Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Nathan Warren-Acord
CST 300
October 10, 2018
The Cost of Free-to-Play
The video game industry has seen an influx of titles adopting a “free-to-play” model:
games that offer players a chance to install and play without an upfront fee. Originating in South
Korea during the late 1990s (Vayne, 2015), these games have enjoyed worldwide success as
mobile gaming and persistent-online PC games have increased in popularity (SuperData, 2018).
that include cosmetic items, game content, and premium player privileges. Developers and
players have praised the shift, claiming microtransactions give consumers more control over how
they invest in a game, while giving a second chance to titles on the verge of collapse (Plante,
2016). The increase in customer support and a thriving industry should point to a positive future,
been on the defense regarding their tactics in maintaining an audience. The methods of concern
include: loot boxes (digital packages with random items), virtual currency (in-game currency
exchanged from real money), and compulsion loops (game design that encourages repetitive
actions). The industry has dismissed any presence of foul play, highlighting customer satisfaction
and a lack of definitive research on the matter (Rose, 2013). Yet psychologists and legislative
bodies have called for more research and regulation on the way these games monetize, creating
an uncertain future for the major stakeholders: game developers and consumers (Lum, 2018).
Developers value financial stability and the freedom to create games they are passionate
about. Legislation brings the chance of disrupting a company’s formula, endangering their ability
Warren-Acord 2
capital and players may interpret legislative action as a sign of industry misbehavior. As a claim
of cause, game developers hold that hasty action will only produce negative results. To ensure
players possess the ability to support products they willfully choose, the market must remain
Consumers wish for high quality products and the allowance to choose the content they
digest. Corporate falsehoods and misleading claims deteriorate trust, causing customers to shift
their loyalties elsewhere. In the gaming market, players want to know the game they are
purchasing is the game they were promised and not an inexpensive conduit for financial gain.
Being abused for their money is a fear of players and a claim of value; they want a fair and
The gaming industry is evolving, and consumers have fueled the change. Free-to-play
games produce nearly three times the revenue of traditional retail games (Horti, 2017), account
for 69% of PC game revenue, and are played by a third of the global population (SuperData,
2018). This has not been a model forced onto consumers; if people did not pay for the services,
the developers would stop producing them. Retail games remain on the market, yet free-to-play
Game companies claim that the free-to-play model has inherent benefits that players
enjoy, thus explaining the rise in popularity. Free-to-play games do not require an upfront
financial investment, affording players the freedom to try a game and leave if unsatisfied
(Johnson, 2014). As a result, game developers need to craft high quality products to hold an
Warren-Acord 3
audience and not “nickel and dime” players with trivial content (Graft, 2013). If a player base
feels abused or that their demands are being ignored, the market is competitive, and people will
find a new game to support. Only 1.5% of players spend any money in free-to-play games, so
every customer counts (Johnson, 2014). Critics of free-to-play games highlight such statistics,
coupled with the amount of money these games accrue, to accuse developers of exploiting a
minority of players. Game companies acknowledge that a select few spend much more time and
money in-game than others but attest that the player is responsible for their own actions (Rose,
2013). When asked about their experiences, the players in question tend to agree, expressing
positive feelings about their gaming and the friendships they have formed in the process (Rose,
2013).
Developers thrive and benefit from the model themselves. Roblox, a popular free-to-play
game, offers a venue for aspiring developers to create new content and earn extra money when
their creations are purchased (Weinberger, 2018). For those established developers, free-to-play
games help ensure they are rightfully compensated for their work. Piracy has long been an issue
in the gaming industry, but the free-to-play model circumvents the problem by removing the
motivation from potential wrongdoers; with no money required to download a game, there is no
and gambling mechanics are among the more controversial options developers utilize, creating a
destructive environment for select players (Rose, 2013). Individuals are encouraged to perform
repetitive, menial tasks with the hope of receiving a desired reward (referred to by players as
“grinding”) (Wiltshire, 2017). This design pattern was created using operant conditioning:
Warren-Acord 4
behavioral learning through varying stimuli (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003). Pioneered by
individual to perform a desired action (Skinner, 1938). Operant conditioning chambers (also
referred to as “Skinner Boxes”) have subjects activate a lever and receive reinforcement in the
form of rewards and stimuli. This interaction causes the subject to become conditioned to pull
the lever, with a stronger conditioning achieved when the reinforcement becomes varied or
random (Skinner, 1938). In free-to-play games, the players are the subjects, the game mechanics
are the lever, and the reinforcements are delivered through audio/visual stimuli and rewards.
