Virtual Goods in Online Games a Study on Players’ Attitudes Towards Lootboxes and Microtransactions in Online Games

Home , Downloadable content, Loot box, Microtransaction, Skin (computing), Virtual goods

Virtual Goods in Online Games A study on players’ attitudes towards Lootboxes and Microtransactions in Online Games

Author: Daniel Nielsen Examiner: Tina Askanius Examinated: 2018/06/11 Media and Communication Studies, one-year thesis 15 credits, Spring 2018 Advisor: Julia Velkova Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to investigate players’ attitudes towards microtransactions within online games. The thesis is based on a multi-method approach combining the following methods: focus group-interviews, interview questions posed to hosts of a podcast, for then to discuss in their episode, and a survey. The results of this study are a categorization of players’ attitudes towards microtransactions consisting of: Activist, Idealist, Agile, Pragmatist, Enthusiast and Compliant. By adopting de Certeau’s concept of strategies and tactics, I have elicited distinctive reactions and ways of meaning making towards microtransactions, associated with each proposed category. Apart from categorizing player attitudes, this study has also identified microtransactions to have brought the broader player base into the symbiosis that previously existed exclusively between fan-programmers, socialized players, and game companies. Meaning, feedback from the whole player-base is crucial for success in implementing microtransactions. In turn, this is perceived as a strategy that surrenders power from the producer to the user.

Keywords: Games, Players, Game Design, Microtransactions, Lootboxes, Tactics, Strategies, Attitudes Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 2 1.2 Research Questions and Aim ...... 6 2. Previous Research ...... 6 2.1 Research on the Digital Economy and the Creative Industries, and the Place of Games in it ...... 7 2.2 Research on the Game Industries ...... 8 3. Theoretical Framework ...... 9 3.1 De Certeau: Tactics and Strategies ...... 9 3.2 Liboriussen: Craftsmanship ...... 11 4. Method ...... 12 4.1 The Structure and Collection of Material ...... 14 4.1.1 Focus-group Interviews & Individual Interview ...... 14 4.1.2 Survey ...... 15 4.1.3 Podcast ...... 16 4.2 Validity & Limitations ...... 17 4.3 Ethics ...... 17 5. Analysis ...... 18 5.1 Establishing Categories ...... 18 5.2 Categorization of Player Accounts ...... 19 5.2.1 Activist ...... 20 5.2.2 Idealist ...... 21 5.2.3 Agile ...... 23 5.2.4 Pragmatist ...... 24 5.2.5 Enthusiast ...... 25 5.2.6 Compliant ...... 26 6. Discussion & Conclusion ...... 28 6.1 Final Remark ...... 30 Bibliography ...... 33 Appendix 1 – Survey Results ...... 36 Appendix 2 – Categorization of Survey Results ...... 42 Appendix 3 – Focus-group Interviews, Individual Interview and Podcast Details & Questions ...... 45 Appendix 4 – Focus-group Interviews, Individual Interviews and Podcast Transcripts ...... 48 Appendix 5 – Survey Questions ...... 62

List of Abbreviations MTX – Microtransaction DLC – Downloadable Content RRM – Random Reward Mechanism PS – PlayStation MMO – Massive Multiplayer Online

1. Introduction

In the recent years a range of online games, on PC, console, and smartphone, have been adopting new economic models for extracting value from gameplay. Where the conventional understanding of game companies generating income has been through selling the product in a hardcopy (also called premium games), alongside merchandise related to the game, the gaming economy is now experiencing the initial conventional purchase cost of a game, followed by an on-going requirement for purchasing downloadable content (DLC), if the player wishes experience the full game/product. In this context, the game industry has been introducing even newer economic vehicles for profit generation, in the form of so-called lootboxes and Microtransactions (MTX). MTX is a business model for games, where players can buy virtual goods through micropayments.1 MTXs are often adopted by free-to-play games (also called freemium), as in free of initial charges upon download, as an alternative way of generating revenue. The purpose of MTXs is to close the gap between players that have a high amount of leisure time to spend on the game and players that have little leisure time to spend, as it provides the players with little leisure time the option of acquiring items and/or customizations through purchases, instead of spending time obtaining them through gameplay. Lootboxes are an expanding form of MTX. Lootboxes are consumable virtual packages that can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of virtual items or content, which can range between items featuring avatar customization, to items that have a game-changing impacts such as virtual weapons and armor. Lootboxes is one of the latest trends in a monetization development within the online game economy. And the randomized reward element2 of the lootboxes have been criticized over a long period of time by the gaming community which has set up the homepage Microtransaction.zone for players to quickly categorize games according to monetized content, to help assess purchasing calls (Simon, and Taylor). Microtransaction.zone can be seen as a collaborative media (Löwgren & Reimer, 2013) that represents the player community taking action against the new monetization model within games. Many see it to be a predatory business practice, as it is argued to be exploiting underage children and individuals with a tendency to develop an addiction for gambling (Knaus, 2017). This has received attention from authorities and governmental entities in The Netherlands (Kansspelautoriteit, 2017), Belgium (Huijbregts, 2017), France (Durain, 2017), the United States (Makuch, 2017) and Australia (Knaus, 2017). In addition, the Netherlands and Belgium as of April 20, 2018, have banned a number of games from offering the lootbox services to players in their countries (Lawson, 2018).

Some of the main directions that the debate has taken are the concerns of players, is whether these micro-purchases should be permitted to have an impact on the gameplay, considering that most of the games, that make use of lootboxes and MTXs, are competitive multiplayer games where advantage is understood to be something you acquire through experience and time spend on the game.

1 Small payment made online. 2 When purchasing a lootbox, the player is not certain of its content. This is the randomized element, and the gambling nature.

Another topic concerning the debate is focused on finding the definitions for when ornaments are or are not improving game-play or indirectly locking content behind a ‘paywall’3. An example would be the argument for why a purchased vehicle, taking a player’s avatar/character across the virtual space faster, is indirectly locking content behind a paywall as that limits the content-over-time available to the player who does not make use of MTXs. When referring to online games, I consider the platforms such as computer, consoles such as Playstation (PS) and Xbox, and smartphones. The online games themselves are primarily of the type Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO)4 and Massive Multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG).5 Lootboxes have not received attention in a degree to receive an academic conceptualization as of yet, although “Random Reward Mechanisms” (RRMs) have been debated as a potential conceptualization of the function behind lootboxes (Hornsby, et al. 2018). This conceptualization can be considered a “Skinnerian Mechanisms”,6 as it is game mechanisms that are arguably developed from Skinner’s principle of contingency. Skinner proved that intermittent reinforcement schedule, or random reward, is stronger at maintaining behavioral patterns as opposed to continuous reinforcement schedule which is better for acquisition: acquiring new behavior (Miltenberger, 2008, p. 86 & 87). In other words, continuously rewarding a player through gameplay will be less effective compared to sometimes, randomly, rewarding the player. This is what RRMs are, the Skinnerian Mechanism within lootboxes or other random reward element that incentivizes a player to repeat a specific activity. Considering the fairly new entrance of this type of revenue extraction within the game economy, along with the controversy on MTXs in many countries as mentioned above – this thesis will direct its focus to the users of the games and, by using the methods of focus group-interviews and survey, to find out what their experiences and attitudes are towards this capitalistic turn within online games. Before engaging with this question and the existing research on the topic, I will chart the background against which we can understand some of the economic, social and technological aspects of MTX and their development. In the next section, I will go deeper into ways of understanding the economic, social, and technological aspects of MTXs and its development. 1.1 Background

In this section, I will briefly touch upon the economic and in part, the technological development of the online games industry, in order to place MTXs and lootboxes in a broader context of media production and use. I start this background by taking an example of a topic previously mentioned above, namely the game industries new approaches to generating revenue. Thereafter, I propose potential roots to the introduction of MTXs within game development. And lastly, I outline the

3 An arrangement whereby access is restricted to users who have paid. 4 Online game with a player base between hundreds to thousands. The game enables players to cooperate and compete, and it features huge persistent open virtual worlds. 5 MMORPG is similar to MMO, but features multiple avatars/characters that the player can adopt and roleplay. 6 Burrhus Frederic Skinner was an American psychologist, known for inventing the operant conditioning box, also known as Skinner’s Box.

