<aside>
This blog is based on my PhD research - “How free is free-to-play?”: Regulating Dark Design Patterns in video games through the EU Data regulations. In this blog, I will cover:
There are many different ways to define dark patterns, to the extent that the most comprehensive definition of dark patterns has become a key research aspect for dark pattern research. Here, I recommend a paper for more discussion on the ‘Wittgensteinian-family’ nature of the dark pattern concept.[1] For general reference, I recommend OECD’s version [2, p.16] of understanding ‘dark patterns’:
Dark commercial patterns are business practices employing elements of digital choice architecture, in particular in online user interfaces, that subvert or impair consumer autonomy, decision-making or choice. They often deceive, coerce or manipulate consumers and are likely to cause direct or indirect consumer detriment in various ways, though it may be difficult or impossible to measure such detriment in many instances.
At the end of the day, no matter what taxonomies of dark patterns we adopt (for example the most influential version in recent years [3]), dark patterns is about ‘pattern’, as in the user experience design is patternised, commonly adopted and replicable; and is about ‘dark’, as in the nature of the design patterns have cross the line of appropriateness/fairness, to the extent that it is harming/taking unfair advantage of the user.
If we take this relatively broad view in interpreting dark patterns, then it will be easier for us to understand why the commonly recognised dark pattern taxonomies (e.g., nagging, confirmshaming, false hierarchy) for shopping websites and social media are not quite echo dark pattern taxonomies in video games (at least for the influential Zagal’s taxonomy proposed in 2013 [4]).
Don’t get me wrong - there are always classic/mainstream dark pattern types found in gaming environments, as games contain functions and interfaces similar to those in social media or shopping websites (e.g., dark patterns on privacy panels, payment processes). However, the unique purpose of games, as well as the unique business model different from online marketplace or social media, allows dark patterns in games to take different forms, and on a deeper level.
The main purpose of video games, from a player’s perspective, is to have fun by playing it. This might be achieved by making progressions/scoring level by level in a single-player game, or this can be achieved by competing/collaborating with other players. The more fun a game is, the more successful the game is, and the more profitable (theoretically) the game could be, if the fun experience can be severed and sold piece by piece.
However, fun is a moment of feeling, a transient mental experience. Unlike tangible products sold on Amazon, which people could easily estimate the volumes of the products needed to satisfy the need (just like a person would not usually buy 100 toasters🧑🍳 for personal use), in-game items can be consumed theoretically unlimitedly and often impulsively (a player may top up and buy 100 lootbox packs at once and consume it in minutes⚡️).
Also, the feeling-driven and potentially impulsive transactions in the gaming environment is also benefit from the immersiveness of the gaming environment, and from the ease of consumption.[5] For example, it would be more difficult for a user to get prompted to buy a toaster because there is another user bragging and showing off their new toaster on social media, but it could be easy for a player to do so in seconds, concerning a new weapon (e.g, a 🔫) in the in-game store.
This different logic of consumption makes certain types of dark patterns possible (especially for online multiplayer service-like games) - monetary dark patterns to stimulate more in-game purchases; temporal dark patterns to retain player retention to prolong the lifetime of the game, etc. However, I suggest that there needs to be a review and update of the initial taxonomy of game dark patterns, as the paper published in 2013 might need to recalibrate if the proposed dark pattern types align with the current norm of game design and general knowledge of players nowadays.
Game dark patterns should be regulated for the same reason as other dark patterns in other sectors should be regulated, although they may take different shapes. It should not be understood that, since some dark pattern formats only exist in online games, they should be let go of. In fact, I argue that different industrial sectors come with different dark pattern types, due to the differences in context, business models and purpose of functionality. This idea explains why the dark patterns of ‘gamification’ - one of the classic dark patterns in the mainstream taxonomy [6] - might be dark for social media (e.g., the banned “Task and Reward Program” of TikTok) but is does not sit naturally well within a gaming context, as it reflects the basic design logic for games, which users are generally aware of and even expect (even when if we only talk about the design of ‘grinding’, where to draw the line of design appropriateness is also subject to game genre and consumer expectation). The other salient reason why game dark patterns should be regulated is child protection, as children are more likely to fall for these tricks [7] While due to my Chinese background and my knowledge of how the age-gating mechanism has been implemented in China, I hold doubts that when talking about gaming regulation, whether the emphasis of child protection solution will effectively solve the problem adequately. Other vulnerable groups (young adults, neurodivergent people) may still suffer, and I worry that the current focus on child protection could overshadow the idea of offering a general high standard of protection to users/consumers. Nevertheless, I believe no matter which route we choose, these efforts will likely flow together at a later stage in the future, when the virtual (gaming) environment are obliged to offer ‘careful/diligent design by default’[8] (we are already seeing this progression and effort made by DSA and OSA. However, to what extent the gaming sector can be reined in by these laws is another story [9]. (There will be more discussion from us about ways to maximise the capacity of OSA and DSA on live-service games).
Dark patterns of algorithmic level would likely to be the ‘darkest’ pattern [10] that are hard to detect or prove that they are not a myth. In the gaming environment, these dark patterns could take different forms:
For examples, based on player profiles, the probability of the rewards from loot boxes sessions can be adjusted; the match-making mechanism for players in a series of matches can be adjusted based on promotional intention of seasonal purchasable items; the rankings of leaderboards, the effectiveness of items, the difficulties of a match/quest could be adaptive to maximise retention, player engagement and monetisation, which further fuels the potential problems of over-consumption, addiction.[11] What’s worse, the adoption of advanced AI in games (I am not talking about the Generative AIs for content generation, but those playing ‘roles’ in a game), whether they are literally monster NPCs or buddy NPCs that players know that they are AI NPCs, or they are AI in the disguise of human opponents or teammates, has been making these manipulation easier to achieve, yet harder than ever to identify. So, while I have discussed the legal frameworks (e.g., GDPR, UCPD) that we may use to regulate these practices in detail in my thesis (so stay tuned if you wish to read more), the further research I am thinking about is to come up with practical ways to unveil these system-level dark patterns…and here is the part I call for potential collaborators who are interested in finding out ways to do so with me.
[1] A. Mathur, M. Kshirsagar, and J. Mayer, ‘What Makes a Dark Pattern... Dark? Design Attributes, Normative Considerations, and Measurement Methods’, in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445610.
[2] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Dark commercial patterns’, Paris, 336, Oct. 2022. doi: 10.1787/44f5e846-en.
