Warren-Acord 1

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).

The monetization of these games is performed through microtransactions: in-game purchases

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,

but these games are not without controversy.

Accused of malicious design patterns and gambling-like mechanics, developers have

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

to survive in a competitive market and maintain an image; reputation can be as valuable as

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

untethered and free to address its own problems.

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

honest system filled with responsible and ethical companies.

The Virtues of the Free-to-Play Market

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

has thrived in their presence, suggesting a shift driven by player demand.

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

need to steal the game in the first place (Birnbaum, 2016).

Unethical Behavior in the Free-to-Play Model and the Call to Act

Free-to-play games, by nature, are designed to maintain an audience. Compulsion loops

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

psychologist B.F. Skinner, operant conditioning was found to be effective at compelling an

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).

Measured Approach to Free-to-Play

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

insider knowledge can lead to effective action.

Free-to-Play Developers and Rule Utilitarianism

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

rule would lead to the greater good (Miller, 2009).

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.

Kant and Ross Duty to Act on Free-to-Play

Immanuel Kant and W. D. Ross presented original ideas in the field of ethical duty. Kant

discussed categorical imperatives, a mandate that you should do something regardless of

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.

Personal Stance on Free-to-Play

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.

Regulation is an obvious path, while consumer pressure without government intervention is

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,

solutions should focus on helping players and benefiting all of society.

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

since 2012. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamer.com/revenue-from-pc-free-to-play-

microtransactions-has-doubled-since-2012/

Johnson, E. (2014, February 26). A Long Tail of Whales: Half of Mobile Games Money Comes

from 0.15 Percent of Players. Retrieved from

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

Congress. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2009/07/dayintech-0729/

Lum, P. (2018, August 16). Video game loot boxes addictive and a form of ‘simulated

gambling’. Senate inquiry told. Retrieved from

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

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York,

London: D. Appleton-Century Company, Incorporated. Retrieved from

https://www.bfskinner.org/product/the-behavior-of-organisms-pdf/

Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant Conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology,

54, 115–144. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124

SuperData. (2018). Market Brief – 2017 Digital Games & Interactive Media Year in Review.

Retrieved from https://www.superdataresearch.com

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

boxes. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-

seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/