in the context of emerging trends. For instance, they could reference the paper titled "Dimensionality Reduction Technique under Picture Fuzzy Environment and Its Application in Decision Making." This addition would provide valuable insights into how MCDA is currently being applied to address complex decision-making problems under picture fuzzy environments, enhancing the relevance of the authors' work.

 

Additionally, the authors may benefit from referencing the study titled "Solving Barrier Ranking in Clean Energy Adoption: An MCDM Approach with q-rung Orthopair Fuzzy Preferences." This research exemplifies how MCDA methods are being employed to tackle specific challenges in the domain of clean energy adoption, potentially offering valuable parallels to the authors' own research.

 

By incorporating these recent and contextually relevant works, the authors can demonstrate a deeper understanding of the current trends in MCDA research and how their own work aligns with and contributes to the field. Such minor revisions would strengthen the paper's significance and applicability within the context of modern decision-making practices.

 

In conclusion, the improved paper showcases the authors' commitment to enhancing the quality of their research. By extending the discussion of MCDA methods and connecting their work with current trends through relevant references, the authors can further elevate the impact and relevance of their contribution. These suggestions represent a minor revision that would significantly improve the overall context and scholarly standing of the paper.

 

Response: We genuinely appreciate your astute observations. In response, we have augmented our engagement with pertinent scholarly literature by integrating the subsequent statement and referencing preceding studies.

The following has been inserted:

Multicriteria decision-making analysis (MCDA) serves as a potent research methodology adept at addressing intricate decision-making dilemmas within ambiguous contexts. Diverse MCDA methodologies, encompassing the Dimensionality Reduction Technique (Devi, et al., 2023) and the Approach with q-rung Orthopair Fuzzy Preferences (Krishankumar, R., & Pamucar, 2023), have been advanced to scrutinize the decision-making mechanism.

The subsequent scholarly contributions have been incorporated:  

Devi, P., Kizielewicz, B., Guleria, A., Shekhovtsov, A., Gandotra, N., Saini, N., & Sałabun, W. (2023). Dimensionality reduction technique under picture fuzzy environment and its application in decision making. International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems, 27(1), 87-104.

 

Krishankumar, R., & Pamucar, D. (2023). Solving barrier ranking in clean energy adoption: An MCDM approach with q-rung orthopair fuzzy preferences. International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems, (Preprint), 1-18.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.

Thank you for sharing your work with us and for the opportunity to participate in the review of the work. The work is in line with the suggestions you have received. The work can be published in the submitted form.

Author Response

[Summary comment]

Dear authors.

Thank you for sharing your work with us and for the opportunity to participate in the review of the work. The work is in line with the suggestions you have received. The work can be published in the submitted form.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have thoroughly reviewed your comments and have endeavored to enhance our work accordingly. We greatly appreciate your meticulous attention, dedication, and the scholarly rigor you brought to this review process. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for correcting the manuscript. 

Unfortunately, I do not find the corrections sufficient - see my comments to your responses to my original remarks below:

 

[Major Comment 1] The authors description of their contribution is somewhat misleading; they write that "the study identified 12 critical factors in PTE gameplay". In fact, the factors were identified using literature survey, and AHP was used only to prioritize them. This should be made clear in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Throughout the study, the term "identify" has been changed to "derive", and where necessary, the phrase "derived from literature review" has been used to prevent any misleading interpretations.

 

Thank you for making it clear that the identification of the factors has been performed in the prior work, whereas your work consisted in prioritizing them.

Nonetheless, the beginning of the third section (r. 154+) still does not mention any other methods used in your study than AHP:

"3. METHODS 

This study utilized AHP analysis to discern which factors motivating PTE gameplay are most prioritized by players."

 

[Major Comment 2] The literature survey is insufficiently described. The reader is not informed how the list of relevant works has been established: what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way.

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, the literature review method was used to initially generate a factor pool. The research of (Boonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat, 2022; Delfabbro, Delic, & King, 2022; Delic, & Delfabbro, 2022) was used for the keyword 'PTE game', and (Klimmt, & Hartmann, 2006; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh, 2016; Lee, 2022) was used for the keyword 'game participation'.

 

I am afraid you have not understood my remark properly. For instance, please have a look at section 2.1 there:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2251

I was not expecting you to do it in such an elaborate fashion as they did it there, but I was expecting you to explain how did you find these publications (what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way) and whether these were all that were found or there were more - and why the remaining ones were not included?

 

 

 

[Major Comment 3] It is not clear what are the factors found in the literature. Table 6 lists 36 factors (it is not clear if these are all found in the literature as no sources are provided for them), tables 7/8 list just 12 (with sources provided in Table 8).

Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, experts performed two main roles. The first was to select four sub-factors from the 36 factors presented in <Table 6> that were deemed appropriate for the main factor (Stage 2). The second role was to conduct an AHP analysis on the factors derived from that part (Stage 3). The prior research related to the content derived before (Stage 2) is presented in <Table 3>, and the prior research concerning the actual factors applied in the AHP is presented in <Table 7>.

 

Thank you for clearing this out. However, if Table 6 is literature-based, then you need to (a) provide sources of its content below the table; (b) link respective factors to respective factors (e.g. by numbers in superscript).

 

[Major Comment 4] It is also not clear what exactly was the procedure applied to reduce the set of factors from 36 to 12, and there are no results presented that would document it (experts' assessments?).

Response: Thank you for your comments. The point at which the factors are reduced from 36 to 12 is (Stage2). This content has been revised in the research with the following sentence. “In Stage 2, experts individually selected four factors from the factor pool derived from the literature research, with the factors being determined according to the weighted order of factors selected by the experts. The initial factor pool used for expert rating is displayed in Table 6. In the expert evaluation stage, each expert selected four factors in any order. These factors were then used in the AHP analysis based on their cumulative order.”

Thank you for clearing this out. 

 

[Major Comment 5] It is also not clear how the factors were formed out of sub-factors.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In (Stage1), we selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games, and listed sub-factors suitable for each main factor through literature reviews(Boonparn, Bumrungsook, Sookhnaphibarn, & Choensawat, 2022; Delfabbro, Delic, & King, 2022; Delic, & Delfabbro, 2022; Klimmt, & Hartmann, 2006; Lee, Jung, Lee, Lee, & Noh, 2016; Lee, 2022).

I am sorry, but: (a) I still do not know on what grounds you have selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games; is there any theory behind it or at least one prior research? or you have derived it yourselves based on the grouping of identified factors? (b) you should put the explanation for this in the text, not in the response to the reviewer.

 

[Major Comment 6] It is also not clear what exactly was the procedure applied to reduce the set of factors from 36 to 12, and there are no results presented that would document it (experts' assessments?).

Response: Thank you for your comments. This is superseded by the answer to Major Comment 4.

Thank you for clearing this out. 

 

[Major Comment 7] I do not really see any connection to COVID-19 - there are no longitudinal data provided that would show that the experts' opinions changed after COVID-19. Please add such results or remove the mention of COVID-19 from the title and abstract.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the discussion among the researchers of this study, we acknowledge that it seems more reasonable to remove the parts about COVID-19 from the title and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

Thank you for clearing this out. 

 

[Major Comment 8] The paper does not meet standards of scientific writing as it contains many ungrounded statements. For instance, in the abstract we read: "In conclusion, PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era." but the paper does not report any research results regarding reshaping the economic landscape in the post-COVID-19 era, significantly or not, so such a statement cannot be its conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the discussion among the researchers of this study, we acknowledge that it seems more reasonable to remove the parts about COVID-19 from the title and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

I am sorry, but this remark had nothing to do with COVID-19.

First, I recommend you this highly informative lecture on scientific method: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

Regarding your research, once again: it did not include any survey on the potential of PTE games to significantly reshape the economic landscape.

So, writing in your abstract that the conclusion of your paper is that "PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape" is ungrounded. 

Ungrounded statements do not belong to scientific writing.

And this is only an example. I am afraid there could be more of such ungrounded statements in your paper.

 

[Major Comment 9] The relevant work review on AHP should be more international (it's focused on Korean authors now).

Response: Thank you for your comments. In using the AHP method related to gaming, we ended up utilizing a study by a Korean author due to the aim of presenting prior research using the AHP method. We have added the research of the international author (Khorsandi, & Li, 2022).

One is better than none, but Google Scholar reports 1280 papers only for AHP and Video Games keywords:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22video+games%22+ahp

I recommend you to extend your coverage of prior work with some more examples.

 

[Other remarks 1] what is the purpose of Table 8 as Table 7 has all its contents and more?

Response: Thank you for your comments. <Table 7> lists the factors and previous studies as research methods, while <Table 8> lists the PTE gameplay factors derived as research results. Although the placement of content might appear similar due to their consecutive arrangement, we understand and, if the reviewer wishes, we will remove the table.

As all the contents of Table 8 are already in Table 7 I still see no point in keeping Table 8.

 

[Other remarks 2] it's COVID-19 not Covid-19

Response: Thank you for your comments. The notation of "Covid-19" within the study has been entirely revised to "COVID-19".

Thank you for clearing this out. 

 

[Other remarks 3] the formatting of the references section is appalling

Response: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the references section, if the study is accepted, it will be revised to align with the journal's format.

