Prevalence and Salience of Problematic Microtransactions in Top-Grossing Mobile and PC Games: A Content Analysis of User Reviews

Abstract

Microtransactions have become a major monetisation model in digital games, shaping their design, impacting their player experience, and raising ethical concerns. Research in this area has chiefly focused on loot boxes. This begs the question whether other microtransactions might actually be more relevant and problematic for players. We therefore conducted a content analysis of negative player reviews (n=801) of top-grossing mobile and desktop games to determine which problematic microtransactions are most prevalent and salient for players. We found that problematic microtransactions with mobile games featuring more frequent and different techniques compared to desktop games. Across both, players minded issues related to fairness, transparency, and degraded user experience, supporting prior theoretical work, and importantly take issue with monetisation-driven design as such. We identify future research needs on why microtransactions in particular spark this critique, and which player communities it may be more or less representative of.

The relationship between psycho-environmental characteristics and wellbeing in non-spending players of certain mobile games

“…This finding should be treated less conclusively, as the control sample of 'other' games did not undergo an additional categorization process. Furthermore, the control sample consisted entirely of non-mobile games: this was based on rationale from previous work [6] that non-mobile games are less likely to be 'designed to drive spending', but does pose a limitation in that we did not control for differing play styles or other confounds in non-mobile games. It, therefore, warrants further investigation in our future work (see pre-registration above).…”

“…We conducted a pre-registered survey of 295 players of games which had been identified by Petrovskaya et al [6] as having had their 'dynamics designed to drive spending'. Such games were initially identified through bottom-up work with players who were asked what microtransactions they had encountered in games that were unfair, misleading, or aggressive [5].…”

“…Such games were initially identified through bottom-up work with players who were asked what microtransactions they had encountered in games that were unfair, misleading, or aggressive [5]. In follow-up work analysing player reviews for discussion of such features, it was found that 52% of top-grossing mobile games are perceived by players as designed to drive spending [6]. These games include design elements such as energy timers and 'pay or grind' (the choice between playing what seems an unrealistic amount of paying to skip this).…”

“…The games considered were non-mobile: desktop and console games. The rationale for this sample was taken from Petrovskaya et al [6], who found that desktop games had a much lower prevalence of 'dynamics designed to drive spending': only 10%.…”

“…However, there have been some concerns regarding the effects of such design, and how far might be too far in driving player spending. Previous work has highlighted that many microtransactions are perceived negatively by players, for reasons such as being unfair, aggressive or misleading [5]; and indeed that 52% of mobile games are seen as having their 'game dynamics designed to drive spending': game environments which players believe are designed to facilitate player spend, rather than for the improvement of their gameplay experience [6]. There have also been direct links found between engagement with certain types of microtransactions, such as loot boxes (in-game items bought with real money containing randomized contents) and token wagering (wagering in-game tokens which can then be redeemed for in-game rewards), and problem gambling [7].…”