Interview with Jeff Booth (Economy Expert and Author)

Here, Yu-kai interviews Jeff Booth, an economy expert. He is the co-founder of BuildDirect and the author of Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future.

Jeff Booth is a visionary leader who has lived at the forefront of technology change for 20 years. He led BuildDirect, a technology company that aimed to simplify the building industry, for nearly two decades through the dot-com meltdown, the 2008 financial crisis, and many waves of technological disruption. Jeff has been featured in Forbes, TechCrunch,, The Globe and Mail, BNN, Fast Company, Entrepreneur, Bloomberg, TIME, and The Wall Street Journal. In 2015, he was named BC Technology Industry Association’s (BCTIA) Person of the Year, and in 2016 Goldman Sachs named him among its 100 Most Intriguing Entrepreneurs.

Watch the five-part Octalysis Prime series of Yu-kai interviewing Jeff over Zoom about the current COVID economy and his predictions of the post-COVID economy.

If you are interested to go deeper on this topic you have couple of options:

  1. You can find it on
  2. Join Octalysis Prime community to dialogue more with Yu-kai and a community of learners of gamification:

Why Our Members Joined Octalysis Prime

There are reasons we start things and reasons we stay engaged.

We wanted to learn more about our members in OP, so we asked:

  1. Why did you start?
  2. Why are you still here?

Here’s what we learned.

This was taken from a sample of our Octalysis Prime paying members, including some annual members.

About half of members changed their response, although you cannot see what they changed their response from and to.

Surveys are notoriously difficult to dissect, and so we do not rely on them exclusively to get to know our members.

Perhaps best are the in-person discussions we have with members. In these face-to-face interactions, people tend to share more personal stories about what brought them to Octalysis Prime, and what they are hoping to do next in their business and life.

Endgame Loot Design: World of Warcraft vs Diablo III

Hey Primers. Today, we’re going to talk about the endgame loot design systems, between World of Warcraft, and Diablo III. We will see how they apply different understandings of commitment and reward within their player experience.

This video was originally published on

And this relates to this topic that we talked about a little bit which is the mythic dungeon system and the loot box system that attaches to it. (Also on

Background on World of Warcraft and Diablo

So, for some background: World of Warcraft and Diablo are both
Blizzard games. They’re made by this gaming company called Blizzard. They’re both very successful. They create some of the best franchises in the world. And there’s a difference between the two games.

Diablo, even though they both seem like what we call RPGs role-playing games. Diablo is a hack-and-slash. There’s almost nothing else you can do. You go in, kill monsters, destroy everything, go home, look at your loot and then go out and destroy everything again.

World of Warcraft is more of what they call an MMORPG, massively multiplayer online role-playing game, which means you’re in a world where you can explore. You can go into professions like you alchemy, you can create guilds and you have all these different types of activities in that world.

So, these two games are different in nature, one is more immersive and exploratory, and the other is more satisfying your sensation drive, just go in and destroy all these monsters.

World of Warcraft has been a very successful game. People have been paying monthly fees of $10-15 every single month after $40-60 purchases of the game.

For more than 15 years, so it’s very very successful.

Trying to Solve Endgame Problems

But it still has a lot of problems to solve. And it was trying to create a good end game design. So basically on each expansion which the new beta version of a release, people would play hardcore: they get the highest gear, they have so many great things. And they feel like, “Well, why do I still play this game?” And so the designers wanted to figure out how to do good end game design.

Now, let’s take a moment to discuss Diablo III, but first, some background in Diablo II.

Diablo II was a very very successful game, people played for 5-10 years, and they still love the game. And then Diablo III came out. And the first version, everyone hated it. It was not so great. Some people enjoyed it but got old real fast, they thought it was a crappy game and didn’t want to play it so much and there was all this issue with the real money auction house, which will evaluate in another video.

The problem is that they didn’t like this end game design. Most people still played hundreds of hours on Diablo III but then they said, “Wow, we only play it for three months and then it got boring.” But they wanted to play for 5-10 years as they had with Diablo II.

In the new version of Diablo III, called Reaper of Souls, they eventually solved all these problems. People felt it was fun again they went back for a lot more of it.

In Reaper of Souls they introduced the mythical dungeon system, what people do is they would choose what level they want to play (mythic level one, level two, level 10, level 50, and his skills up, and if you can beat the mythical dungeon within a certain timeframe then you get rewarded greatly for it.

Now, in World of Warcraft, the latest version which is 8.0
called The Battle for Azeroth, they wanted to solve this issue too, so even in the previous version, 7.0, they adapted this as some of the mythical dungeons and mythical plus, which is just building higher and higher levels.

We talked about this in one of my game design videos, called the Mythic Keystone Chest design, we talked about that mythic plus.

Why do Players Still Complain?

Now, even with that system, a lot of people still complain about World of Warcraft. And so, why is that the case? It was very unexpected because people really liked it in Diablo III, but people didn’t like the whole system as much.

The mythic plus system, especially the loot system, and all that work. What is the difference? Now we keep in mind, when we think about the end game, this is all about the endgame, people are motivated to play in this game.

Oftentimes, because of Core Drive 7: Unpredictability & Curiosity, that attaches to Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession, and Core Drive 2: Development & Accomplishment.

A lot of time the Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback is no longer there. There are some social aspects but for Diablo, it doesn’t have to be social for World of Warcraft, it’s a little more social.

But Diablo is a slot machine design. You go into the dungeon. And when you kill these monsters you kill the boss, it’s like pulling off a machine, and something will drop out from the boss, and maybe something you want maybe you want, but when it drops you get cooler gear and a lot of challenge.

The challenge goes on at a higher level mythic dungeon, and just rinse and repeat so it’s just this big casino game that you’re playing over and over and over again.

Now, while World of Warcraft was doing the same thing, you play this big dungeon that requires five players to be part of. And after defeating a lot of costs, anywhere from four to eight big bosses, you get a reward, sometimes that is what you really want.

This sounds a lot like Diablo III’s system, so why is World of Warcraft not doing as well? Why are people complaining and so angry about it?

The Literature of Mystery Box Designs

This goes back to the literature of mystery box design. I believe I was, as far as I know, the first person to have come up with different CD7 design types that recognize different kinds of mystery box designs

In Diablo III, the commitment to get the mystery box was lower. They weren’t willing to do drawn out commitments. But the lower commitment worked.

Now, what the Blizzard developers didn’t think of–and they are really experienced game designers–was that for Diablo, you can complete a dungeon by yourself, you don’t have to organize a bunch of people get friends together you can just go by yourself, and then finish it in anywhere between 15 to 20 minutes, very very fast.

Whereas in World of Warcraft, for this dungeon again you have to find other players to play with you and be very committed because remember we talked about, if one person drops out, then the whole thing breaks down. That’s a high-stress kind of situation. A lot of times it takes 20 minutes or even longer just to find the right teammates to be with you. People have to log in at the same time, producing a huge commitment just to get together. And when you do a World of Warcraft dungeon, it takes anywhere between 40 minutes to three hours.

The big difference between these two designs is that in
Diablo, you get to play the slot machines, over and over and over again really quickly. It’s a small commitment to see what you win. And therefore, really well for that pacing for that dynamic for World of Warcraft, it’s a huge commitment to pull the slot machine bar, and if you do all this work of the sweat, blood, and tears, and you pull the slot machine bar (and don’t get what you like) you can’t decide, “I’m gonna do this again for 10 times today”, because you don’t have the time to do that.

The psychological result? You tried this one I saw that it was not worth it (you committed a lot of time and effort and didn’t get the loot outcome). So you leave and you’re unhappy. Yeah, absolutely. The nature of the mystery box design has a positive effect for Diablo III, but not for World of Warcraft, at least how they are currently using it.

Observe Mystery Box Designs You See

I just want you to soak in this knowledge and understand that it doesn’t matter if you’re creating a game, if you’re trying to get good game design. If you try to create behavioral change, by understanding these psychological principles of the 8 Core Drives and these game design techniques you can avoid mistakes that even these top game designers are making and jump to something better, creating engaging experiences.

What I hope you’ll share in the comments is about your own experiences with mystery box designs. How were they set up, what were their rules, and how did those experiences make you feel?

If you’ve seen other games use these designs, I’d be super impressed if you could share whether they succeeded or failed based on your understanding of the Core Drives. With that said, I’ll see you soon in another video.

New Octalysis Prime Theme Song

My most important project thus far

For those who have been following me, you’ll know that Octalysis Prime is my most important project thus far. I plan to share the entirety of my useful knowledge in this gamified platform.

