ROI of a training game vs e-learning: how to decide

A training director at a large industrial group asked me the question last year, over coffee: "I have 1,200 employees to train on managerial best practices. I'm offered an e-learning module at one cost, or a board game at a similar cost. Which do I pick?" I asked the question back: what are the managerial best practices in question? If they're formal HR rules (annual review, leave, harassment), e-learning is unbeatable. If they're relational postures (giving feedback, handling disagreement, course-correcting a colleague), the game wins almost every time.

This article offers a reading grid from thirty projects that have been accompanied since 2018. No precise cost figures - transparency on factors and method allows each one to reason. The grid is based on the Kirkpatrick model, a measurement standard of the ROI formation for fifty years.

The four levels Kirkpatrick - the founding grid

The Donald Kirkpatrick model, published in 1959 and still a reference in educational science, distinguishes four evaluation levels of a training action. Level 1: reaction: did the participant enjoy the experience? Measured by post-training satisfaction questionnaires, it's the easiest but also most superficial level. Level 2: learning: did the participant acquire the targeted knowledge? Measured by immediate cognitive assessments (quiz, tests).

Level 3: behaviour: did the participant change their workplace practice? Measured by delayed observation (at D+30, D+90, D+180). It's the level that really counts for an L&D device, but it's also the most difficult to measure. Level 4: results: did the organisation benefit from a measurable impact (drop in accident rate, NPS increase, turnover reduction)? Ultimate level, rarely isolable from other variables.

Comparative completion rates

First concrete parameter: the completion rate. On e-learning modules standard in companies, public figures converge around 50 to 70%, sometimes less on long modules or perceived as regulatory chores. Employees open the module, scroll quickly, drop to half, or click without reading to obtain validation.

On a training game animated in person, the completion rate by construction approaches 100%: participants are in the room, the game lasts the planned time, animation ends at the facilitator's signal. This structural difference in completion explains some of the ROI difference: a module at 60% completion on 1,000 people actually trains 600 people; a game animated in 50 sessions of 12 people reaches 600 people but with a markedly higher attendance and engagement rate.

30 days memory

The second concrete parameter is delayed memorization. Cognitive education studies (including Hermann Ebbinghaus's work on the curve of oblivion, validated for more than a century) show that passively transmitted information is forgotten at 70-80% in 30 days, due to lack of active anchoring. It is the Achilles heel of classical e-learning: transmitted information, but little retained in the medium term.

A training game, because it activates kinaesthetic memory (physical handling), emotional memory (laughter, surprise, role-play) and social memory (interaction with other players), anchors information across several channels simultaneously. The 30-day memorisation differential, measured in several educational studies, is generally marked in favour of the game, all the more so when the training concerns a soft skill or relational posture rather than a technical procedure. The playful pedagogy and serious game precisely exploit this mechanics.

Total cost of possession over three years

Compare an e-learning module and a training game on the only initial production cost is misleading. The useful comparison is about the total cost of ownership over three years, which includes: initial creation, deployment (licences, LMS platform or animation fee), updates, maintenance, performance measurement.

For an e-learning module, the initial creation is often high (scripting, voice-over, animations, LMS integration); deployment is marginal once the platform is in place; content updates can be heavy depending on module complexity. For a training game, initial creation is moderate; each session has a marginal cost (room hire, facilitator time, expenses); card or scenario updates are generally light. At equivalent reach in number of people, the two cost curves cross at a certain threshold, which depends on context. Our article cost structure of a custom game details the mechanics of fixed vs variable costs.

Case where the game wins - and case where digital wins

The physical game almost always wins on the following grounds. Behavioural and soft-skills training (management, sales, negotiation, conflict resolution). Building team cohesion (seminar, post-merger integration, project launch). Event animation (trade show, convention, internal communication operation). Field audience without permanent computer access. Small groups (4 to 16 people per session).

E-learning almost always wins on the following grounds. Mandatory regulatory training with legal traceability (cybersecurity, GDPR, compliance). Very large-scale rollout (several thousand people in a few weeks). Geographically dispersed audience without possibility of in-person grouping. Factual content to memorise rather than behaviour to modify. Very constrained total budget over medium-long term.

Costs and MOQ : what we don't tell you in the initial quote

The initial quote for a project king game training vs e learning almost always hides three variables that tilt the final budget. First variable: the actual MOQ per component. A manufacturer can display an overall MOQ, but impose distinct minimums per sub-element (specific cards, soft-touch lamination, printed wooden tokens). The quote announced in overall MOQ is therefore rarely the actual quote on arrival - hence the importance of requiring a breakdown by component to assess the consistency of the costing.

Second variable: the cost of tooling dies and plates. For an offset series, the plates represent an initial investment amortized over the quantity. On small series, this tooling cost is mechanically heavier per unit - which can transform the perception of the displayed unit price. Any serious quote distinguishes the material cost, the tool cost and the labor cost. If your quote shows a single unit price without breakdown, ask for it systematically.

Third variable: post-production logistics cost. Individual cellophane, placed in master carton, palletizing, labeling, multi-site transport, insurance: these lines are regularly forgotten in the first costing. For B2B projects delivered on several French sites (typical scenario of a large group distributing its king game training vs e learning to several regional branches), require a costed logistics simulation before signing. This precaution avoids the surprise of a final invoice higher than expected.

On the MOQ side, several economic levels structure the market: a small volume for a test project (high unit cost but controlled investment), an intermediate volume for an initial deployment (declining unit cost), a large volume for a large deployment (optimized cost), a very large volume for a multi-year strategic project (floor cost). Choosing the right level involves balancing commercial risk and economies of scale - the classic error is to aim between two levels and pay the unit cost of a small series without benefiting from a real economy of scale. For a quote tailored to your real needs, our team will get back to you within 48 hours.

The 5 classic traps to avoid on a king project game training vs e learning

Of the hundreds of projects king game training vs e learning that we have supported since 2018, five errors recur more often than the others. Identifying them allows you to save several weeks on the project schedule and better control the budget. Here is the list, in order of observed frequency.

Pitfall #1: briefing the manufacturer too early. Before contacting the manufacturer, four internal decisions must be made: precise target audience, context of use (meeting, trade show, kit sent), expected behavior, internal validation circuit. Without these four decisions, any quote is arbitrary - therefore useless. This error systematically generates several commercial round trips and several lost calendar weeks.

Trap #2: underestimate the internal validation time. The period announced by the manufacturer generally starts after validation of the Good to Shoot. However, the validation of the BAT (Good to Print, validation before printing) often takes more time than expected on the client side: back and forth graphics, legal validation for packaging, internal compliance verification. Anticipate this validation time in your back-planning.

Trap #3: not testing the prototype in real conditions. A prototype validated "in the office" can reveal critical defects in use conditions (room light, attention span, multi-player context). A structured test session with testers representative of the final public reveals the majority of critical defects before series production.

Trap #4: neglecting the post-manufacturing phase. Packaging, kitting, storage, split shipping: these steps represent a significant portion of the total budget but are often forgotten in the first estimates. Frame them from the initial brief to avoid unpleasant surprises at the time of delivery.

Trap #5: underinvesting in the creative brief. A creative briefing rich in visual references and textual details massively reduces the number of back and forths in the model phase. A vague brief mechanically generates significant readjustment costs and a schedule that slips. Invest time in the brief before launching manufacturing - this is the best ROI on a project. king game training vs e learning. (learn more about our method to launch a game)