Predatory monetisation? A categorisation of unfair, misleading, and aggressive monetisation techniques in digital games from the perspective of players

Video game monetisation has changed rapidly in recent decades: not long ago, upfront payment was the only time a transaction was needed to guarantee a full gameplay experience. However, in recent years, technological shifts have facilitated rapid remote payments, enabling many games to evolve into platforms for repeated expenditure, rather than products in and of themselves. Monetising a game as a service is challenging, and there is concern that some monetisation strategies may constitute unfair or exploitative marketplace practices. However, thus far, no piece of academic research has asked for a stakeholder perspective on what these practices might be by surveying gamers. In the current work, we asked 1104 gamers to describe a time when they had been exposed to transactions which were perceived to be misleading, aggressive or unfair, using the lens of the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We found 35 separate techniques that players perceived to be misleading, aggressive, or unfair over 8 broad domains: intentional design to drive spending, product not meeting expectations, monetisation of basic quality of life, advertising, in-game currency, pay to win, general presence of microtransactions and other. Notably, several of these transactions seem to be in discord with existing UK consumer protection regulations. We discuss these potential contraventions, and offer recommendations for future steps towards consumer protection within the games industry.