1) Proposed components of each Type may not be related. For example, Bartle proposes that role-playing and socialization both fall under the same Type, but they may not be highly-correlated.

2) Proposed Types may overlap with each other. For example, aren't members of raid-oriented guilds both Achievers and Socializers? But in Bartle's Types, they are on opposite corners of the model.

3) The purely theoretical model provides no means to assess players as to what Type they are. But more importantly, without resolving the problem in (1), any attempted assessment of players based on this model might be creating player types rather than measuring them.

There were several problems with the Facets study however:

1) The statements in several factors did not have high enough reliability to be used as assessment tools. Reliability is a measure of whether a combination of statements are a good assessment of a common attitude or trait.

2) The lack of an Explorer Type was unsettling.

3) Perhaps a casual socializer (chatting, conversations) should be included in addition to the heavy socializer (relationships, support).

4) Perhaps a competitiveness factor should be included to contrast the Griefers who like to manipulate other players from the Competitors who enjoy competing with other players in a fair way.