Ask the Players!

1 INTRODUCTION

Governments internationally are beginning to pay attention to how microtransactions can be regulated to make sure games are monetized in an ethical and healthy way. However, such regulation has largely centered consultations from industry and academics, without involving players. Meanwhile, players recognize microtransactions [1], can identify their effects [2], and have their own opinions on what values are important in their design [3].

I propose a set of guidelines for ethical microtransaction design, based on my previous work with players and the values which have emerged as being important to them. These guidelines provide starting points for games companies in terms of ethical revenue generation, and for academics as focal points for future research.

2 INSERTING CONTENT ELEMENTS

Players perceive problematic microtransactions as not optional, and instead inherently tied to success in the game, or being able to progress in the game at all. Players should be able to make their own decision on whether to spend on a microtransaction, without it affecting their experience and progress. An example of this is games that offer players a trade-off of time and money. A player can play a stretch of a game which offers no challenge or enjoyment for a certain amount of time or spend money to progress; or alternatively wait a certain amount of time for something to refresh so that they are able to keep playing. These are artificial obstacles. They serve no purpose to the game beyond forcing players to spend either their time or their money.

User autonomy is already acknowledged across the design of technological systems to be an important facet of experience. Autonomy is also one of the three needs within self-determination theory, which is emphasized within the context of video games. Restricting the freedom of choice for the player in games may link to dysfunctional gaming patterns, connecting games to problems for players; many studies highlight that gaming disorder symptoms are more likely to be seen in players who are not experiencing need satisfaction in their lives.

3 VALUE FOR MONEY

One of the things that players value most in microtransaction design is honesty on the part of the developer, and when this honesty is not met, players perceive microtransactions to be problematic. Transparency is generally a recommended measure for building trust with consumers and has already been recommended as a social responsibility measure in the implementation of loot boxes (a specific type of microtransactions). It should extend to in-game purchases more broadly. Players don’t like not receiving what they paid for (‘sale of useless products or duplicates’), spending more than they wanted to (‘in-game currency disguises actual price’), or installing a game to find it is nothing like the adverts they have seen (‘unrealistic presentation of product’)ⁱ.

Providing consumers with appropriate information can therefore be seen as a top priority for companies who want to build strong relationships with players. Moreover, to implement transparency as a value in a truly ethical way, information should not only be provided in all cases where a transaction is involved, but provided in a way which can be easily understood by players in practice – rather than simply a box-ticking exercise.

4 DIRECTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

In summary, players disapprove of microtransactions which restrict their choice, which give false or limited information about the conditions of the transaction, and which do not provide them with something which is value for money. Ultimately, and underpinning all the above, is the idea that microtransactions should add something to a game that players are willing to pay for, rather than paying to remove an obstacle or being misled into a payment.

Creating games which are monetized ethically and yet continue to be profitable within a modern context will need game creators, researchers, and regulators to work together in considering how this can be best done, while also involving the players of said games as a core stakeholder. Making sure different stakeholder groups are included will help ensure stakeholder consensus, as well as managing creative and financial tensions which are sometimes present in working on a game. To design ethical microtransactions, the process of monetizing a game has to be iterative. This will involve incorporating player perspectives on the microtransactions which are being employed, and not only throughout all stages of the design process, but after the game has been launched, and making the required changes as necessary. Listening to players around what monetization they believe to be positive and problematic will also maximize player trust and contribute to a loyal consumer base and longer-term success. Moreover, this involves paying attention to player perspectives on monetization as a whole, not only in the context of one’s own game. Ethics needs to stem from proactivity.

Academic research should prioritize applying high-quality methods to high-quality data on player spending. Primarily, the focus should be on objectively and empirically measuring whether a specific microtransaction has an effect on any aspect of player behavior, wellbeing, or experience, with the aim of proving causality, ideally over a period of time. Assessing the effect of microtransactions should also be supplemented with in-depth qualitative research to understand why such effects may – or conversely, may not – exist, and drawing out the relationship between what is perceived to be problematic and what truly is.

The next step is to build an evidence base illustrating what these obstacles are, and to work towards creating games which allow players autonomy, while treating them with respect through transparent communication and making sure they receive something valuable in return for their spending.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Intelligent Games and Games Intelligence (IGGI)[EP/L015846/1].

REFERENCES

[1] Petrovskaya, E., & Zendle, D. (2021). Predatory monetisation? A categorisation of unfair, misleading and aggressive monetisation techniques in digital games from the player perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.

[2] Petrovskaya, E., & Zendle, D. (2022). These People Had Taken Advantage of Me”: A Grounded Theory of Problematic Consequences of Player Interaction with Mobile Games Perceived as “Designed to Drive Spending. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022, 1-14.

[3] Petrovskaya, E., Deterding, S., & Zendle, D. I. (2022, April). Prevalence and salience of problematic microtransactions in top-grossing mobile and PC games: a content analysis of user reviews. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-12).