contextualMONcanonical

Refuse dark patterns — don't exploit cognitive biases to extract spending

GDC-L1-MON-0003

Strong4/5

Statement

Do not use dark patterns — manipulative designs that exploit cognitive biases to get players to spend in ways they wouldn't on reflection. Artificial urgency (FOMO timers), sunk-cost and loss-aversion traps, obscured real costs (opaque currencies, layered conversions), and reward-anticipation loops belong on a refuse-list, not a design doc.

Rationale

Dark patterns work by overriding the player's judgment rather than earning their choice: they weaponize well-documented biases — loss aversion, the sunk-cost fallacy, reward anticipation, social pressure — and obscure information (the true cost to obtain a reward) so the player can't decide rationally [S-monetization-ethics]. This is exploitation, not persuasion, and it is most harmful to those least able to resist it — younger players and people vulnerable to compulsion. It is the monetization extreme of everything the constitution warns against: manufactured compulsion (PROG-0004), imposed friction (UX-0007), and the opposite of clear, honest communication (UX-0003, MON-0005). Beyond the ethics, it is increasingly a legal risk — regulators have fined publishers for undisclosed odds and disguised paywalls.

Applies when

Any monetization surface — stores, currencies, offers, loot mechanics, timers, bundles.

Does not apply / Exceptions

Not every persuasive technique is a dark pattern — a genuinely limited-time cosmetic, a clearly- priced bundle, or an honestly-communicated sale is legitimate marketing. The line is manipulation and concealment: exploiting bias and hiding true cost is the abuse; clear, honest offers are fine. Intent and transparency separate persuasion from a dark pattern.

Implementation

Keep a refuse-list: no fake scarcity/urgency, no obscured real-money cost, no currency mazes designed to hide value, no compulsion loops (loss-aversion streaks), no predatory targeting of spenders or minors. Show true costs and odds plainly (MON-0005). Design offers you'd be comfortable explaining to the player's face. Take extra care where minors may play (UX-0006's duty-of-care spirit extends here).

Disagreement

Engagement/revenue-optimization argues these techniques are effective, widely used, and that adults opt in freely; the player-respect/wellbeing position (this constitution's, and increasingly regulators') is that exploiting cognitive bias and concealing cost is manipulation that harms players, especially the vulnerable. This is a genuine, live industry and legal dispute — but the manipulation-and-concealment core is what this principle refuses.

Notes

The sharpest ethics principle in the MON domain, with legal as well as moral stakes; the extreme case of PROG-0004 (compulsion) and the opposite of honest communication (MON-0005, UX-0003). Confidence 4.

↔

Connected principles

GDC-L1-MON-0002 · Trade fair value — monetization should add value, not manufacture problems to sell relief GDC-L1-PROG-0004 · Favor intrinsic progression over extrinsic treadmills GDC-L1-UX-0006 · Treat accessibility as design — and build it in early

Source trail

S-monetization-ethics

Gutiérrez-Manjón et al. “Designing for Monetization: A Taxonomy of Dark Patterns in Top-Grossing GaaS Video Games.” Tripodos 59 (2026); Erica Neely. “Come for the Game, Stay for the Cash Grab.” Games and Culture 16, no. 2 (2021); Sato et al. “An Empirical Taxonomy of Monetized Random Reward Mechanisms in Games.” DiGRA 2020.

Registry entry →