If your editor permits that, then it's ok.

 

[Other remarks 4] authors affiliation data are missing details

Response: Thank you for your comments. Dr, Minseok Lee is a research professor at the Department of sport industry studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. He is focusing on research about the sustainability of esports and the enhancement of quality of life through leisure activities. Dr. Chanmin Park is a professor at the Department of Kinesiology, at Inha University, Incheon, Korea. He is researching the behavior of sports consumers, and in particular, conducting studies on management and preventive policies related to the potential risks that consumers may face.

Thank you for the information, but I do not need it. 

My remark was about that these data were missing in the paper and they still are.

 

 

An one new remark:

The editing is still chaotic. For instance at the end of section 3.1 we have:

"In Stage 1,"

 

Author Response

[Summary Comment] Dear Authors, Thank you for correcting the manuscript.

Unfortunately, I do not find the corrections sufficient - see my comments to your responses to my original remarks below:. 

Response: We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback. After meticulous examination of each of your remarks, we have endeavored to respond to them systematically. It is our aspiration that these revisions have enhanced the quality of the manuscript.

 

[Major Comment 1] Thank you for making it clear that the identification of the factors has been performed in the prior work, whereas your work consisted in prioritizing them. Nonetheless, the beginning of the third section (r. 154+) still does not mention any other methods used in your study than AHP

Response: We are indebted to you for your insightful feedback. To elucidate our research approach, we have incorporated the subsequent statement:

This study adopted a systematic research methodology encompassing a literature review assessment (stage 1), expert evaluation (stage 2), and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) analysis (stage 3).

 

[Major Comment 2] I am afraid you have not understood my remark properly. For instance, please have a look at section 2.1 there:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2251

I was not expecting you to do it in such an elaborate fashion as they did it there, but I was expecting you to explain how did you find these publications (what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way) and whether these were all that were found or there were more - and why the remaining ones were not included?

Response: We greatly appreciate your insightful feedback. Subsection 3.1 has undergone modifications, and to elucidate the procedure of establishing the initial factor pool, the initial Table 6 has been renumbered as Table 4.

 

[Major Comment 3] I am sorry, but: (a) I still do not know on what grounds you have selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games; is there any theory behind it or at least one prior research? or you have derived it yourselves based on the grouping of identified factors? (b) you should put the explanation for this in the text, not in the response to the reviewer? 

Response: We sincerely value your insightful feedback. Section 3.1 has been meticulously updated. For enhanced clarity regarding our research approach, we have integrated the statement: “Our literature review utilized Google Scholar for international publications and RISS for Korean domestic sources, employing the following search terms: “play to earn (PTE, P2E)”, “non-fungible tokens (NFT)”, “motivation”, “playing intention”, “participating intention”, “ AHP”, “esports”, and “fan behavior”. 

 

[Major Comment 5] I am sorry, but this remark had nothing to do with COVID-19.

First, I recommend you this highly informative lecture on scientific method: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

Regarding your research, once again: it did not include any survey on the potential of PTE games to significantly reshape the economic landscape.

So, writing in your abstract that the conclusion of your paper is that "PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape" is ungrounded.

Ungrounded statements do not belong to scientific writing.

And this is only an example. I am afraid there could be more of such ungrounded statements in your paper.

Response: We deeply appreciate your feedback. The majority of the unsubstantial assertions pertaining to COVID-19 have been excised from the conclusion.

 

[Major Comment 6] One is better than none, but Google Scholar reports 1280 papers only for AHP and Video Games keywords:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22video+games%22+ahp

I recommend you to extend your coverage of prior work with some more examples.

Response: We appreciated your feedback. In light of your suggestion, the subsequent literature has been integrated into our work:  “Furthermore, Lotfi, Amine, & Mohammed (2014) employed the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) in their exploration of video game genre preferences, while Wan Jr, & bin Kamal (2021) utilized AHP in their analysis of position and skillset selection within the League of Legends game.”

 

Lotfi, E., Amine, B., & Mohammed, B. (2014). Application of analytic hierarchical process method for video game genre selection. International Journal of Computer Applications, 96(16), 30-37.

Wan Jr, J. A., & bin Kamal, A. A. (2021). Weighting the Position & Skillset of Players in League of Legends Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of IT in Asia, 9(1), 49-64.

 

[Major Comment 7] As all the contents of Table 8 are already in Table 7 I still see no point in keeping Table 8.

Response:    We sincerely value your feedback. Table 8 has been eliminated, and its contents have been consolidated within Table 7.

 

[Major Comment 8] Thank you for the information, but I do not need it.  My remark was about that these data were missing in the paper and they still are.

Response: We are grateful for your feedback. The affiliations of the authors have been duly incorporated into the manuscript.

