Microtransactions are generally divided into decorative, which affect purely in-game appearance, or functional, which affect gameplay (Oh & Ryu, 2007).

Such sales typically take the form of microtransactions-unrestricted in-game payments which players can make at any point (Schwiddessen & Karius, 2018). Currently, one of the most popular ways of monetising games is the so-called ‘freemium’ model, in which core game content is available for free, and revenue generation takes place entirely through the sale of additional features or advantages during play. Examples of business models in the games industry which draw on this have included pay per play, shareware, and subscription (Alha, 2020 Paul, 2020). We discuss this potential misalignment, as well as the implications of identifying what players believe to be problematic monetisation techniques.Īs underpinning technology has emerged to facilitate continuous payment, monetisation approaches have evolved that treat games as potential sources for consistent expenditure, rather than a product in and of themselves. Notably, several of these reported practices seem to not align with existing UK consumer protection regulations. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Homescapes level 174 impossible