6533b7cefe1ef96bd1257bdc
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Unfair play? Video games as exploitative monetized services: An examination of game patents from a consumer protection perspective
Michael DreierNancy GreerPaul DelfabbroJoël BillieuxJoël BillieuxDaniel L. KingDaniel L. KingSally M. Gainsburysubject
predatory monetization050801 communication & media studiesEntitlementBehavioral economicsvideo gamegaming disorder0508 media and communicationsGame designArts and Humanities (miscellaneous)microtransaction: Multidisciplinary general & others [H99] [Social & behavioral sciences psychology]MarketingVideo gameGeneral PsychologyConsumer behaviour05 social sciencesComputingMilieux_PERSONALCOMPUTING:170106 - Health Clinical and Counselling Psychology [FoR]050301 educationConsumer protection: Multidisciplinaire généralités & autres [H99] [Sciences sociales & comportementales psychologie]Purchasingconsumer protectionHuman-Computer Interaction; Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous); General Psychology; Gambling; GamingHuman-Computer InteractionConsumer Bill of Rightsin-game purchasingBusiness0503 educationdescription
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. This work received financial support from a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) funded by the Australian Research Council (Project ID: DE170101198).
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019-01-01 | Computers in Human Behavior |