Are Free to Play Video Games Dangerously Addictive?

 

Are Free to Play Video Games Dangerously Addictive?

By Olyver Trejo 

Free to play video games have been on the rise over the past 15 or so years, with the most popular video games today being free to play. Games Like Fortnite, Apex Legends, Marval Rivals, and Overwatch 2 are prime examples of successful and popular games with devoted fanbases that almost always play the game no matter what. Video games used to largely be things you had to pay for up front since their inception roughly fifty years ago and they were things that you owned, and which you could do whatever you wanted with them, which creates a sort of monetary barrier to gaming which most people would view as a bad thing. 

Free to play games have seemingly fixed that issue with them being free to play but some critics who had said that video games even before free to play became a massive popular thing within the industry were addictive for the people that played them and people in this camp often claimed that free to play video games were inherently addictive for the people who play them. There are some people who say otherwise, believing that free games are addictive. There is a compromise between the two sides to a degree, one that does acknowledge the fact that free video games can be very addictive and promote addictive behaviors. It’s also important to acknowledge that not all free to play video games are inherently addictive to the people that play the games and that they shouldn’t be labeled under a single umbrella from either side whether it’s that all free to play games are addictive to the consumer or that free to play video games are not addictive to the consumer at all.

Perspective #1 Free to Play Games Are Made to Be Addictive

The first perspective on this issue talks about how free games, and more specifically mobile games, are made to be addictive so they can make money off the players. William Siu’s article titled I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My Daughters Play Them argues that addiction is baked into the very core of free mobile games with things like micro-transactions incentivizing players to spend money on the game to continue playing by buying an extra life in Candy Crush as an example (Siu). The lives system in Candy Crush shows a specific philosophy of free mobile games, a philosophy where the game restricts what content a player could access in a day by limiting play time, number of times they can lose in a day, and anything that can make buying these things into a habit. 

Building habits is a key part of keeping players coming back and spending money because according to Siu, “That’s the ultimate goal: to build habit-forming games that have players coming back every day. In other words, it takes away the decision-making” (Siu). Siu explains the importance of taking away decision-making from players so it’s easier to get them hooked on the game to the point that it’s one of the first things they do when they wake up. This creates an addiction for players that are baked into the mobile games they play that encourages them to spend money on the game to keep playing it or be forced to wait to play again.

Perspective #2 Gamers Are Motivated, Not Addicted

There is another side of this argument that believes that video games and to that same extent free to play video games are not addictive and that we should stop calling them that. Some argue that free to play games are not addictive, but that the people who play them are motivated instead of addicted using various methods such as online communities, cultures, and incentives in the games. This focus on how players play these games is prevalent in how he describes players being motivated rather than addict when they play a free to play game like Fortnite. A player’s desire to master the mechanics of a game is important to this argument because it keeps players around and playing the game, making sure it stays alive. Reid states that, “Consistent updates (or ‘seasons’) of Fortnite introduce new features for players to interact with and, more importantly, develop new skills” (Reid). 

Online culture and communities are another aspect of online gaming and free to play games in general give players purpose and motivate them to play games like Fortnite so they can engage with online culture and communities establishing a sense of purpose, Reid states, “This is increasingly important as online gaming becomes a bigger and bigger part of a culture. Friends and communities with similar passions congregate in virtual worlds to participate in play” (Reid). Online communities and culture are what keep players coming back rather than addiction, using other things like good game mechanics and incentives in the games themselves instead of addicting game design and micro-transactions. Online cultures and communities make up a major part of why players are motivated to play free games so they can feel included and bond with the communities that form around these games.

Similarities and Differences

While these two sides of argument disagree on a lot of things, I find that they both do agree on certain and specific things. Reid and Siu agree on very little, and in fact they disagree more than anything. Reid for instance doesn’t really believe that video game addiction exists and treats the idea of it like a derogatory term against gaming and uses self-determination theory to justify his stance on addiction, while Siu firmly says that video game addiction does exist and uses his experience as a game developer to justify his claim. This manifests in the kind of languages they use as they try to get their points across, Reid uses language that shows that suggests that he sees video game addiction as something that doesn’t have enough evidence to back it up and it shows with who he quotes and mentions as Reid states that, “The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) strongly opposed the classification ‘as clearly prejudicial against gaming as a hobby and interest’ and for a ‘broad’ terminology” (Reid). 