When players achieve a new level or open a loot box in these games, a sound plays, and
an animation is performed on screen. These stimuli are mixed with the anticipation of receiving
some desired reward or outcome in the game (Wiltshire, 2017). Gambling devices, such as slot
machines, have already been found to use operant conditioning and recent research is drawing
parallels with free-to-play games as well (Lum, 2018). Loot boxes are popular and marketed as a
fun way for players to support creators, while receiving something in return (Wiltshire, 2017).
Yet if found to be a form of gambling, the implications would be vast given gambling is often
regulated with different standards than video games and children have access to these titles.
Game developers will point to the fact that most players do not spend much money on loot boxes
for them to be a problem (Rose, 2013), but this ignores those players vulnerable to such
mechanics.
“Whales,” as they are called in the industry, are individual players that spend large sums
of money in a single game, often supplying a sizeable portion of the total revenue. In 2016,
“nearly half of free-to-play revenue [came] from 0.19 percent of players” (Plant, 2016). These
players have been found to spend thousands of dollars on a single game and form unhealthy
Warren-Acord 5
dependencies to the mechanics, creating problems for the player financially and socially (Rose,
2013). Many of these players express positive feelings toward their game experiences but
concede that their spending can feel like an addiction (Rose, 2013).
Assuming there is unethical behavior in the gaming industry, a possible solution may be
the threat of legislation. When video games first started to appear in homes, society grew uneasy
by the content of some titles. Without any disclaimer, games could contain graphic violence,
adult themes, and nudity. The popular game company Sega created their own rating system, but
there was nothing to stop others from ignoring the issue and selling games unrated (Kohler,
2009). The United States Congress decided to threaten legislation if the game industry did not
find a way to self-regulate and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was created
(Kohler, 2009). An international collective that represents companies throughout the industry,
the ESRB has been successful and praised for its positive impact and effectiveness (Kohler,
2009). The opportunity for companies within the industry to create their own rules with their
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s moral analyses were the foundation for utilitarianism:
an offshoot of consequentialism that weighs the good and bad consequences of an action to
determine its ethical value. John Stuart Mill would build off Bentham and, after much debate
amongst philosophers on how to translate Mill’s position, rule utilitarianism was born (Miller,
2009). Rule utilitarianism applies itself to the rules and laws of a society, rather than any act or
Warren-Acord 6
action. Under this philosophy, rules are weighed to determine their ethicality by deciding if the
It is by this form of utilitarianism that the gaming industry could have an argument in
favor of free-to-play games. The greater good, in this given context, would be the happiness of
the players who partake in such games. Many of these individuals have displayed positive
feelings toward their experiences, expressing gratitude for their enjoyment and the friendships
they formed in-game (Rose, 2013). Many players spend little or no money in free-to-play games
(Johnson, 2014), ruling out financial harm to the greater public, and these games have resulted in
an increase in content creation (Plante, 2016). Formulating any rule that would infringe on the
rights of the larger gaming community would be contrary to rule utilitarianism and, therefore,
unethical.
Immanuel Kant and W. D. Ross presented original ideas in the field of ethical duty. Kant
personal desire. Simply, you should be a good person because you should be a good person. Ross
determined that ethical contradictions could arise from such a rigid stance, so he proposed his
prima facie, duties that you would observe in context and weigh based on the situation. This
gives a more flexible system of determining ethical decisions since nuance may be considered.
Of the prima facie, the duties of beneficence (duty to improve others) and
nonmaleficence (duty to not harm others) are of concern in the current discussion. Designing
games to be “addictive,” instead of fun, is not acting to improve players in any way, but instead
serves only selfish means. The way these games monetize preys on individual “whales” and can
Warren-Acord 7
cause financial and emotional harm (Rose, 2013). To reference back to Kant, we should not treat
people as a means to an end. Free-to-play games have become boxes that players are put into,
distracted with repetitive actions, and then swayed to pay money for the experience. Developers
are using these players only to get their money, making their actions, according to Kant and
Ross, unethical.
