How is it possible that a game that is supposed to be free costs many times more to play than a paid game? What are the manipulative practices that pervade almost the entire mobile gaming industry and why are such practices harmful?

If you ask someone what skills they think it takes to be a software developer, the answers can be quite varied. And indeed, not surprisingly, strong programming skills, problem-solving, teamwork, communication, creativity, innovation, etc. are just a few examples of what it takes to be successful in this profession. However, professional success is only one factor, because, like so many other areas, for companies it is often about product development and ultimately about making a profit. This is where things take an interesting turn.

There are few industries today as divisive and often disappointing as the development of games for mobile devices. In many cases, the above list is supplemented by an additional element, namely a thorough knowledge of psychology and the human mind. But how are psychological tricks, addiction, and a total amoral attitude linked to the fact that the development of mobile games is now almost a complete moral disaster? Let’s start at the beginning!

In the case of game development, revenue generation has traditionally been based on a few simple strategies. The simplest of these is the pre-pay model, where players pay a one-off fee for the game, after which they get full access to all content. To date, this has dominated the market for PC and console games. There are, of course, other models, such as monthly subscriptions, the sale of additional content (e.g. DLCs), or the introduction of microtransactions, which is a pretty divisive subject.

There’s also Free-to-Play (F2P), which sounds rather controversial at first glance. The idea is that the game is available for free, which of course, combined with development for mobile devices, can attract huge crowds. The model itself spread in the 2010s when the App Store and Google Play were first able to bring any new game to hundreds of millions of people. Titles such as Clash of Clans (2012) and Candy Crush Saga (2012), which were also free to download yet made billions of dollars, showed developers the business potential of this novel idea.

The business model behind this is seemingly innocuous, but it is often a complex psychological trap deliberately designed to manipulate players. The reason for this lies behind another common term, Pay-to-Win (P2W). P2W is based on the F2P model that attracts a wide audience, with “extra” content built into the game giving players the opportunity to spend real money in exchange for certain benefits. Of course, there are low-key versions of this, such as where developers make cosmetic items available for purchase, and others where spending money is a necessity after a while if the player wants to progress further.

Of course, the very fact that the one who pays more is guaranteed to have an advantage over the other players is a poor attraction, and that’s where psychology comes in. The tricks used in mobile games are deeply rooted in classic psychological theories and research that examine the mechanisms of human behavior, decision-making, and motivation.

In most cases, the F2P model in the mobile games market is based on a simple formula. The first goal is to get as many downloads as possible for the game. There is nothing special about this, as a larger player base obviously means more potential revenue for the company. However, some developers take this to the point where the advertisements they use to encourage downloads of a game are downright false, misleading, sometimes with stolen imagery, and often have nothing to do with the actual game they are advertising. In many cases, the ads are so absurd, bizarre, or oversexualized that most downloaders are simply wondering what they have seen. Of course, most of them immediately delete the game, which has a terrible effect on its reputation, but it doesn’t really matter. If they reach enough people, even a few percent of the remaining players might be enough for financial success.

For the remaining players, the aim is to convert them from free users to those who spend money on the gaming experience. This is where the Hook-Habit-Hobby model comes in, which is the basis for all subsequent revenue generation. The first step is to get players into the game and into the paid world of gaming. This usually starts with some kind of “no miss” offer (Hook) with the sole purpose of breaking down the mental barrier that users have in their minds about spending real money.

This is followed by habit formation (Habit). Most players play a game to achieve some kind of progress. In base-building games, it is typical that each building is completed very slowly (hours, days, even weeks), which can of course be accelerated for real money. The aim here is that players are impatient, wanting to achieve results, and something gets in the way, but they can overcome this obstacle by spending that real money. This creates a habit of “sacrificing” to make progress. With Hook, once some of the players have spent money on the game at this point, their attitude to their role changes. They see themselves as a free player rather than a paid player, which, once the habit is formed, helps to prevent them from having mental barriers that stop them from spending more and more, again and again.

The Hobby section becomes relevant when, for example in a base-building game, there is nothing more to develop—no further progress. This is when buying consumable items comes into play. In many F2P games, the game is heavily restricted by default. Just think of “energy systems”. This can be achieved, for example, by requiring in-game characters to “heal”, which takes time, or by spending some in-game currency, say, to complete a level. Of course, these kinds of resources are also generated by themselves; units heal up, and energy, for example, is automatically given one unit every 10 minutes. The point is that these are very slow processes and that’s where monetization comes in. In F2P games you can always choose to spend time OR money on the game.

It is also very common during gameplay that players cannot buy an item directly. There is simply no option to do so. The solution is usually to try again and again and again through some randomized system, spending money in each case, of course, and hoping that the desired item will eventually come into their possession. One such system is the sale of loot boxes, which caused quite a scandal a few years ago, for example in the case of Electronic Arts’ (EA) football simulator game FIFA. The company has (quite rightly) been hit with a lot of flak for putting a system that strongly resembles gambling in front of users in a game that many minors also like to play. Such random systems are often referred to as “gacha”, which was originally a Japanese vending machine that dispensed random objects. The model is so popular that complete guides have been produced on how to encourage players to spend the most money.

Returning to EA’s case, the company defended itself during the scandal by saying that “We design our games to offer choice, fun, fairness and value for our players. In all of our games, including FIFA, spending is always optional, and most players choose not to spend at all.” How meaningless this claim is, we will come back to a little later in relation to “whaling” and the various tricks that developers use to maximize profits.

István ÜVEGES is a researcher in Computer Linguistics at MONTANA Knowledge Management Ltd. and a researcher at the HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences, Political and Legal Text Mining and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (poltextLAB). His main interests include practical applications of Automation, Artificial Intelligence (Machine Learning), Legal Language (legalese) studies and the Plain Language Movement.