The performance cost suppresses willingness to try

What it is

The performance cost does not only interfere during play—it works earlier, at the trial decision (whether to start playing at all): the expected performance cost is a gate—"playing this in the living room where family will see me is embarrassing" is enough to prevent the first launch. Trial suppression explains an observed pattern of motion gaming: many people buy the device and rarely use it, and the shelving is not because the game is bad but because every session requires paying the performance cost again.

Why it happens

Trial suppression's mechanism is expected embarrassment inhibiting the start decision. Deciding to launch a motion game evaluates not only the game's benefits (fun, exercise) but its social price (being seen, looking silly)—when the expected social price outweighs the benefits' subjective weight, not starting is the "rational" choice. Three factors amplify the mechanism. Repeated payment: unlike a one-time purchase, the performance cost is re-paid every session, and a standing cost makes avoidance (not playing) cheaper than re-evaluating. Uncontrollable context: players cannot always secure a private space (the living room is shared), and the uncertainty of "when can I play" further depresses usage frequency. Habit formation blocked: exercise games' value depends on regular use, and suppression-driven low frequency prevents the habit from forming, so the promised value (health improvement) never materialises—the "bought but unused, unused so even less used" shelving loop.

Where it stops holding

Trial suppression does not apply to every motion-game purchase. Users buying for explicit fitness goals (weight loss, rehabilitation) tolerate performance cost better (health benefit outweighs embarrassment), and their sticking point is "persisting" rather than "starting." Social-purpose purchases (party use) treat the performance cost as the product's core value—suppression does not apply. Suppression strength also shifts with age: adolescents are most sensitive to being watched (the peer-evaluation developmental stage), while adults' sensitivity declines but persists in specific exposures (before their children, before a partner). Product-level mitigations (low-profile mode, amplitude adaptation) lower the cost paid per session, while "private-scene guidance" (onboarding recommending the bedroom, door closed) lowers context uncertainty—the two address cost level and payment frequency respectively.

Applying it

• Make onboarding explicit about "where to play": recommend private scenes, note which movements may feel embarrassing in front of others, and expose the small-motion mode entry early.
• Show real home environments in marketing (not idealised performance), normalising "other people play like this in their living rooms too" to lower expected embarrassment.
• Verification: track launch-frequency distribution against players' self-reported "skipped playing because of embarrassment." Launches clustering in late-night private hours with high self-reports indicate trial suppression is operating—low-profile mode and scene guidance are the targeted fixes.

Related

• Same group: W7.05.1 Large motions carry a performance cost in front of others · W7.05.3 Private and public spaces need different designs
• Nearby: W7.05 Social exposure · C1.02 Interpersonal and self-presentation · I1.01 Session length and entry cost
• Search terms: exergame adherence · motion gaming adoption · social barrier · device usage