Currently my 500 page book Actionable Gamification is only about 15% of the knowledge base. With 400 Videos and more every week on OP (About 5-10 min on average), I plan to eventually get as close to 100% as possible.

My end goal is to leave this for my two daughters Symphony and Harmony. If one day I get hit by a bus, I’ll know that everything I want to teach my children is already in this platform. So far we have hundreds of passionate members participating, learning, and upgrading their lives.

The Octalysis Prime Theme Song Launches

This week I’m most excited about the launch of our Octalysis Prime Theme Song by talented musician Melody Hwang. It turned out brilliantly and feels like a fully legitimate contemporary pop song with a game angle to it.

I first approached Melody via her Kickstarter project and asked her if she could create something similar to the One-Punch Man Theme Song. I gave her some suggested lyrics and then off she went – creating this masterpiece that is now my favorite song BY FAR.

Enjoy the song!

Backup for the Double Slit Theory supporting the power of the Conscious Mind

Hey everyone!

If you are here, you have some doubts about my statement on how our consciences can affect reality, suggested by Quantum Physics. Here is the video to intro it if you are unfamiliar:

From my own research, many traditional physicists mocks the concept of consciousness affecting the world of physics. Even the popular Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson dismisses this concept and makes fun of it. However, many Quantum Physicist now believe in this concept of consciousness affecting the physical world based on the evidence from experiments.

Now, there are two type of doubters – lazy ones and diligent ones. Lazy is not a bad thing, but just means you doubt but you don’t want to spend a lot of time investigating. Diligent ones want to investigate a lot. I’ve made some argument sessions on both:

Lazy Doubters

Here I offer some higher level items, mostly in the form of social proof. This shows the credibility of people who believe in this consciousness concept. This is not “widely accepted” or “proven” in any way, but it is a legitimate theory that accomplishing scientists support.

“When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.
―Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize Winner and leading Physicist of the Twentieth Century

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
― Max Planck, Also Nobel Prize Winner

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Also Max Planck

Here is an article by BBC that supports this:

“It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon’s path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference. It is as if nature “knows” not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.”

“Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.”

This is Roger Penrose’s Credentials:

“Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems”

Adrien Kent has this quote: “We could make some progress on understanding the problem of the evolution of consciousness if we supposed that consciousnesses alters (albeit perhaps very slightly and subtly) quantum probabilities.BBC adds, “In other words, the mind could genuinely affect the outcomes of measurements.”

Adrien Kent’s credentials are:
Professor of Quantum Physics, DAMTP, University of Cambridge
Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario
Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge
Director of Studies in Mathematics at Darwin College, Cambridge
Affiliate at the Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Ontario
Visiting Scholar at Wolfson College, Oxford”

Diligent Doubters

For those who are more serious doubters, here is some backup science to investigate into.

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

The best and most convincing is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The video below is the second part of the video posted above (this here is the original), but is a video to make sure to watch.

The 3 min 6s mark is a good place to start. I didn’t fully understand the experiment from a bunch of other videos, but this one I finally understood it in roughly 5 minutes. This explains how the human mind is what determines the results, not the measuring device.

Tom Campbell Workshop

This is a LONG workshop by Thomas W. Campbell explaining the experiments. His conclusion: “There is no objective reality.”

You can probably start at the 44 min mark if you don’t want to watch the whole thing. Below is his bio:

“Campbell has had a long career as a scientist and physicist. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.  Subsequently, he spent the better part of 30 years working within the U.S. missile defense community as a contractor to the Department of Defense.[4] Campbell most recently worked for NASA within the Ares I program (follow-on to the Shuttle) assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure mission and crew survivability and success.”

Some people doubt his credibility, but I dug deeper into Thomas Campbell’s background as people said his background isn’t verifiable and he just made it up.

I finally found his credentials on the NASA website:

In the PDF that is attached there, it does verify that, “THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physics based modeling and simulation; algorithm and software development; intelligence analysis; radars, antenna, and electronic environments analysis; system security engineering; technology transfer, reuse, and insertion; engineering management and program management; and system risk and vulnerability. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.”

Since his work with NASA is assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure the Ares shuttle mission and crew survivability and success, I think there needs to be a lot of precision in his work, as opposed to being an idealistic philosopher.

2. If you want to investigate the actual scientific paper, check out this LONG and dense reading:

Hope this is helpful!