Loot Boxes, Microtransactions and Freemium Games: The Ethical Considerations

This research article by Erica L. Neely (2021) explores the ethics behind several popular monetization strategies within contemporary mobile games. Loot boxes, a mechanic that involves the opening a virtual box and contains random items, varying from useless to extremely powerful, microtransactions, which are micro purchases within games, and freemium games, games that are free-to-play but often are filled with the previously mentioned mechanics.

The article starts by defining and discussing each of these mechanics and how they work as well as real-life examples. The author then introduces her ethical framework that argues “I am not morally unique; if something is acceptable for me to do in a particular set of circumstances, then it is morally acceptable for others to do so as well. I cannot have one set of rules for myself and another for others.” This view argues that ethics need to be rationally universal; rather than saying that it is okay for one game to have microtransactions in a specific way while it is not fair for other games to do so. The author then starts exploring different aspects within the area of interest. For example, the random rewards from loot boxes are claimed to be ethically problematic by the author due to the lack of information the player has about the potential rewards. If the developers have not offered the exact percentage rates, it is “essentially impossible for the player to evaluate whether the purchase is worth it”. Another problematic aspect of this problem is the potential for this system to introduce gambling into a game, as the mechanics of loot boxes are similar to other gambling systems. It is argued that if gambling is unethical, then introducing gambling mechanics is also unethical. However, the author does point out that collectible card games sit within the bounds of being ethical, as the method of obtaining cards is an expected part of the system, therefore it is ethical.

The second point of contention focuses around exploring how fixed rewards could be unethical. The author discusses the ethics of purposely creating games with microtransactions in mind and trying to manipulate players into purchasing things that should have been free to begin with. They give the example of being able to change how games are played, “it would seem wrong if a player could simply buy a fourth strike in baseball”.

The focus of the article then goes into exploring different types of fixed rewards and evaluation whether they are ethically problematic. Cosmetic rewards were considered least ethically
concerning, but functional items as shortcuts were considered a mixed-bag due to the many complexities regarding the different ways they are used. The author argued that “there is nothing
intrinsically wrong”, but there are a variety of caveats to make it ethically okay. Real Money-Only Functional Items are specific items that offer players with money an advantage over those who do
not, which classifies it as unethical due to giving an unfair advantage. The last type of purchases are changes to game experiences, such as pay to skip or paying to remove ads. The author argues that these are unethical due to purposely limiting the player unless they pay. The author concludes the article by providing a summary of how ethics is a very complex area, especially in an area like this where there are plenty of caveats to consider before making a judgment call of whether something is ethical or not, but overall, the discussed topics are mostly unethical.

Picture retrieved from Team Fortress Wiki at
https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann_Co._Supply_Crate#/media/File:Backpack_Mann_Co._Sup
ply_Crate.png

Neely, E. L. (2021). Come for the Game, Stay for the Cash Grab: The Ethics of Loot Boxes,
Microtransactions, and Freemium Games. Games and Culture, 16(2), 228–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019887658

Post Views: 722

#ethics #Monetization #Lootboxes #Free-to-play