Siu’s language uses his experience as a video game developer to show that video game addiction does exist and that he has experience with it and that he used it to make his games, Siu states that, “I am very familiar with game addiction, as that’s what I thought about every day for more than a decade. (We sold the company in 2020.) I hired product managers and engineers to track everything players did and analyze their behavior” (Siu). They differ in what they mention in their arguments, Reid uses online culture and communities in tandem with self-determination theory to paint a picture that these are what drive players to keep playing free games like Fortnite. 

Siu’s argument is much different, as he doesn’t mention anything related to online communities, culture, or self-determination theory in his arguments but rather focuses on addictive game design and micro-transactions to an extent in his Candy Crush example, he makes greed a highlight of his overall argument rather than community and motivation like how Reid does. They are similar in the way that they try to use their experiences as either a game developer in Siu’s case believes that mobile games put addictive systems in the game to make money or as somebody who researches games, and lectures about them like how Reid does to help strengthen his argument that players are motivated, not addicted. This is further supported when Reid states that, “Three key characteristics of motivation – autonomy, mastery and purpose – may help to explain why players of Fortnite are motivated and not addicted” (Reid).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Siu and Reid’s arguments are both strong and they are very appealing to the people who read them, making their articles more credible using their credentials. Siu uses his experience as a co-founder of the mobile game studio Storm8 which is a very profitable and popular game studio to legitimize his arguments since Siu states that, “I co-founded Storm8, a video game developer. I have launched more than 50 mobile games. These have been downloaded more than a billion times and have generated more than $1 billion in sales” (Siu). The experience that Siu provides his readers solidify that he is a credible and reliable source on the topic of addiction in video games because he makes the games. Siu also makes it clear that his specific experience with addiction to video games because Siu admits that “[f]or us, game addiction was by design: It meant success for our business” (Siu).

Reid’s argument is also strong due to his credibility as a researcher of applied games, but it isn’t the main thing he uses to strengthen his argument. Reid instead uses evidence from people like Jane McGonigal with her book Reality is Broken, Reid also uses Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s self-determination theory to use as evidence that the people who play Fortnite are motivated rather than addicted to the game and the systems in it. Reid uses these as evidence against video game addiction to show motivation is what drives players to play these kinds of games and supports his claims with self-determination theory. His article focuses a lot on the three characteristics of motivation including autonomy, mastery, and purpose (Reid). Reid’s article frames these in the context of video games in a very smooth way that makes sense for the readers and could potentially sway them to agree with him. 

Siu’s argument, while still strong, does have a weakness and that is its hyperfocus on mobile games and nothing else. Siu doesn’t mention free console games like Fortnite. This hyperfocus blinds the reader on how a free console or PC game would handle things like micro-transactions and restricting gameplay to get players to pay to continue. Reid has a similar issue to Siu because Reid focuses on the game Fortnite and doesn’t mention mobile games or even other free games on consoles or PC. Reid also really hinges on self-determination theory, and he doesn’t provide a lot of evidence to support his argument making it feel like it’s dependent on self-determination theory. So, they both have the same weakness on being hyper focused on one game or on one genre of games, but Reid’s argument stood out to me because it’s reliant on self-determination theory to support his argument and he treats the concept of video game addiction as something that’s derogatory to video games and their developers.

Compromise

To me, a good compromise between the two sides would be to both acknowledge that free video games are often made with addictive mechanics in mind which is most evident in mobile games. I also do believe that online cultures and communities are a big part of why players keep playing these free games along with in-game incentives like challenges and quests. So, I think a proper compromise between the two sides would be that free games are addictive when they are designed with addictive mechanics in mind, but they can also keep players engaged with the game with in-game challenges and incentives that aren’t addictive by design, but designed to make players willingly want to continue playing the games. I also believe that online cultures and communities are extremely strong pulls for players, making it a healthier way to keep people engaged in free games without becoming addicted to them. This compromise would allow people to engage with free games while not being at risk of developing an addiction to those games.
























                                                                             Works Cited

Reid, Andrew James. “Fortnite Gamers Are Motivated, Not Addicted.” The Conversation, 25 June 2018, theconversation.com/fortnite-gamers-are-motivated-not-addicted-98718.

Siu, William. “I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My Daughters Play Them.” The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/opinion/video-game-addiction.html.