Kai K. Kimppa
Abstract
In this paper we look at three different groups of games. The traditional payment methods for games, although they do have their problems, are typically less problematic from ethical perspective than their more modern counterparts. Payment methods such as lure-to-pay use psychological tricks to lock the player to the game. Whereas pay to pass boring parts or pay to win just use game-external mechanics to make the play easier, and thus intent to, and have consequences other than at least many of the players would want to. This paper is a first stab at the topic from a Moorean just-consequentialist perspective, and in future papers we intend to compare a wider range of philosophical methods, payment methods as well as look into empirical data on players views on the topic.
- Tyni H. & Sotamaa O. (2014). Material Culture and Angry Birds. In Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2014.Google Scholar
- Juul, J. (2010). A Casual revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their Players. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
- Caillois, R. (1961/2001). Man, Play and Games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Paavilainen, J., Alha, K. & Korhonen, H. (2015). Domain-Specific Playability Problems in Social Network Games. International Journal of Arts & Technology special issue on Advances on Computer Entertainment.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moor, James H. (1999), Just consequentialism and computing, Ethics and Information Technology 1, 65--69. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lehdonvirta, V. & Castronova, E. (2014). Virtual Economies: Design and Analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leavitt, Harold J. (1964), Applied Organization Change in Industry: Structural, Technical and Human Approaches. In Cooper, W. W., Leavitt, H. J. and Shelly, M. W. (eds.): New perspectives in organizational Research, p. 55--71. Wiley. 1964Google Scholar
- Nurminen, M. I. & Forsman U. (1994), Reversed Quality Life Cycle Model. In: Hu-man Factors in Organizational Design and Management - IV, 393--398, Elsevier Science B. V., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
- Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., Stenros, J. & Kinnunen, J. (2013). Social network games: Players' perspectives. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6), 794--820. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heimo Olli I., Kimppa Kai K. & Nurminen Markku I. (2014) Ethics and the Inseparability Postulate: How to make better Critical Governmental Information Systems, Ethicomp 2014, Paris, France, 25--27 June, 2014.Google Scholar
- Lastowka, F. Gregory & Hunter, Dan. (2004). The Laws of the Virtual Worlds. California Law Review, 92(1), 1--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alha, K., Koskinen, E., Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J. & Kinnunen, J. (2014). Free-to-Play Games: Professionals' Perspectives. In Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2014.Google Scholar
- Lin, H. and Sun, C. T. (2011), "Cash trade in free-to-play online games", Games and Culture, 6(3), 270--287.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamari, J. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2010), "Game design as marketing: how game mechanics create demand for virtual goods", International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 5(1), 14--29.Google Scholar
- Sicart, M. (2009). The Ethics of Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamari, J., & Järvinen, A. (2011). Building Customer Relationship through Game Mechanics in Social Games. In M. Cruz-Cunha, V. Carvalho & P. Tavares (Eds.) Business, Technological and Social Dimensions of Computer Games: Multidisciplinary Developments (pp. 348--365). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamari, J. (2011). Perspectives from behavioral economics to analyzing game design patterns: loss aversion in social games. In Proceedings of CHI'2011 (Social games workshop), Vancouver, Canada, May 7--12, 2011.Google Scholar
- Kimppa, Kai K. and Bissett, A. K. (2008), Gold Farming, in Ethicomp 2008, University of Pavia, Mantua, Italy September 24--26, 2008.Google Scholar
- Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harviainen, J. T. & Hamari, J. (2015) Seek, Share, or Witthold: Information Trading in MMORPGs. Journal of Documentation 71(6).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lehdonvirta, V., Wilska, T.-A. and Johnson, M. (2009). Virtual consumerism: case Habbo Hotel. Information, Communication & Society, 12(7), 1059--1079.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- First dose is always freemium
Recommendations
Pay to Win or Pay to Cheat: How Players of Competitive Online Games Perceive Fairness of In-Game Purchases
CHI PLAYThe advent of various in-game purchasing systems has led to several ethical concerns in contemporary gaming ecosystems, including the monetary dark patterns in game design and the potential harms on gamer welling by introducing cheating, gambling, and ...
Designing an activity to help reflect on "Healthy Engagement vs Video Game Addiction"
TEEM'20: Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityIn many homes there are discourses about the time children should spend on video games. Even though playing video games for hours is not inherently negative, finding the boundaries between healthy and harmful habits is one of the challenges that must be ...
Do quantum strategies always win?
In a seminal paper, Meyer (Phys Rev Lett 82:1052, 1999) described the advantages of quantum game theory by looking at the classical penny flip game. A player using a quantum strategy can win against a classical player almost 100 % of the time. Here we ...
Comments