 

[Major Comment 9] The editing is still chaotic. For instance at the end of section 3.1 we have: "In Stage 1"

Response: We appreciate your feedback. A comprehensive assessment of the editing status was undertaken, and subsequent modifications were executed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, 

 

Thank you for correcting the manuscript.

 

Unfortunately, not all of the serious deficiencies of your manuscript I mentioned in the previous round of review have been addressed.

 

>>[Major Comment 2] I am afraid you have not understood my remark properly. For instance, please have a look at section 2.1 there: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2251 I was not expecting you to do it in such an elaborate fashion as they did it there, but I was expecting you to explain how did you find these publications (what databases were queried and with what options, what search keywords were used, whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way) and whether these were all that were found or there were more - and why the remaining ones were not included?

 

>Response: We greatly appreciate your insightful feedback. Subsection 3.1 has undergone modifications, and to elucidate the procedure of establishing the initial factor pool, the initial Table 6 has been renumbered as Table 4.

 

There is still no information on how many publications have you screened in your search for factors to find those that you cite as well as whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way (i.e., have you analyzed the references of the works you have found or the works that cite them?).

 

>>[Major Comment 3] I am sorry, but: (a) I still do not know on what grounds you have selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games; is there any theory behind it or at least one prior research? or you have derived it yourselves based on the grouping of identified factors? (b) you should put the explanation for this in the text, not in the response to the reviewer?

 

>Response: We sincerely value your insightful feedback. Section 3.1 has been meticulously updated. For enhanced clarity regarding our research approach, we have integrated the statement: “Our literature review utilized Google Scholar for international publications and RISS for Korean domestic sources, employing the following search terms: “play to earn (PTE, P2E)”, “non-fungible tokens (NFT)”, “motivation”, “playing intention”, “participating intention”, “ AHP”, “esports”, and “fan behavior”.

 

I am sorry but this is an answer to [Major Comment 2]. The problem that [Major Comment 3] reports is that you provide no information on what grounds you have selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games.

 

>>[Major Comment 5] I am sorry, but this remark had nothing to do with COVID-19. First, I recommend you this highly informative lecture on scientific method: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/ Regarding your research, once again: it did not include any survey on the potential of PTE games to significantly reshape the economic landscape. So, writing in your abstract that the conclusion of your paper is that "PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape" is ungrounded. Ungrounded statements do not belong to scientific writing. And this is only an example. I am afraid there could be more of such ungrounded statements in your paper.

 

>Response: We deeply appreciate your feedback. The majority of the unsubstantial assertions pertaining to COVID-19 have been excised from the conclusion.

 

I am sorry but this ungrounded sentence ("PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape") is still in your abstract (r. 23-24).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript again. We appreciate your continued attention to the details and the effort you've put into identifying areas for improvement. We are committed to addressing the remaining deficiencies you've pointed out.

 

[Major Comment 1] There is still no information on how many publications have you screened in your search for factors to find those that you cite as well as whether a snowballing has been applied and in which way (i.e., have you analyzed the references of the works you have found or the works that cite them?).

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. In accordance with your comments from the second round of reviews, we have added additional search terms and categorized prior research on PTE games and game participation. However, it seems you do not find this to be sufficient.

1. Snowballing was used for expert consultation, so there is no reason to mention it in this section.

2. Your comments related to citations in our response to [Major Comment 2]

 

 

[Major Comment 2] The problem that [Major Comment 3] reports is that you provide no information on what grounds you have selected gaming experience, financial outcomes, and PTE game awareness as the main factors for playing PTE games.

 

Response: "Thank you for your insightful review. We agree with your comments regarding the derivation of the main factors for playing PTE games. In an effort to address this, we have revisited the prior research that was available at the time of writing the manuscript. As a result, we have added the following sentences and table4 to enhance the credibility of the paper.

 

“The main factor of 'Gaming Experience' was derived from the research by Lee, et al. (2016), 'Financial Outcomes' was sourced from the study by Delic & Delfabbro (2022), and 'PTE Games Awareness' was extracted from the work of Cho (2022). Subsequent sub-factors were derived from an initial factor pool based on prior research, with details provided in Table 4.”

 

We have clearly specified the prior research from which the main factors and sub-factors were derived. We believe it would be difficult to make it any more explicit. We sincerely hope that these clarifications meet your feedback requirements.

 

[Major Comment 3] I am sorry but this ungrounded sentence ("PTE games have the potential to significantly reshape the economic landscape") is still in your abstract (r. 23-24).

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have made an effort to remove ungrounded sentences in response to your previous review, and we apologize for any that may have remained. We have now thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and have deleted such sentences.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx