Some time ago, I wrote an introduction to dark patterns, which defined the fundamental concepts and various types of these practices in gaming. Building upon that foundation, this post aims to delve deeper, unravelling the mechanics and features that emerge from such practices, all while scrutinising the inherently exploitative nature that underpins them.

We will briefly touch upon a selection of central issues to prevent spiralling into a full-fledged book. Later posts will delve deeper into these problems with real-world examples.

First, let's revisit the concept of gamification. This technique infuses elements like points, experience bars, and so on into various contexts, making them more engaging. Rooted in our innate attraction to rewards and challenges, this approach capitalises on our desire for motivation, luring individuals into participating in activities that might otherwise have evoked minimal interest. It's a strategy that warrants careful evaluation of its ethical implications.

Battle passes and other paid events

The traditional model of purchasing a game outright and receiving a complete gaming experience is facing a significant challenge: the strategy of incessant paid content updates. This alternative approach, which focuses on continuously releasing new content, has proven highly profitable for game developers. Instead of relying solely on the initial game purchase to sustain profits, developers have embraced the concept of games as ongoing services. These games are designed to maintain their revenue streams over an extended period. While this strategy does provide a consistent flow of income, it also raises ethical concerns regarding fairness and transparency.

One notable technique to extend a game's financial viability is the introduction of "battle passes" or "season passes." Historically, the latter concept referred to pre-purchasing future downloadable content, which granted players access to forthcoming game offerings. However, this idea has evolved into a more intricate strategy that serves economic and psychological objectives. By artificially restricting content availability through time-limited offers, developers create a sense of scarcity, thereby enhancing the perceived value of the content. This practice capitalises on human psychology, specifically the fear of missing out (FOMO), potentially leading to compulsive behaviours. Deliberately inducing a sense of urgency and exclusivity through limited-time offerings raises questions about fair and ethical ways to engage players.

Pay-to-win has many meanings

The concept of pay-to-win always sparks intense debate, as there is no clear consensus on what counts as pay-to-win or which degrees of pay-to-win are ethical. Some argue that it caters to players with limited time availability, enabling them to advance swiftly and enjoy the game. However, an equally vocal contingent condemns it as an inherently unjust system that penalises those unwilling or unable to spend money. Furthermore, these dynamics can foster a sense of superiority among those who wield financial means to gain an edge.

Defining the boundaries of what constitutes pay-to-win is an endeavour in itself. For instance, contention arises around the status of cosmetic items as pay-to-win elements. While some argue that purely aesthetic additions have no bearing on gameplay outcomes, a deeper analysis reveals a more intricate connection. Take the example of skins, which are often dismissed as harmless cosmetic enhancements. However, in player-versus-player (PvP) scenarios, skins can indirectly impact gameplay dynamics. With a broader range of character appearances and skill variations, players must acquire an expanded repertoire of visual cues, demanding increased recognition and response. This challenges the notion that cosmetic elements remain entirely divorced from competitive advantages.

Another example is the realm of in-game purchases that augment player performance. Imagine a scenario in a role-playing game where players can spend real money to acquire potent weapons or specialised skills that are otherwise attainable through substantial in-game effort. This can lead to an uneven playing field, where those with disposable income can essentially buy their way to power, relegating others to a disadvantageous position. This exemplifies the ethical dilemma of whether gaming prowess should be dictated by skill and dedication or financial resources.

This controversy extends to the domain of mobile games. Picture a strategy game where players can expedite construction, research, or resource gathering through monetary transactions. While this approach might ostensibly cater to players with busy schedules, it engenders a system where progress hinges on the capacity to spend rather than the strategic acumen that the game intends to reward.

As the gaming community grapples with these ethical questions, it's imperative to strike a balance that upholds the essence of fair competition and maintains the intrinsic value of skill and strategy within gaming.

Into the dopamine pipeline

The entertainment industry has a simple premise: individuals invest money to obtain contentment akin to legitimate drug usage deeply ingrained in our society. This even infiltrates productivity with subscription-based services for applications that double as life aides, rewarding users for routine tasks. Suddenly the mundane transforms into constant superficial gratification.

As a result, game design, application development, cinema, and television follow this premise. Creative products are meticulously fashioned as conduits for converting investments into emotional dividends. Every facet of their construction is honed to evoke feelings of joy. From intricate graphics and engrossing narratives in video games to the insidiously addictive allure of social media platforms, each element is fine-tuned to sustain engagement and incite insatiable desires for more.

This leads to the normalisation of unethical practices across multiple industries. Consumers continue to patronise specific games and enterprises despite complaints and adverse feedback, displaying alarming apathy towards a cycle of addictive gratification spurred by each new level or achievement unlocked. This complacency is symptomatic of a society ensnared by dopamine surges.

To address these concerns, we must demand further accountability and transparency from businesses. We can encourage a shift towards ethical practices prioritising genuine satisfaction over transient highs. We can ensure a balanced and principled pursuit of happiness through mindfulness and advocacy in an increasingly digitised world.

Content-based relationships

The rise of convenience-oriented game design has led to an unfortunate consequence: relationships can become intricately tied to game-sharing practices. For example, team-based games encourage players to compile lists of friends and communicate with one another, leading to a global nexus of connections. However, there is a caveat: the very essence of friendships can become contingent on the ebb and flow of gameplay dynamics. The games we share can transform our relationships.

Consider a scenario where a person's value as a friend oscillates based on their prowess in the game. Exceptional gaming skills could position a player as the linchpin capable of steering the entire team to victory, elevating their status and value as a friend. Conversely, players might be coveted for their perceived lack of competence, leading the matchmaking system to orchestrate battles against easier opponents and enabling their peers to bask in personal victories.

These social interactions can subtly shift our perspective and transform our perception of individuals from complex human beings into game assets that merely facilitate our entertainment. Therefore, while gaming facilitates global connections, it's crucial to acknowledge the distinction between virtual camaraderie and genuine relationships that exist beyond the game world.

By recognising the potential pitfalls, we can temper the allure of virtual interactions and nurture authentic connections beyond pixelated experiences. This principle applies to relationships cultivated within game worlds and those nurtured in the physical world. Prioritising genuine connections over superficial ones ensures that our social fabric remains enriched by a multiplicity of meaningful interactions, safeguarding the depth and authenticity of our relationships.

Relationship-driven engagement

Individuals often find themselves drawn to specific games because of their immediate sphere of influence. This phenomenon is known as social influence, which has the power to shape our decisions based on the collective opinions and behaviours of those around us.

Playing games with friends can be a profoundly rewarding experience that combines the joy of gaming with the pleasure of socialising. However, we must acknowledge the potential for undesirable scenarios to arise.

The relationship between gaming preferences and social circles embodies extrinsic motivation rooted in external forces such as tangible rewards or social pressure. When playing games because of friends, the motivation frequently emerges from the realm of the fear of missing out (FOMO). This compels individuals to tailor their choices based on perceived societal norms or activities of their peers.

For instance, imagine a group of friends playing a particular multiplayer game. The allure of shared accomplishments and camaraderie can become strong motivators for an individual to join. However, if the game itself happens to be toxic, the compulsion to remain ensnared in this experience due to social ties reveals the potential downside of social influence.

A passive approach to enjoyment

In an era where entertainment has become integral to our daily routines, our perception of what constitutes “enjoyable” is gradually changing. The evolution of user experience (UX) and game design towards heightened efficiency has given rise to a concerning pattern: players now expect entertainment to be presented to them rather than deriving gratification from active engagement. This shift presents a concern, as enjoyment should ideally emanate from the immersive experience of interacting with the game rather than being contingent on the game's capacity to elicit satisfaction with minimal effort on the player's part.

The prevailing trend often leads game developers to meticulously calibrate the delicate balance of challenge, striving to achieve an equilibrium where players are neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed. This equilibrium ensures a continuous flow of engagement. Straying into territory where the game is either too easy or excessively difficult invariably results in player discontentment and abandonment.

Examining player feedback, we sometimes see this concept manifest through a self-centred approach to game criticism. For instance, some players may declare that a game failed to captivate their attention sufficiently, subtly diverting accountability from their own investment in the experience. Amid these self-oriented critiques, some inject a semblance of objectivity into their assessments, with statements such as "I wanted to enjoy it" and "I wished to like it," invoking an air of fairness and even-handedness.

The evolving landscape of entertainment consumption beckons us to contemplate the changing nature of enjoyment. As we traverse a realm of increasingly refined UX and game design, the challenge lies in preserving the intrinsic joy of engagement while resisting the allure of effortless gratification. The synthesis of personal perspectives and subtle biases within player critiques underscores the complexity of our interaction with games, shedding light on the intricate interplay between personal agency and external influence in the world of gaming.

Competition-driven engagement

Competition undoubtedly ensures sustained engagement within games. The mechanics that prompt players to return and secure or reclaim their position harness are yet more forms of extrinsic motivation. It is vital to recognise that even under the most favourable circumstances, these tactics possess a manipulative aspect.

The appropriateness of certain competitive elements, such as leaderboards, warrants careful scrutiny. For instance, when examining learning-oriented applications, such as those dedicated to languages or mathematics, implementing user rankings takes an ethically precarious stance. The crux of the matter lies in the profoundly individualised nature of the learning journey, with the pace and progress of each participant distinctly unique. Consequently, pitting users against each other on leaderboards overlooks these inherent disparities and underscores the inequity. In contrast, a more ethical approach mandates we focus more on personalised feedback and tailored support to every user, cultivating an environment where their learning goals are pursued without the weight of unnecessary comparisons.

The dynamic of competition within the gaming realm bears multifaceted implications. While it proves a driving force for engagement, its manipulation potential underscores the importance of transparent and principled design. Cooperative gameplay, exemplifying teamwork and fostering community, carries the promise of constructive engagement, particularly within educational contexts.

The ends don't justify the means

Gamification has significant implications and can have an impact beyond the surface, affecting our reward system and motivation, particularly when reinforced by extrinsic rewards. Over time, this complex interplay between external incentives and internal drive can unintentionally erode attention spans, causing many problems with motivation on a societal scale.

These systems can foster competition and comparison among users, resulting in frustration, envy, and, at times, aggression. The social fabric, which should connect and inspire, risks becoming entangled in a web of detrimental feelings and behaviours, undermining the essence of the community these applications aim to foster.

Imagine a child being continually rewarded for every small action they take. The outcome of such an upbringing is a reliance on external rewards that cultivates an expectation for compensation with every effort. Unfortunately, as these individuals propel into adulthood, they find themselves focusing too heavily on the potential gains derived from their actions. The absence of an intrinsic values framework paves the way for a struggle to emanate genuine kindness and empathy. The fixation on the outcome overshadows the journey, diluting the significance of actions untethered to external incentives.

It is crucial to nurture intrinsic motivation to cultivate well-rounded individuals. This provides the impetus for a personal values system, acting as a beacon that guides positive actions irrespective of external rewards. Encouraging children to derive satisfaction from the process rather than the outcome anchors them in a profound appreciation for the inherent joy of learning, growing, and contributing.

Gamification has far-reaching influence within the domain of mobile applications, extending to our internal psyche and societal interactions. The cautionary tale of a reward-driven upbringing highlights the importance of fostering intrinsic motivation. By instilling in children the value of actions rooted in personal growth and integrity, we lay the foundation for a future generation characterised by authenticity, empathy, and a profound connection to the intrinsic rewards that life inherently offers.

Only salty sad people think these are problems

Listen here, mate. Salt reigns among the pantheon of cooking ingredients, comfortably nestled alongside butter and the revered Lao Gan Ma chilli oil. And as for my tears, they are 90% salt, so you know I'm cooking up something delicious each time I unveil a fresh article on this website.