Properties of some microtransaction-based games, such as information asymmetry (in cases such as the above described use of player behavioural data to tailor spending promotion), have been found across gambling and betting systems. This immersive property, coupled with design to encourage spending, may be a symptom of the convergence of video games and gambling. Thus, games allow for extensive exposure to in-game payments, which has potential for longer-term effects. Even in contrast to other media, “games are inherently more immersive than such activities because their interactivity means players actively shape their own experience” (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport-House of Commons, 2019), and it is also widely acknowledged that there is potential for games to be misused (Etchells, 2019). Understanding the effects of microtransactions in video games on players and whether/how they should be regulated is therefore crucial. Some microtransactions are even thought to be optimised by behavioural data to be personalised for incentivisation of specific players (Delfabbro & King, 2020), a strategy which may have the potential to contribute to excessive spending, especially in vulnerable player demographics. Such manipulation is described as using elements of intrusive solicitations, limited disclosure, and manipulation of reward outcomes. In a similar vein, King and Delfabbro ( 2018) discuss the notion of ‘predatory monetisation,’ referring to schemes which involve in-game purchase systems that disguise or withhold the true long-term cost of the activity until players are psychologically or financially committed. Terms such as ‘dark patterns’ (Zagal et al., 2013) have been coined to describe these types of design. Because revenue generation in microtransaction-based models is dependent on driving player spending within games, there is incentive for developers to focus on facilitating such spending. With that comes the concern that novel approaches to video game monetisation may be implemented in ways that are exploitative, unethical, or not in the best interests of gamers (Alha et al., 2014). Indeed, in one quartile of 2019 alone, the company Electronic Arts alone are reported to have made over $1 billion from microtransactions (Narayan, 2020). This diversification of monetisation beyond the sale of games as products has proven lucrative for the video game industry. Microtransactions are generally divided into decorative, which affect purely in-game appearance, or functional, which affect gameplay (Oh & Ryu, 2007). Such sales typically take the form of microtransactions-unrestricted in-game payments which players can make at any point (Schwiddessen & Karius, 2018). Currently, one of the most popular ways of monetising games is the so-called ‘freemium’ model, in which core game content is available for free, and revenue generation takes place entirely through the sale of additional features or advantages during play. Examples of business models in the games industry which draw on this have included pay per play, shareware, and subscription (Alha, 2020 Paul, 2020). We discuss this potential misalignment, as well as the implications of identifying what players believe to be problematic monetisation techniques.Īs underpinning technology has emerged to facilitate continuous payment, monetisation approaches have evolved that treat games as potential sources for consistent expenditure, rather than a product in and of themselves. Notably, several of these reported practices seem to not align with existing UK consumer protection regulations. We found 35 separate techniques over eight domains: game dynamics designed to drive spending, product not meeting expectations, monetisation of basic quality of life, predatory advertising, in-game currency, pay to win, general presence of microtransactions and other. We asked 1104 players of video games to describe a time when they had been exposed to transactions which were perceived to be misleading, aggressive or unfair. Monetising a game as a service is challenging, and there is concern that some monetisation strategies may constitute unfair or exploitative practices which are not adequately covered by existing law. Technological shifts within the video game industry have enabled many games to evolve into platforms for repeated expenditure, rather than a one-time purchase product.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |