Trade fair value — monetization should add value, not manufacture problems to sell relief

Any paid content or transaction — DLC, cosmetics, battle passes, convenience purchases, currency.

There are two fundamentally different ways to make money from a game: sell things that make the experience better (new content, cosmetics, quality-of-life), or degrade the experience and sell the fix (padding the grind so players pay to skip it, adding friction so players pay to remove it) [S-monetization-ethics]. The first is a fair value exchange that aligns the studio's and player's interests; the second pits them against each other and treats the player as a mark. The difference is felt: players reward games that respect them and resent games that hold fun hostage. This is the monetization face of respecting the player (PROG-0004) and minimizing manufactured friction (UX-0007) — the friction here is imposed specifically to be sold back.

Audit each monetization hook: does it add value, or does it create a problem the purchase solves? Keep the free/base experience genuinely good on its own (so paying is a bonus, not a ransom — echoes PROG-0004). Sell content, expression, and true convenience; don't engineer tedium or friction to monetize its removal. Ask whether players would feel respected or exploited on reflection.

Value-add monetization (aligned incentives, sustainable goodwill) vs. friction/relief monetization (higher short-term revenue, player resentment). The engagement/revenue-maximization case is that these techniques demonstrably work and players opt in; the player-respect case (this constitution's lean) is that manufacturing problems to sell relief exploits rather than serves. A real, ongoing industry values split.

The value-exchange ethic of MON; the monetization form of PROG-0004 (intrinsic-over-treadmill) and UX-0007 (don't manufacture friction). Confidence 4.