IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v181y2022i4d10.1007_s10551-021-04970-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predatory Monetisation? A Categorisation of Unfair, Misleading and Aggressive Monetisation Techniques in Digital Games from the Player Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Petrovskaya

    (University of York)

  • David Zendle

    (University of York)

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. Notably, several of these reported practices seem to not align with existing UK consumer protection regulations. We discuss this potential misalignment, as well as the implications of identifying what players believe to be problematic monetisation techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Petrovskaya & David Zendle, 2022. "Predatory Monetisation? A Categorisation of Unfair, Misleading and Aggressive Monetisation Techniques in Digital Games from the Player Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1065-1081, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:181:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04970-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04970-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-021-04970-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-021-04970-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans IJzerman & Neil A. Lewis & Andrew K. Przybylski & Netta Weinstein & Lisa DeBruine & Stuart J. Ritchie & Simine Vazire & Patrick S. Forscher & Richard D. Morey & James D. Ivory & Farid Anvari, 2020. "Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1092-1094, November.
    2. Paul Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2020. "Gaming-gambling convergence: evaluating evidence for the ‘gateway’ hypothesis," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 380-392, September.
    3. Myriam Davidovici, 2013. "Innovation in business models in the Video Game Industry: Free-to-Play or the gaming experience as a service," Post-Print hal-03652946, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. Hyde & P. Cartwright, 2023. "Exploring Consumer Detriment in Immersive Gaming Technologies," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 335-361, September.
    2. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burton-Chellew, Maxwell & West, Stuart, 2022. "The black box as a control for payoff-based learning in economic games," SocArXiv 5k4ez, Center for Open Science.
    2. Martinelli, Mauro & Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro, 2021. "Do cognitive styles affect vaccine hesitancy? A dual-process cognitive framework for vaccine hesitancy and the role of risk perceptions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    3. Lucia A Reisch, 2021. "Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural food policy [The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 665-693.
    4. Tobia Spampatti & Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Evelina Trutnevyte & Tobias Brosch, 2024. "Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 380-398, February.
    5. Sébastien Goudeau & Camille Sanrey & Arnaud Stanczak & Antony Manstead & Céline Darnon, 2021. "Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1273-1281, October.
    6. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Grossmann, Igor & Rotella, Amanda A. & Hutcherson, Cendri & Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn & Varnum, Michael E. W. & Achter, Sebastian K. & Dhami, Mandeep & Guo, Xinqi Evie & Kara-Yakoubian, Mane R. & Mandel, 2023. "Insights into the accuracy of social scientists' forecasts of societal change," Other publications TiSEM c14f4a4a-b105-46b3-90f7-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
    9. Florian Lange & Shimpei Iwasaki, 2020. "Validating the Pro-Environmental Behavior Task in a Japanese Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-12, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:181:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04970-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.