2 various types of MTX approaches that players can come across while being online, in order to establish a more complex understanding of the MTX approaches that companies adopt and, in turn, suggest how this is deviating from conventional goods and use. The change of conventional hardcopy sales to continued purchase of additional content is what Deuze, Martin and Allan refer to as the gaming industry transitioning from end-product to episodic content creation (Deuze, Martin, Allan, 2007, p. 339). The game industry with its implosion followed by rebirth in the 1980s (games moving from arcades to homes) has caused a great corporate pressure on profitability and need for constantly increasing revenue. This concern for maximizing capital return has also been criticized for influencing the industry to take less novel paths, which challenges scholars general understanding of the online game industry belonging within the creative industries (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, p. 244 & 245). In other words, the online game industry is less groundbreaking or visionary (Kerr, 2006), in terms of economic models following general patterns of value extraction adopted broadly in the creative industries. This economic model is referred to as the corporate strategy of conglomeration, where different parts of a corporation relate to each other and thereby provide cross-promotion and cross-selling (Hesmondhalgh, 2012, p. 166). More precisely, the releases of the gaming industry are “sequels, franchise titles or film adaptations, rather than unique games” (Deuze, Martin, Allan, 2007, p. 337). MTX is a business model where users, or players, can purchase virtual goods at small sum costs, often between 1 and 10 €. Historically this model derives from the behavior of players trading virtual goods for real money which first really became a trend amongst players in 1999 (Hamari & Lehdonvirta, 2010, p. 15). The idea of selling virtual goods came from the Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOs) Ultima Online and EverQuest and was traded over consumer-to-consumer websites such as eBay (Ibidem). This trade of virtual goods did not just exist between leisure players, but also between leisure players and player-workers. Player-workers are “virtual migrants”, mostly people from China who are employed to generate different types of valuable virtual content through repetitive and tedious tasks in gameplay, for then to sell this content to players, most commonly from the western hemisphere, for real money. These workers are often referred to as “farmers” within the online gaming communities (Scholz, 2013, p. 188 & 189). In relation to these “farmers”, the condemnation of buying virtual currency, by players, can be perceived as the first reaction of the more general player opinion, which is surfacing in the current controversy on lootboxes. Before MTXs were properly implemented as a business model in online games, “farmers” were the topic of controversy because it is “widely considered the worst, more morally reprehensible form of cheating” (Ibid, p. 188). What often seems to be condemned is the “farmers”, but essentially it is the service they provide and the players that make use of this service, that are the source to frustration from the online gaming communities, as this essentially is the element that can be considered “cheating”. Mia Consalvo in her book Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames (2007) reveals that cheating is a concern for players but they struggle to find consensus as to what cheating is or is not (Consalvo, 2007, p. 150). And there are striking parallels to the controversy on MTXs/lootboxes and “farmers”, in terms of the arguments against MTXs/lootboxes. Instead of problematizing the players that make use of MTXs and lootboxes to gain

3 an advantage, the online game community raises arguments about how lootboxes are gambling, and in turn ethically irresponsible considering a big group in the gaming communities are underage children. One of the first games to introduce MTXs, and be successful with it, was FarmVille, an Adobe Flash application via Facebook, developed by Zynga. FarmVille was launched in June 2009 with a player- base growing by more than a million weekly (Business Wire, 2009). This suggests that MTXs had not been properly established as a method of revenue generation, within game companies, prior to FarmVille. MTXs was a business model that was first adopted by freemium smartphone games which was later adopted by premium games. However, Apple did not open its App Store before 2008, which is another suggestion for MTXs to be a relatively new phenomenon. After the launch the App Store, the app downloads increased exponentially from 2.5 billion downloads in 2009 to 150 billion downloads in 2013, and 270 billion in 20167 (Statista, 2017). With this much popularity, it is likely that MTX also took its foothold. The previous Chief Operating Officer of Electronic Arts, Peter Moore foresaw this development of MTXs becoming the primary business model for games in June 2012: I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free (…) there's an inevitability that happens five years from now, 10 years from now, that, let's call it the client, to use the term, [is free.] It is no different than... it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there. I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it. (Totilo, 2012) So, arguably there exists a timeline for how MTXs came to be a central part of online games in the contemporary world of gaming. The intensifying revenue pressure on the online game industry, as well as, the search for alternative means of gaining profit, has led to the introduction of DLCs and MTXs. This is the background for a development that has led to the problem of interest: lootboxes and MTXs. Again, to compare with the conventional understanding of premium games being a product to buy and play, the application of lootboxes and MTXs illustrates an additional changing marketing approach within the gaming industry.

In figure 1 that is presented below, six types of MTX approaches, that have emerged so far and that a player can encounter in online games, are presented. These MTXs are often featured in any online games on mobile phone, PC or Console. All the types are not necessarily adopted by every game, as this is determined exclusively by the game developing company and based on the economic model they wish to adopt.

7 The development is perhaps due to the fact that the whole app-economy and apps in general started finally developing then, after introducing tablets/pads, as well as, new consumer tech.

Fig. 1. Source: Agarwal (2017)

In figure 1, six types of MTX approaches are illustrated. Players often make the distinction between MTXs that are cosmetics or have an influence on player performance, but these are considered different types of product offered, rather than approaches of incentivizing the player to make purchases. In online games, some of the MTX types put the player in a context that require him/her to make purchasing calls and to compare with Peter Moore’s example of walking into The Gap in the shopping mall without making purchases: If he were stopped in the shopping mall and prohibited from accessing the next floor unless he pays a fee, or if he had to pay to use the escalator instead of the stairs. – This is real world adaptations of the invasive nature that MTXs can have on players in online games. In-game Currency is characteristic for virtual currency, comparable to electronic money or crypto currencies, it holds no legal regulations however and the supply depends on the issuer’s choice (Tomić, 2017, p. 247). The In-game Currency can be bought with real money at a certain exchange rate, the exchange rate has nothing to do with the virtual currency market value being different from the real currency of the player, the purpose of this exchange rate is to cause an opaque relation to the virtual currency when the user makes virtual purchases with it. Discount Offers, is package deals, often within a specific timeframe. The conventional discount trends in trade is related to supply and

5 demand, whereas in the case of virtual goods, there is no supply limits. Random Chance, is RMM which has already been explained extensively in the introduction. It incentivizes the player to make purchases for the chance of “winning”. Skill Game feature continuously rising difficulty in gameplay, that eventually causes the play to have to seek help, in the form of MTXs, to keep up progression. Fun Pain is incentivizing element of putting a player in a stressful or challenging situation, where there is a high risk of defeat. Followed by offering the player a second chance, at a cost. Reward Removal is content that is offered during a short period of time, or content that has existed but are threatened to be removed. This makes players more likely to make the purchase, out of fear of not having the possibility at a later time. This section has given a brief description of lootboxes and MTXs, and its development. It has lifted six types of MTX approaches, that can seem different, but the core mechanics are the same: to generate revenue within online games. More importantly, the section has outlined a change in marketing approach, from end-product creation to episodic content creation, and it is arguably this change of event that is causing a heated debate, which in turn has brought the debate to the level of governments. Below I present the research question and aim. 1.2 Research Questions and Aim

In the light of the above, and considering the presence of tensions between the game communities and the game industries’ new models for profit generation, the aim of this thesis is to investigate players’ attitudes towards MTXs within online games, and answer the following questions:

- What are the players’ attitudes towards lootboxes and microtransactions in online games? - How do players make sense of these new models of value extraction? - What kind of reactions do these models provoke on the part of the players? By answering these research questions, will contribute to a better understand the tensions that emerge between players and industries when creative industries, like the online game industries, introduce new models of value extraction.

2. Previous Research

Most existing research on online games focus either on the changing game economy and how it exists within a tight knit relationship with its consumers: the players. Or the focus is on the players themselves, and how their gameplay is very much related to life-projects and work. In relation to the game economy, scholars tend to think of games as a collaborative media and how this collaboration between players is increasingly being turned into means of profit generation for the game companies (Scholz, 2013). Other studies focus on what players do with games, either in the form of literally changing the games, these types of players are called fan-programmers (Postigo, 2007), or contributing to the universe and the atmosphere of the game through participation (Arvidsson & Sandvik, 2007). In this section of the paper, I will outline the academic field of which this study resides within, and provide concepts and knowledge about the study of games.

2.1 Research on the Digital Economy and the Creative Industries, and the Place of Games in it

Postigo (2007) and his paper ‘Of Mods and Modders - Chasing Down the Value of Fan-Based Digital Game Modifications’, elaborates upon the collaborative nature of the game industry by shedding light on a specific category of gamers, namely fan-programmers. Fan-programmers consist of modders, mappers and “skinners” who take on different game producing roles. Besides from categorizing the fan-programmer group, Postigo illustrates the additional value fan-programmers bring to a game and subsequently, to the producing company. Postigo’s research on fan-based digital game modifications in broad terms conclude on a certain symbiosis existing between the game industry and the fan groups producing add-ons. Postigo explains the motivation for fan-programmers to produce content for already existing games, to be social in terms of artistic endeavor, community commitment, increasing the personal joy of playing the game by “taking” ownership, or personal identification by adding new cultural narratives (Ibid, p. 309). In addition, Postigo also concludes, that there are multiple potential gains for companies who embrace the fan groups as producers and game testers. At that time Postigo foresaw potential conflicts between these two entities if exploitation and injustice would be adopted, between the two, over ownership and copyrighted content (Ibid, p. 311). However, the exploration of such conflicts has not been a major theme in the subsequent research of gameplay culture, which instead has focused on, for example, consumer participation or co-creation within gaming or game-play not being passive entertainment or addiction but on the contrary immersion and craftsmanship. Arvidsson and Sandvik (2007), with their paper ‘Gameplay as design: Uses of computer players’ immaterial labor’, in turn, provides an in-depth understanding of the relationship between the online game developers and the fan-programmers, however, they take the conceptualization of fan- programmers one step further. According to Arvidsson and Sandvik, gameplay is a creative act of “bricolage where bits and pieces of media culture are creatively recombined or reflexively redeployed to produce something new” (Ibid, p. 4). Microtransaction.zone is an example of bricolage and redeployment. Arvidsson and Sandvik defines gameplay as the acquisition of skill and knowledge, which they connect with the pace and eye-and-hand coordination skill alongside cognitive player requirements made by the game. Additionally, gameplay genres require different qualities from the player, for the player to acquire the socialization as a ‘competent player’ (Arvidsson & Sandvik, 2007, p. 8). Once the player has been socialized, the player’s agency becomes valuable in relation to the reproduction of media capital (Ibid, p. 6). Arvidsson and Sandvik also identify another type of valuable agency, which they refer to as user- created content (Ibid, p. 15). This player-created content, such as guilds or clans8, are related to the online games and the challenges they pose to the players. These challenges require them to engage in a cooperative setting with other players.

8 Clan, guild or faction is an organized group of players that regularly play together in one or more multiplayer games

While clarifying how not only fan-programmers’ contribution to specific online games are deemed valuable by the developers, but also how regular players social contributions are as well, Arvidsson and Sandvik’s argue that online games commercial value is to a large extent a product of the immaterial labor of players. Players are co-designers or co-developers (Ibid, p. 17), and this co-design or co-development exists not only within the virtual world of the game itself but reaches beyond the game whenever the players participate. In relation to MTXs, the immaterial labor suggests that players have a much higher impact on the success of online games which, in turn, makes the introduction of MTXs very sensitive. On the one hand the game producers need to adopt new ways of revenue generation, but on the other hand, MTXs can potentially result in less revenue if the immaterial labor and social contribution turn against the game developers, and instead of being a contribution to becomes a hindrance for success.

Another author whose previous work adds to the understanding of game industries and players, is Liboriussen and his paper ‘Craft, Creativity, Computer Games: the Fusion of Play and Material Consciousness’ (2013). As opposed to the conventional understanding of Homo Faber, as man the maker, Liboriussen emphasizes on curiosity and motivation in craftsmanship, and thus suggest an alternative interpretation of the conception as, man the creative. (Liboriussen, 2013, p. 276). Liboriussen applies this understanding of human to the player of online games. He makes the comparison between online gamers, their avatars/characters and craftsmen and their creations. The link he makes is the material consciousness, which is the anticipation of what is to come with the materials at disposal. The anticipation means being able to be one step ahead of the materials and see the bigger picture ahead. This stands in contrast to factory workers doing repetitive work, as well as gambling/lottery where you have no chance at predicting what is to come. He concludes that craftsmanship in games is the conscious process occurring when a player slowly constructs his/her character/avatar.

2.2 Research on the Game Industries

While the previous research so far has covered players embedded in game production and gameplay and craftsmanship similarities, Hamari & Lehdonvirta (2010) focuses on the online game developing companies. In their study, they attempt to outline the emerging marketing approach of MTXs of virtual goods, by comparing it to conventional marketing design. As they state early on “marketing can also be seen as an activity that creates needs” (Hamari & Lehdonvirta, 2010, p. 17). This is what seems to be permeating their paper, that opposed to conventional marketing, that makes use of big data and consumer segmentation. But in the online game industry, companies rarely need to explore the needs of their consumer base, because they themselves [the companies] set the terms for the players’ needs when determining the game mechanics. Hamari & Lehdonvirta, in their study, mention game mechanics such as status restrictions9 and increasingly challenging content10 as ways of enforcing game structures to direct the player behavior. (Ibid, p. 20). They raise inconvenient gameplay elements as another example of game design creating

9 Gradually making obtained items useless to the player. 10 Content increasing in difficulty

8 player needs, which is a game product possessing various limitations or inconveniencies deliberately to motivate the player to buy augmenting products [MTXs] to solve the “problem” (Ibid, p. 22). However, Hamari & Lehdonvirta suggest more complex methods for creating player needs by proposing persuasive technology, which is the use of technology to persuade change of behavior in players (Ibid, p. 27). The mentioned scholars have gamers and the game industry, as field of study, as their common interest. They almost touch upon MTXs in this relation, but not quite extensively. The topic of MTXs, stands in relation to Postigo’s prediction of a conflict between fan-programmers and game producers. The symbiosis that the fan-programmers and game producers shape is arguably also encapsulating the casual players, as a result of web 2.0 and user-generated content having a huge impact on the game industry as Arvidsson and Sandvik emphasizes (2007, p. 15). However, the question that remains unanswered is the relationship between players and the online game industry. And that is the question, that I perceive the study to be contributing more insight and understanding towards.

3. Theoretical Framework

In order to understand the ways in which players react to and make sense of MTXs and lootboxes as new economic models in gameplay, I use Michel De Certeau’s (1984) theory of practices in everyday life. In particular, I draw on his key ideas on tactics and strategies. In addition, I adopt Liboriussen’s (2013) theory of Fusion of Play and Material Consciousness, to understand players’ meaning-making in online games. This section introduces the theoretical framework through which I approach the problem of MTXs, and how this framework is operationalized in relation to the analysis of the gathered material.

Below I first present the key ideas of de Certeau’s work on tactics and strategies, followed by an elaboration on Liboriussen’s concept of Craftsmanship in games.

3.1 De Certeau: Tactics and Strategies

By using de Certeau’s concepts of tactics and strategies I can get a better understanding of how new economic models for revenue generation in online games provokes reaction amongst players. I do this by analyzing and identifying tactics and strategy identifications within players’ accounts and attitudes towards MTXs in online games.

What concerned de Certeau is the act of consumption: what the consumer does with what he/she consumes. This stands in contrast to the general understanding of consumption being a passive act. He problematizes this understanding, for only observing the effects, meaning the quantity and place of consumption (Certeau, 2011, p. 35). Instead, De Certeau refers to consumption as another type of production: which is the utilization of the initial production (Certeau, 2011, p. xii & xiii). This means making practical or effective use of what is ready-to-hand, essentially using it in unexpected ways for other goals than the presumed ones, intended by the producer. The acts of utilization by the consumer, de Certeau identifies as tactics, are not merely consumption but instead another type of production because they do not obey the law of the “place”, offered by the producers.

The act of tactics is not defined nor identified by the producer (Ibid, p. 29), since they are considered unmappable as opposed to the strategies. To elaborate on this: opposed to the general notion of production being a paid service or object, de Certeau sees it as a hidden kind of production. This hidden production is in turn, “scattered over areas defined and occupied by systems of “production”” (Ibid, p. xii), such as television, urban development, and commerce etc. This means that producer strategies are visible to the user, but user tactics are not visible to the producer. The other concept de Certeau lifts in the consumer-producer relationship is strategies. This concept is linked to the producers of a product. In the citation below, de Certeau explains strategies as: the calculation (or manipulation) of power relationships that becomes possible as soon as a subject with will and power (a business, an army, a city, a scientific institution) can be isolated. It postulates a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats (costumers or competitors, enemies, the country surrounding the city, objectives and objects of research, etc.) can be managed (Ibid, p. 35 & 36) What is stressed in the explanation above, is the power relationship between a dominant and a dominated. For the dominant to manage the dominated it needs to assume a place as its own, where interference is minimal. A dominant could be a city, which dominates its citizens to act within its set framework of roads, sidewalks, and streetlights. Hence, there can be a power balance between city and citizen. Although these roles might seem fixed, de Certeau argues that the roles can swap, and therefore change the power balance. When the roles swap, it is because the means of relation with an exteriority is weakening, and the strategist will, in turn, be able to adopt measures of deception, and ultimately be transforming strategies into tactics (Ibid, p. 37). Returning to the first concept lifted, “[a] tactic is an art of the weak” and is “a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (Ibid, p. 37, both quotes). This means, a tactic is an act of the dominated, and it is always adopted when the presented options [by the producers] does not suffice the users’ needs. A tactic is depending on time, and the user does not have the power to impose will on the system at hand, so when the moment comes that the user can will something: when and how is determined by the circumstances of the situation (Ibid, p. xix). The user is, according to de Certeau, seeking out opportunities ‘on the wing’. And the user needs to master “clever tricks of the “weak” within the order established by the “strong,” an art of putting one over on the adversary on his own turf, hunter’s tricks, maneuverable” (Ibid, p. 40).

In relation to the study on player attitudes towards MTXs, one type of tactic cannot be exclusively identified as the hidden production. De Certeau stresses that, the tactic is always calculated and determined by the circumstances of the situation and this, in turn, also makes it difficult to identify for the producer, as well as, anyone else. Therefore, the act of purchasing MTXs, can be a tactic if the motivation is different from the intention of the producer’s strategy. The player making sense of MTXs can also be a tactic, whether the reasoning is accurate it still serves the purpose of supporting the player in dealing with the domain of the adversary. These tactics are

10 types of hidden production in the sense that they utilize the offered product in a way that serves the player’s needs. What is important to stress is that, it is not the choice between either producer production and consumer production. The player can make use of both, although in theory s/he will always produce a hidden product, and not necessarily make use of the producer product. In applying the concepts of strategies and tactics to players meaning-making of lootboxes and MTXs within online games, one can say that lootboxes and MTXs are marketing strategies. And the studios and companies producing the online games are the dominant subjects as the power balance favors them, in the sense, that they have access to and determines the proper place: the online game. Lootboxes and MTXs can then be perceived as the base of generating relations with an “exteriority”, which is the players playing the online games. In turn, tactics refer to what these players do with game elements related to lootboxes and MTXs, when playing online games.

While the power relationship favors the studios and companies producing online games, the players remain active users, and the focus of the study is on players direct or indirect accounts of how they actively engage with these online game elements related to MTXs. Hence, there are tactics, that the user uses to benefit from the product in ways that are not presumed by the producer of the game. In that way, the power balance is not fixed between these two parties – but shifting in relation to what tactics and strategies they use. 3.2 Liboriussen: Craftsmanship

As I have already mentioned in previous research, Liboriussen emphasizes the conception of human as Homo faber, the creative man, to underline how factory work, or repetitive work, is alien to craftsmanship. But to clarify this relationship between craftsmanship and creativity, he draws on Sennet (2008) and his work The Craftman. Sennet explains the necessity for the anticipation of what is to come and being a step ahead of the materials at disposal. This will provide meaning to the worker, which in turn is craftsmanship (Liboriussen, 2013 p. 277). Also, Liboriussen draws on Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi work: Flow: the psychology of optimal experience, to emphasize the transitioning from challenge to mastery and then boredom. The craftsman will seek new challenges, whereas the worker in factory production is forced to repeat the work, and experience little fulfillment as well as diminishing creativity. Clear goals and feedback are crucial for achieving flow and micro-goals are the satisfying factor, not the end goal. Micro-goals are the precise measures, perfectly executed blows or neatly laid stones: they all move towards a bigger picture (Ibid, 278). According to Liboriussen, craftsmanship in gameplay is in fact competition, roleplay11 and immersion. Craftsmanship and competition in gameplay occur in the case of avatar comparison since the avatar essentially is the masterpiece being crafted by the player. If the game is without avatars, there often exists other ‘things’ of “projective identity”: the players project in the making which additionally reflects values and desires of the player (Ibid, p. 280). One example is FarmVille, where the capabilities or capacities of the player’s farm in relation to other players can be perceived to be a

11 “the desire to play another role than oneself, or to lose oneself, by using the avatar as a focus for role playing” (Liboriussen, 2013, p. 280)

11 competitive drive in craftsmanship, and in turn project the players values and ambitions. Lastly, Liboriussen sees the link between online games and craftsmanship through the loss of self or immersion. This is often perceived as excessive or addicted gaming, but according to Liboriussen, it might just be “temporary suspension of goal-directedness” (Ibid, p. 281). A patience for detail and long-term commitment, that can be hard to comprehend for outsiders. In relation to MTXs, the theory of craftsmanship in games provides an initial understanding of players meaning-making when playing games. Also, MTXs are often purchases for the ‘things’ of projective identity, e.g. avatar/character, city or farm, which suggests why MTXs are different from buying more game contents such as DLCs. DLCs provide overall game extensions, whereas MTXs provide modifications for the ‘thing’ representing the players accomplishments and progression. De Certeau’s and Liboriussen’s theory merge, when it comes to craftsmanship being the primary drive for certain player tactics towards MTXs in online games. In this section I have brought up strategies, tactics and craftsmanship in games, these concepts provide a theoretical lens through which I will grasp the relationship between producer [game companies] and player, by analyzing how players respond to MTXs within online games.

4. Method

In this section I introduce the multi-methodological framework. Firstly, I will outline the different types of methods followed by a motivation of each method choice and what I received from using them. Secondly, I present the structure and approach for collecting the material, for each method. This is followed by some brief thoughts on validity and limitations, as well as, ethical considerations.

This study adopted five types of methods when collecting material: (1) Online focus group- interviews, (2) Offline focus group-interviews, (3) Offline individual-interviews, (4) Survey. In addition, the interview questions were sent to a (5) Podcast, which then debated them between the podcast hosts and the listeners/subscriber.

The multi-method approach was chosen based on my perception of studying player tactics to be relatively difficult. In the light of the controversy on MTXs, I thought that, getting players to elicit potential tactics were going to be time consuming and potentially cause irritation to the informants. The reason for it to be time consuming was that, I expected participants to not immediately understand what I meant with experience, avoidance and tactics. As a result, I estimated that I would spend most of the interview asking questions that eventually would lead the informants towards the focus of the theme, or comprehensive accounts, instead of general opinions (Kvale, 2007, p. 13). This search for comprehensive accounts, in turn, I assumed could potentially cause irritation amongst the informants, and therefore, I did not conduct interviews longer than 30-45 minutes. With the prospect that, interviews consisting of 30-45 minutes, would only provide 10-15 minutes of comprehensive accounts, and the fact that informants might not have anything to say that is relevant to the focus, I estimated that I would need a minimum of four focus group-interviews. Additionally, I made the compromise that one of these focus group-interviews, could be from the podcast, in case any of the

12 informants, I had reached out to, did not respond. These focus group-interviews turned into individual, online or offline interviews as a result of, as a researcher you need to go where the knowledge resides. Meaning, these three types of methods emerged by request from the informants.

Method 1, 2, 3 and 5 were qualitative research approaches. Qualitative research was considered a suitable method for the purpose of eliciting player attitudes in relation to MTXs within online games. Since qualitative internet research provides an opportunity of grasping multiple meanings and experiences related to a particular place or context, in turn, the aim of qualitative internet research is to question these meanings and experiences (Baym & Markham, 2009, p. 34). And method 5, was considered equal to that of qualitative interviews with an unstructured approach, since the podcast hosts were regular debaters of the online game Destiny, I presumed that their answers would be extensive.

Method 4 was a quantitative survey, with open-ended questions which permitted participants to elaborate on their thoughts, but also risked minimum answers. The motivation for conducting a survey as an auxiliary method (Kvale, 2007, p. 48), was to gain an overview of different attitudes towards MTXs. The survey results later turned out to be very helpful in structuring the analysis of the qualitative material, for the sake of clarity.

Focus group-interviews benefit from the social implications, where multiple informants share their viewpoints on a specific theme. One informant’s viewpoints might provoke new viewpoints in another informant. Information, in turn, becomes available through debate, as informants have to elaborate, specify or revise their initial statement(s) (Pickering, 2008, p. 71). Also, this approach avoids the deadlock of the interviewers’ questions being the only drive for discussion. This turned out to be very rewarding in the case of the offline focus group-interview, as is facilitated an unstructured interview approach where the informants would elicit valuable information through debate. This information I could not have thought of on my own when formulating the interview questions. However, focus group-interview was less beneficial in the case of online focus group- interviews, where I had to adopt a more semi-structured approach to the informants, and multiple probe questions were required to extract data at all. This can be due to the context of communication through Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), which arguably removes certain elements of the social context that otherwise was the strength of focus group-interview.

The individual interview was adopted out of necessity, in the moment of collecting informants, I realized that I had not been able to reach any female informants. This made me forfeit my principle of chain-sampling, and contact an acquaintance directly. So, this method facilitated information not to be completely gender bias. The case of the material collected from the podcast, was initially a matter of assuring material. With the timeframe set for this work, and informants being considerably slow in getting back to the requests, I had to improvise. And the material from the podcast was adopted as additional material compatible with the focus group-interviews as the hosts engage in debate weekly when creating their podcast episodes, therefore, I felt assured they would be able to discuss the questions extensively and “draw out the finer similarities and differences underlying the generalized consensus” (Pickering,

2008, 74). Placing the podcast as either written or oral interview categorization is not entirely possible. On the one hand, the interviewer/moderator is not present when the interview is being conducted, and it is therefore not possible to come up with probes or prompts to further certain comprehensive accounts that is deemed valuable to the study. On the other hand, the interview is still conducted orally and debate occurs between the three hosts.

In the study of player attitudes towards MTXs, I generated general knowledge of the world of players through focusing on the informants meaning-making of MTXs and by interacting with the research informants and their “life-worlds” through focus group-interviews (Pickering, 2008, p. 70). Adopting de Certeau’s concept of tactics and strategies, and in turn using the concepts of consumers and producers, it is important to stress that “participants are seen as active meaning makers rather than passive information providers, and interviews offer a unique opportunity to study these processes of meaning production directly.” (ibidem). With participants as active meaning makers as the point of departure, I introduce the research paradigm. Interpretivism emphasizes the social reality of participants and informants, and the meaning they produce and reproduce out of necessity in everyday practice. The interpretivist in turn construct models of typical meaning making that have been discovered in the research process (Blaikie, 2009, p. 99). This, also goes in line with the ontological assumption of idealist: that social reality is made up and shared between social actors (ibid, p. 93). As well as, the epistemological assumption of constructionism: that this production of meaning making by social actors, are also the knowledge the social scientist discovers and reinterprets into technical language (ibid, p. 95). 4.1 The Structure and Collection of Material

In this subsection, I present the generic information about the informants and participants and how I went about in collecting the material for the respective method. All the material was collected in the time between April the 11th and 28th, 2018. And the total amount of interview informants was eight, fifteen survey participants and three podcast hosts. The total gender representation was 26 being male and one female.

4.1.1 Focus-group Interviews & Individual Interview

The interviews were conducted on eight informants, all being players of various online games. The interviews consisted of three focus group interviews and one individual interview. The interviews consisted of total 6 Swedish informants and 2 Danish informants. I refer to appendix 34 for details. One of the focus group interviews and the individual interview were conducted offline, where the remaining two focus group interviews were conducted online using the recording software Amolto Call Recorder. Of the two offline interviews, one was conducted in Southern Sweden, at the home of one of the informants, while the other was conducted in Malmö public space. The informants were reached by chain sampling which means, one informant was reached out and asked to contact other informants s/he saw fit for the group interview. This facilitated a dynamic and active group interview since the informants were not strangers to each other.

The informants were not selected based on their knowledge around microtransactionsMTXs or online games. The criteria for the informants to qualify for the interviews, both online and offline, where their capability to understand the concept: microtransaction. This was understood to be adequately suggesting that the informant had been in some form of contact with MTXs in online games. In one case, two informants decided to leave an interview because they realized that they had not experienced MTXs. This exemplifies the approach that was adopted, that informants were not preselected based on the certainty of their knowledge of the phenomenon at hand.

The interviews were unstructured or semi-structured with open-ended questions. The aim was to obtain accounts of player attitudes in relation to MTXs when playing online games. The informants were first asked if they knew what MTXs were. Most informants related it to lootboxes or RRMs, which gave me a chance to elaborate on other forms of MTXs (see fig. 1). Secondly, the informants were asked about platforms (PC, Console12, or Smartphone) and games they have played/play on. These initial questions were posed, to be able to, analyze and compare the player accounts depending on the platform or game that the player was familiar with.

The first focus group-interview became a pilot study. After the interview, I reevaluated the unstructured and semi-structured approach and questions, for then to rework them to match the new insight I had acquired. To elicit the player attitudes towards MTXs within online games, I asked the informants what they thought of MTXs within online games. This was followed by an acknowledgment that it was all valid viewpoints, but that I was trying to get a sense of the user experience, literally, the experience the player had whenever s/he encountered MTXs directly, or encountered elements related to MTXs. After the informants attempt to elaborate on more specific experiences, I asked the informants about their personal usage of MTXs, followed by requesting them to describe their motivation for buying or not buying MTXs. After that account, I asked the informants about their initial reaction to MTXs, for example in the case of opening a lootbox or being exposed to various types of MTX advertisement. This question was then followed by the more theory related question “have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent microtransaction offers?” and lastly, I asked if the informants had been watching any videos, read/written on any forums or created any content around MTXs. Keep in mind that the interviews were either unstructured or semi-structured: at any chance given I let the informants talk freely about the subject, as the goal was to gain as much information as possible. Therefore, the only principle I adopted was to assure that they talked about their experience instead of other things such as motivating the flaws in MTXs by giving examples of other players, such as the 19-year-old who spend $ 10,000 on MTXs in Battlefront (Gach, 2017). For more detailed information on how the interviews were conducted, I refer to appendix 4. 4.1.2 Survey

The survey was conducted on 15 participants, all being players of various online games. The age of the survey participants was between twenty-one and thirty-nine, and the nationality composition was five Danish and seven Swedish, one Dutch and one Italian.13

12 Xbox, Nintendo and PlayStation (PS) 13 One participant omitted from answering the nationality question.

The participants were reached the same way as the interviews, by chain sampling, I sentd out themy survey to individuals I had been in contact with previously, in relation to online games, and asked them to answer themy survey and sendd it to individuals within his/her network. Additionally, the podcast host posted the survey on their Facebook page and encouraged their listeners to take part. To clarify, I did not send the survey to themy interview informants as I considered that to be a form material duplication. In conducting the survey, I adopted similar questions to that of the interviews but sought out the possibility of categorizing the participants within player segmentations, by asking the participants which category they associated themselves with the most (see appendix 5 for details on player segmentation). Then I asked for participants purchase habits of MTX, followed by asking them which of the six MTX characteristics (illustrated in fig. 1) they mostly encountered. Then I asked the participants in what context they often encounter MTXs, followed by requesting them to describe their initial reaction to these encounters. And lastly, I asked the participants if they adopted any methods to avoid/prevent MTXs during gameplay, followed by a question on them to explain why they think MTXs have or have not changed their gaming experience. The survey consisted of 19 questions, and the answers varied between thorough and long responses to very short or yes/no answers. This could be due to the open-ended questions, which is not ideal for a survey. For more details on the survey questions and structure, I refer to appendix 5. 4.1.3 Podcast

The podcast interview was conducted on three hosts of the podcast: De Danske Guardians (the Danish guardians), which features weekly episodes on the online game Destiny 2. The hosts regularly play the online game Destiny 2, on the console. And being the hosts of weekly podcasts, they debate all aspects of this online game, e.g. lootboxes and MTXs. The three hosts are all from Denmark. The questions were sent to them on April 11th, 2018, and they answered them in their episode on April 12th, 2018. The episode lasted two hours, while the hosts discussed my questions 40 minutes of that time. The podcast material was acquired by sending the hosts a number of questions related to my thesis aim. Since they were questions for discussion in a public podcast, I thought it necessary to adapt them for clarity and make them easier to answer. The first question was related to immediate reactions and feelings when a player experiences their gameplay directly or indirectly interrupted by MTX offers, as well as feelings towards content being framed around MTXs. The second question was on potential conscious or unconscious adaption to the commercial circumstances of MTXs. Followed by example questions specifically related to Destiny 2.14 Lastly, I asked if they experience any types of community fragmentation due to MTXs, followed by example questions such as “is it suddenly bad taste to have MTX equipment on?” For details on questions posed to the hosts of the podcast, I refer to appendix 3. The interviews and the podcast material were transcribed and analyzed using Certeau’s concepts of strategies and tactics. These concepts were then adopted in a thematic coding process, that was split

14 Is it 100% acceptance? Or do you avoid Tess [MTX vendor in Destiny 2] and thereby the Tower [social space in Destiny 2]? Do you ignore incentives such as 3x weekly experience rate [progression bar that awards a lootbox per completion]?

16 up in three steps. In the first step, each interview was treated as a single case where statements and narratives were connected to the concepts. In the second step, each interview was analyzed for “emerging codes”, to see the interview independently from Certeau’s concepts, to potentially make visible material that could be suggested as alternative or complimenting strategies and tactics. In the third step, the interviews were compared with the remaining material in order to see similarities or differences. The survey material was transcribed and analyzed in the same manner, although the thematic coding process was done by color coding accounts and categorizing them into themes, which resulted in the six categories of player attitudes. 4.2 Validity & Limitations

In terms of validity, I have come across two potential issues in conducting the interviews, and one in relation to conducting the survey. Firstly, there is the risk of informants not feeling like they know enough about microtransactions to be able to contribute. It can be challenging to pose the right questions, in the right way, for not to make the informant feel insufficient in his/her contribution. This is the challenge of posing yourself as an equal or less to the interviewee and not a levitated entity. This also stands in relation to the other potential issue, that the participation in the debate might affect the opinions of the informants, and that I unconsciously favorized prompts and probes for specific individuals, and in turn failing to bring forth informants that were not as active as others. In relation to the survey, there is potential for a breach of validity as the chain-sampling approach started at acquaintances that resides within my social sphere of online games. While I personally had not been in contact with these acquaintances for the past eight years, there is still the risk of overrepresenting one gamer segmentation over another.

In terms of limitations, this study cannot assure equal representation of online players attitudes towards MTXs. As Deuze et al. (2007, p. 348) have established, there exists multiple types of players, or gamers. For further studies, it would be beneficial to make more participation criteria. Another matter of limitations, is looking in retro perspective at the interview questions. It was only after collecting the material and analyzing it, that I discovered the link with Liboriussen’s concept of craftsmanship in games, which I think could have brought forth more insight on players’ attitudes and reactions towards MTXs, had I formulated a question(s) around this theory. 4.3 Ethics

In conducting the interviews, all informants were informed about the study and its aim prior to commencing. This was followed by more details on the nature around the writing of the thesis, such as information about defense of the thesis and that the thesis will be available publicly at a later point. This was to give the informants an idea about how many people that will potentially be reading the study, and to underline that it will be available online in the nearest future. Then I explained in detail how I approached the analysis, as in, how the theories influenced the analysis of the material. This was to provide the informants with an idea about how their accounts would potentially be interpreted, as well as, which accounts that would be included and which that would be excluded. This all worked to the point of making the informants know that they were being studied, how they were being studied and, in turn, provide inter-subjective control to the informants (Kvale, 2007, p. 30).

Then I explained the principles of confidentiality, that data in the material that would potentially identify the subject, would be excluded from transcripts and later analysis (Ibidem). Thereafter, I asked the informants if they still wished to participate, and if they wanted anonymity, I also assured that the material would not be used for anything else but this study, and that the material would be destroyed after end thesis. Some of the players’ profession as game developers made it very sensitive for them to participate unless anonymity was assured. This sensitivity caused my decision of complete anonymity amongst the focus group-interview informants, as arguably anonymity lose its weight if only one informant is presented as anonymous, then it is already possible to isolate the anonymous informants accounts. The hosts of the podcasts were informed about the study and its aim prior to sending the questions, and that they could, at any time, withdraw or omit any questions. In terms of confidentiality, the hosts of the podcast agreed to their environment [the podcast] being public and that they would be referred to by name (Baym & Markham, 2009, p. 73). 5. Analysis

In this section, I will present the main results and analysis from the thesis. Firstly, I introduce six categories I have established, based on the survey material. The categories represent the players perspectives and attitudes towards MTXs and lootboxes. Secondly, I strengthen these categorizations by drawing on the data from the qualitative focus-group interviews and individual interviews, alongside the data from the podcast. Simultaneously, I draw on de Certeau’s concepts of tactics and strategies, to elicit their unique appearance depending on the category of attitudes I refer to. However, the sampling is non-representational, as it only serves as a help in identifying distinct types of tactics. Also, an informant has multiple attitudes, these attitudes can fall into different categories, a category is explicitly reserved for an attitude and is not related to the player exclusively. In other words, a player can present more than one attitude at the same time. 5.1 Establishing Categories

When I analyzed the material, specific attitudes appeared repeatedly in the informants’, as well as participants’ accounts. Some players for example expressed not just contempt but also an agenda directed at specific companies. While other players expressed more than just acceptance or joy, but also thought of MTXs as an enriching factor in their game-play experience. Through thorough examination of the survey material, six categories were generated: (1) Activist, (2) Idealist, (3) Agile, (4) Pragmatist, (5) Enthusiast and (6) Compliant. For more information on how these categories were generated, I refer to appendix 1 & 2. When I refer to one of the six attitudes, I refer to that specific expression or behavior that is describe and it is that expression or behavior that is identified as activist, idealist, agile, pragmatist, enthusiast, or compliant. The Activist is identified as accounts that resonate negative reaction. The Activist accounts reflect general contempt towards the implementation of lootboxes and MTXs. However, what makes these accounts stand out from being purely disapproval, is the action as opposed to inaction. The players have identified an antagonist which in this case is EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft and Activision, as well as estimated their means of confrontation: through boycotting or complete refusal of MTX offers.

The Idealist is identified as accounts of ideals. As in, how things are supposed to be in ideal form. The Idealist accounts suggest ideas to the ideal form of games, or players engaging in game-play. For example, one account suggests that gaming should be about gaming, hence not bothered about MTXs. This also insinuates that MTXs, according to this account, is not an established part of the game itself.

The Agile is accounts that reflect flexibility. As in, acceptance of lootboxes and MTXs, although adopting workarounds or compromises. The Agile accounts accepts the MTXs as an integral part of the game, on the premise that they can avoid them and still play the game, or that the MTX approach comply with certain principles, such as, reasonable pricing, possibility of playing without having to buy MTXs, generating in-game currency to work towards MTX related content and MTXs being purely cosmetics.

The Pragmatist’s reasoning emphasizes practical considerations for lootboxes and MTXs influence on game-play. The Pragmatist accounts resonate little argumentation. The player buys MTXs due to either of these reasons: it provides a sense of joy, advantage, saves time, desire. Or they do not buy MTXs due to it being waste of time, not worthwhile, or they want to know what they are buying, which the RRM effect of lootboxes does not permit.

The Enthusiast is identified as accounts that resonate positive acceptance as well as benefits with the new business models of lootboxes and MTXs. The Enthusiast accounts are positive towards MTXs and lootboxes, and emphasize the individual benefits through joy of crafting your character, as well as benefits for the community through economic contribution to the game company, in turn, to the community.

The Compliant are accounts that reflect negative acceptance, due to little prospect of alternatives. The Compliant accounts reflect contempt towards lootboxes and MTXs but accept the business model anyway. The short responses insinuate reflective exhaustion, or in other words, shortage of alternatives available to the player. The accounts are therefore short statements of hatred, dislike or annoyance.

In this subsection, I have introduced and analyzed the categories of player attitudes towards lootboxes and MTXs, based on the survey results. In the subsequent subchapter, I develop further on these categories, by drawing on the material from the focus-group interviews, individual interviews and podcast material. Additionally, I adopt de Certeau’s concepts of strategies and tactics to elicit how these differ depending on the specific category of attitude. 5.2 Categorization of Player Accounts

The six types of player attitudes towards lootboxes and MTXs are not mutually exclusive as overlaps occur, there are however distinct qualities that separate them from one another. And these distinctions are important to reach depth in the analysis of tactics and strategies. This creates the base for “comparability and the ability to offer analyses that can be coordinated with others” (Baym & Markham, 2009, p. 175). In this subsection I draw on the material from the focus-group interviews, individual interview and podcast, to strengthen the categorization and elicit strategies and tactics. I refer to appendix 3, for an overview of the informants and their subsequent statements that I cite throughout the analysis.

5.2.1 Activist

The Activist category reflects de Certeau’s emphasis on consumers not being passive, but instead active. While this is not unique to this category, it is the one type [the activist] of active consumption that is the most immediately visible. This type of attitudes can be of considerable value to the game and its developers, as Arvidsson and Sandvik suggest (2007, p 15). It is the casual player and his/her social contribution to the game, not to mention user-generated content related to the game and other forms of players participation in this content. To exemplify I draw on an account from informant G: I read a lot about it [MTX], sometimes I also participate in the debate by putting up a post. – it is because I feel that the companies are exploiting me as a consumer. (Informant G) This player participation as a result of an absence of “proper locus” (Certeau, p. 37, 2011), can arguably be severe to the creators of the game, as the new product that emerges through the “bricolage where bits and pieces of media culture are creatively recombined or reflexively redeployed” (Arvidsson & Sandvik, 2007, p. 4), can shake the “… place that can [otherwise] be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats […] can be managed” (Certeau, 2011, p. 35 & 36). In other words, when the user-generated content and the social contribution by casual players, redeploy a new product around the game, the game creators risk losing the place delimited as its own, because they do not hold exclusive power of public relations any longer, and in turn cannot adequately manage the relations with an exteriority. The redeployment of a new product can be user-generated content such as blog posts, YouTube videos or podcasts, or simply forum participation. While this can be negative for the game creators, it can also be positive if the players are satisfied with their locus/product. And this suggests the casual gamer to achieve a status similar to that of the fan-programmers and their mods, maps and “skins”, that helped in prolonging the lifetime of games (Postigo, 2007, p. 308). The diminishing control over the place by the producer, suggests what de Certeau claimed, that the role of adopting strategies and tactics can swap, meaning the users, in this case, the players adopt strategies such as user-generated content and social contribution, to take hold of a proper place. As a result, the producer must adopt measures of deception, ultimately transforming strategies into tactics (Certeau, 2011, p. 37). The first results of this shifting power relationship between producer and consumer are expressed in informant A’s claim:

It has become a selling point, one year in advance developers they announce that their upcoming game will not have microtransactions. And everybody seems to think that will determine if it is a good game. (Informant A) Informant A’s claim suggests that it is not the consumers that are masters of “hunter’s tricks, maneuverable” (Certeau, 2011, p. 40). But instead it is the producer that attempts to use tricks and maneuverable and appeal to the assumed needs of the consumer.

Focus-group 1 have extensive insight as to the community, the games and the development of MTXs, lootboxes as well as DLCs. This exemplifies the activist attitude, as they are taking an active role in understanding and creating an opinion about MTXs and lootboxes, and the revenue strategies related to it. Informant B for example, have very detailed ideas about the strategies of the producers:

it is triple-A games business model from having a main game and then having a DLC package. Now you have 1 game and you add small updates including microtransactions instead of having chunks of content coming out with paywalls. […] I mean if you are a keen gamer, you come across these differences and quickly you notice when games adopt familiar models. So, you see the patterns, and you quickly learn to compare and assess the revenue strategies and determine if you are interested or not. (Informant B) This can be related to de Certeau’s theory that strategies are mappable as opposed to tactics, which elicits another way of looking at the shifting power relationship between producer and consumer. With the bricolage previously mentioned, and new user-created products emerging around the games, it suggests that tactics might actually become mappable to the producers through this practice adopted by the players. This also stands opposed to Hamari & Lehdonvirta’s understanding of digital marketing “…as an activity that creates needs” (Hamari & Lehdonvirta, 2010, p. 17). That is, in the online game industry, companies rarely need to explore the needs of their consumer base, because they themselves [the companies] set the terms for the player’s needs when determining the game mechanics, but this might not always be so. Mappable tactics is also a conclusion that Manovich drew in his study, that with web 2.0 and user-generated content, peoples’ tactics were turned into business strategies by companies (2009, p. 324). However, returning to players capability to quickly identify and assess revenue strategies in online games, informant A gives his account on this assessment in action:

I certainly stopped playing games. I played a free-to-play mobile game, and loved it. They were generous with the rewards you would get for free in the beginning, but as they got more time to develop the game, the trend became every month or every 14 day there would be new release of a hero or item that were super powerful. And this got very expensive. I do not mind playing the game one hour a day, but to keep up with in-game currency I had to play 10 times that to keep up, so I quit. Games with the same model I will not even touch now. So, it definitely has influenced my purchases decisions, that I now avoid games with this approach. (Informant A)

This account goes more in line with de Certeau’s idea of hunter tricks and maneuverability. The player’s ability to identify and assess revenue strategies is examples of mastery, and the avoidance suggests trickery. While this can be considered less active than engaging with user-generated content and taking part in deploying user-generated content around the online game, it remains active in that the player is not compliant or accepting the locus/place offered to him. 5.2.2 Idealist

The Idealist attitude reflects de Certeau’s theory of active consumers, in the sense that the consumers/users actively engage with the product out from an ideal. As if they hold the ability to determine the proper approach for a product. This arguably brings the consumer and producer to a more equal level, as opposed to de Certeau’s conception of the user being the “weak”, and in turn, tactics being “… an art of the weak” (Certeau, 2011, p. 37). In the case of the Idealist, the tactics adopted by the user exemplifies a self-perception as equal and in turn tactics as an art of the equal. Different types of idealized accounts occurred in the material.

