Search

Video games as a consumer product have changed significantly with the advent of in-game purchasing systems (e.g., microtransactions, 'loot boxes'). This review examines consumer protections related to in-game purchasing by anticipating some of the potential design strategies that might contribute to higher risk consumer behavior. Attention was directed towards the analysis of patents for potential in-game purchasing systems, with 13 identified on Google Patents. The design features were analysed in relation to the consumer rights and guarantees described in the terms of use agreements of the patent assignees. The analysis revealed that some in-game purchasing systems could be characterized as unfair or exploitative. These systems describe tactics that capitalize on informational advantages (e.g., behavioral tracking) and data manipulation (e.g., price manipulation) to optimize offers to incentivize continuous spending, while offering limited or no guarantees or protections (e.g., refund entitlement), with the potential to exploit vulnerable players (e.g., adolescents, problematic gamers). These findings are critically discussed in relation to behavioral economics, addiction psychology, and the clinical conceptualization of gaming disorder. Appropriate policy and consumer protection measures, psychologically informed interventions, and ethical game design guidelines are needed in order to protect the interests and wellbeing of consumers. • Video games are increasingly monetized with in-game purchasing options or 'microtransactions'. • Thirteen design patents and terms of use for in-game purchasing systems were examined. • Patented game systems exploit behavioral tracking data to optimize purchasing offers. • Some player-game dynamics may be viewed as an information asymmetry. • In-game purchasing systems lack basic consumer guarantees and protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problematic monetization schemes in video games have become a prominent topic in games studies, but one essential question has been left out so far: Do microtransactions in freemium mobile games interfere with consumers' human right to economic self-determination? To address this question this study introduces a human rights perspective, and illustrates problematic monetization based on the ten most popular free-to-play games on the Google Play Store in the United States using the walkthrough method showing mechanisms of value obfuscation, false narratives, emotional triggers, and habit building associated with microtransactions. These monetization schemes have important human rights implications, given that subtitle, but forced exposure to intrusive and deceptive game design choices such as the implementation of gambling, and the use of manipulatory design environments conflicts with fundamental principles of the right to self-determination leading to subjugation, domination, and economic exploitation of players, including individuals vulnerable to cognitive stimuli and minors. • A novel approach to video game monetization introducing a Human Rights perspective. • Most popular free-to-play mobile games show problematic monetization schemes. • Microtransactions in conflict with core principles of the right to self-determination. • Freemium games indicate an environment of subjugation, domination, and exploitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Video games are becoming increasingly monetized with the addition of in-game purchasing options, which has prompted some comparisons of these products to electronic gaming machines. The expansion and sophistication of 'microtransaction' options in online games (e.g., 'loot boxes') has also led to concerns about vulnerable users (e.g., adolescents) overspending on these schemes. Currently, there are limited regulatory and/or consumer protection frameworks for video game monetization schemes. This conceptual paper explores some potential social responsibility measures for monetized gaming products to stimulate further discussion and developments in this area. Loot boxes are a focus of this discussion given the current debate on their legality, i.e., similarity to electronic gambling machines. Drawing on social responsibility principles and research in the field of gambling studies, we outline some potential measures in the areas of: (1) game design and in-game purchasing system characteristics, (2) transparency and accuracy of game design and features, (3) broad consumer protection measures, and (4) consumer information and industry accountability. It is hoped that this paper will encourage further discussion among academics, regulators, and the industry. An empirical evidence base is needed to inform the design and implementation of countermeasures for monetization schemes that increase risk of gaming-related harm for some users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory monetization schemes in video games are purchasing systems that disguise or withhold the long‐term cost of the activity until players are already financially and psychologically committed. Such schemes contribute to the increasing similarity of gaming and gambling and the potential for financial harm for those with Internet gaming disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]