When fun becomes exploitation: Player perceptions of deceptive design patterns in games.

Abstract

Deceptive design patterns, which attempt to deliberately influence user behaviour, are widespread in free-to-play games, and their problematic nature has prompted growing regulatory interest across the world. We report a mixed-methods study with over 100 UK adult players exploring whether loot-box use (LBU) and deceptive design pattern awareness (DPA) predict Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD), and how players recognise manipulative design. Qualitatively, reflexive thematic analysis uncovered a “Dark Pattern Paradox”: players clearly identify deliberate tactics (overt monetisation, temporal tricks, affective manipulation, and sensory/UI misdirection) that sustain engagement, obscure monetary value, and raise ethical concerns (notably for children), yet loot boxes often remain enjoyable. Quantitatively, LBU significantly predicted higher IGD in a model including LBU and DPA; however, DPA did not reduce addiction risk. Contributions include empirical evidence linking LBU to IGD, a player-centred taxonomy of game deceptive design patterns, and actionable design and policy interventions (e.g., monetary transparency, value-clarity in UI) to reduce harm and guide ethical game design. More broadly, our findings suggest that awareness and transparency alone may be insufficient consumer protections when monetisation systems are structurally designed to sustain engagement.