From the given evidence, an opinion may be constructed by deciding the question of
individual free will and the existence of individual responsibility. The argument over free will
has lasted years and continues still, so it would be futile to attempt a measurable argument in this
venue. In such a case, we can defer to the philosophical community and the popular consensus of
compatibilism: free will exists when we take actions based on our motives and free will is absent
when external forces cause one to act otherwise. The use of compulsion loops and gambling
mechanics in monetization models pose potential threats to an individual’s free will. When one is
coerced to play a game through means other than their own motives, which are often fun and
enjoyment, developers are no longer acting with the player’s best interest in mind.
Developers may argue that most players are not affected, but that trivializes the harm
committed to the “whales” of the industry. A minority should not be abused to benefit the
majority; this is why we do not experiment on humans despite the medical advancements that
could be made. It is imperative as well to weigh the harm endured from action and inaction,
since either course could be deemed unethical based on perspective. Leaving the industry as it is
would continue the financial and mental harm of select players, whereas altering the behavior of
developers would reduce entertainment access and industry employees. It is not ideal to inflict
harm on any party, but the duty is higher to the players being negatively affected.
Warren-Acord 8
To help these individuals, society must draft solutions that are measured and effective.
another. The answer may lie between the two, with the threat of legislation and greater societal
awareness. As shown with the formation of the ESRB, the video game industry can accomplish
self-regulation when pushed far enough (Kohler, 2009). The difference here is the absence of a
clear, simple solution like the age ratings for games proved to be. Possible solutions may
include: disclaimers on games that have compulsive design patterns, restricting loot boxes to
games with “Mature” ratings, and an industry mandate to restrict monetary representation to
“real” currency, preventing players from losing track of their spending. No matter the direction,
Performing more research can be beneficial to the discussion as it can add more context
and make forming solutions easier. In the meantime, threatening legislation would not do any
immediate harm to the industry and game developers may solve this problem on their own. The
free-to-play trend is unethical in its current form and society, regardless of the reaction, cannot
remain idle.
Warren-Acord 9
References
Birnbaum, I. (2016, August 10). The state of PC piracy in 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-state-of-pc-piracy-in-2016/
Graft, K. (2013. June 3). Wargaming kicks ‘pay-to-win’ monetization to the curb. Retrieved
from
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/193520/Wargaming_kicks_paytowin_monetizati
on_to_the_curb.php
Horti, S. (2017, November 26). Revenue from PC free-to-play microtransactions has doubled
microtransactions-has-doubled-since-2012/
Johnson, E. (2014, February 26). A Long Tail of Whales: Half of Mobile Games Money Comes
https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-
games-money-comes-from-0-15
Kohler, C. (2009, July 29). July 29. 1994: Videogame Makers Propose Ratings Board to
Lum, P. (2018, August 16). Video game loot boxes addictive and a form of ‘simulated
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/17/video-game-loot-boxes-addictive-and-
a-form-of-simulated-gambling-senate-inquiry-told
Warren-Acord 10
Miller, R. (2009). Actual Rule Utilitarianism. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(1), 5-28. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20620148
Plante, C. (2016, May 3). Why the future of video games may be free-to-play. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/3/11577222/free-to-play-video-games-sales
Rose, M. (2013, July 9). Chasing the Whale: Examining the ethics of free-to-play games.
Retrieved from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.ph
https://www.bfskinner.org/product/the-behavior-of-organisms-pdf/
Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant Conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology,
SuperData. (2018). Market Brief – 2017 Digital Games & Interactive Media Year in Review.
Vayne, A. (2015, October 13). How Nexon accidentally invented microtransactions. Retrieved
from https://venturebeat.com/2015/10/13/how-nexon-accidentally-invented-
microtransactions/
Weinberger, M. (2018, July 13). This video game is turning teenagers into millionaires – and it’s
on track to pay out $70 million more this year. Retrieved from
Warren-Acord 11
https://www.businessinsider.com/roblox-developers-conference-developer-payout-2018-
Wiltshire, A. (2017, September 28). Behind the addictive psychology and seductive art of loot
seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/