Informant A’s attitude expresses an idealization of game companies:

… in WoW when you see someone on the purchasable mounts everyone knows “oh he paid 10 euro for that mount” and nobody cares. In another game, you do not know if he is a super pro player or if he bought himself to that item. (Informant A) informant B’s attitude expresses an idealization of what constitutes gambling in online games: At least the most games I have been playing, particularly Overwatch, even the best rewards are not that rare, so you do not get a super legendary item that only 2 in the world have. If you really want an item, you just have to spend 3 hours to grind the points to get it, so it is not a super hype. (Informant B) The idealized accounts suggest that the player has been socialized, and the player’s agency becomes valuable to the game creator in relation to the reproduction of media capital (Arvidsson & Sandvik, 2007, p. 6). Meaning, player behavior, and feedback becomes valuable to developers, as it is qualified. But informant C insinuates a suggestion that all these ideals for gambling, MTXs, and approaches towards generating economic value from gameplay are all ideals for a particular group of people within the respective game communities: the end-user. As he states in a response to informant B’s account on triple-A business model: It is triple-A games business model from having a main game and then having a DLC package. Now you have 1 game and you add small updates including microtransactions instead of having chunks of content coming out with paywalls. (Informant B) That can be better for the end-user, because if you have it in an optional way, rather than forcing people to buy it. You still have to incentivize people to spend money, but in the right way, then I think it is more sustainable (Informant C) And informant C’s suggestion is strengthened when considering informant B’s idealization of gambling in online games, where he downplays the gambling element in lootboxes because of a missing rarity in potential rewards, as well as the possibility to “just” spend 3 hours of play, to get desired content. He assumes that people have 3 hours to spare, and this suggests the perspective from which he speaks, that of an end-user or player with plenty leisure time. In addition, his reference to this as a grind, suggests repetitive and tiresome work, one of the demotivators in the flow of craftsmanship, identified by Liboriussen (2013, p. 177). To get another perspective, I draw on informant D: Ideally, I would prefer everything to be in the game by default. Not having to spend extra money would be better. (Informant D) Informant D’s ideal attitude, stands in contrast to that of the informants from the first focus group- interview [A, B, C], this can arguably be due to difference in type of player. As informant C have already suggested, that certain MTX approaches are more suitable for the end-users15, Informant D’s attitude suggests that he is not an end-user. And considering that Informant D does not give a very detailed alternative of an ideal, also supports this notion an infrequent player with scarce insight into the development of MTXs. This would be a case of a user not mastering his/her surroundings, and therefore, are not able to calculate the adequate tactic.

15 End-user, in this context, refers to the distinction between infrequent players and heavy gamers. The end-user is the player that maintains commitment to the game.

So, while the tactics of the end-user might be to avoid MTX purchases and adopt the time-consuming practices for working towards the aspired content, the casual player cannot do this and wish for a game that permits equal gaming experience without having to purchase MTXs. And it is arguably worrisome to think, as Arvidsson and Sandvik suggests, that it is only the socialized gamers contribution and feedback that can be qualified as valuable. It can be argued that the reason for why most idealized accounts seem to be favorizing MTX approaches that benefit end-users, is because the socialization of the end-user enables him/her to have an idealized opinion. Whereas the less frequent player might not feel informed, or sufficiently socialized into the game, to have any ideal attitudes as to how it could be better. 5.2.3 Agile

The category of the Agile reflects de Certeau’s conception of tactics in the nature of mastering trickery and maneuverability. Compared to the Activist, the Agile do not deploy a new product and shake the proper place of the producer. Instead, the Agile either accept the proper place/product under certain conditions. Or adopt alternative ways of utilizing the product at disposal. Informant B provides a distinction as to when it is tolerated for games to adopt extensive monetization approaches through MTXs. In the case of premium games, it is quite different and the tolerance is limited. If it is a free-to-play game you will have a higher tolerance for having things that require money. You sort of expect to have to pay. But if it is a full price game for 60 euros and then they have microtransactions being the main thing that drags the game, that’s very frustrating… (Informant B) So, in terms of tactics, there is an agile selection of monetization approaches that are being accepted as reasonable by the user. MTXs is not a generic phenomenon that the players have one generic attitude towards, instead, the player makes sense of MTXs depending on the platform and the game. This arguably adds to the complexity of identifying and mapping the tactics of the users, by the producers, which goes in line with de Certeau’s conception of tactics being a kind of hidden production that is “scattered over areas defined and occupied by systems of “production”” (Ibid, p. xii). The hidden production, in this case, an estimation, and assessment of whether the user can accept the specifics of the varying systems of production. Players also possess detailed attitudes towards MTXs in the sense that the attitude is depending on the elements of the MTXs, such as the RRM in lootboxes. Informant A gives an agile account of his principles for when he would be willing to accept the RRM within lootboxes: …most of these games that I tolerate the random element within. Although, I prefer set price and to know what you buy like in League of Legends. But those that have the random element in it, also have this crafting element, you can disenchant/destroy an item and receive materials or in-game currency that gets you a little closer to the cosmetic item that you actually wanted. So even if I lose, I will still get 5 euro of materials. (Informant A) This agile principle for accepting RRM is an element of craftsmanship that can be perceived as what Liboriussen termed the necessity for the anticipation of what is to come and being a step ahead of the materials at disposal. This provides meaning to the worker, which in turn is craftsmanship (Liboriussen, 2013 p. 277). While some attitudes towards the RRM in lootboxes expresses contempt

23 or excitement, this case expresses the need of a worker to see his/her project progressing towards a specific end, this requires patience for detail and long-term commitment, that can be hard to comprehend for outsiders. Liboriussen calls this “temporary suspension of goal-directedness” (Ibid, p. 281). It is not the immediate goal or chance of winning that is important, it is the long-term and secure progress that makes sense to the player. And making minimum reward a principle is a tactic that works towards the player’s alternative locus/place or project in this case. This is also what Liboriussen refers to as “the age-old thrill of lottery” (Ibid, p. 274), the player always feel the temptation of chance, but this is not the special kind of motivation and desire equal to that of craftsmanship. The intention with RRM and lootboxes, suggests a producer strategy of incentivizing the player towards a leap in progression, at a chance, but the example of informant A’s account, illustrates an alternative utilization of this strategy. Informant F gives his account on an alternative utilization of the RRM in MTXs, which indirectly suggests a principle for agile attitude towards this monetization approach: … you can also just buy the items if that’s what you wish, but the problem is the random aspect. But if you make sure to accomplish these weekly milestones, then there is an overall bigger chance that you will get what you want. (Informant F) While this account is similar to that of the informants of the first focus-group, in terms of end-user with plenty leisure time to engage in time-consuming game-play, it still suggests a tactic of utilization. The tactic with the end purpose is to achieve aspired content, and that is done most effectively by not only purchasing the lootboxes but also engaging in the time-consuming practices that permit the player to work towards “free” MTX related content. This account assumes a producer strategy of making the user purchase MTXs, but instead, the user lower its purchases and make sure to do the activities that awards MTX related content in addition. It could be argued that it is not a workaround, as the user still purchase MTXs, but it is deemed a workaround because it works for the user, to reach his/her end goal, and for it to work, it requires a principle of games permitting the player to work towards MTX related content through game-play. This can be considered a tactic or clever trick ‘on the wing’, as it utilizes circumstances within place and time (Certeau, 2011, p. 40). 5.2.4 Pragmatist

Opposed to the respondents in the survey, the informants in the interviews whose accounts could be categorized as the pragmatist, are not short nor hold little argumentation. However, they go in line with the ones from the survey in terms of attitude, but they also go in-depth with pragmatic argumentation on the effects behind MTXs and lootboxes on game-play. What characterizes this form of argumentation is that it stands opposed to the idealist, as it emphasizes little opinion as to how a game should or should not approach MTXs. Informant B gives an account that emphasizes reasonable prices in relation to MTXs: I played a lot of clash of clans with relatives. The first couple of days you could play and save yourself a few hours by spending money. But a week into the game, the cooldowns are days and then to finish one building would cost you several hundred crowns. […] It quickly becomes unfeasible to spend money. (Informant B) In terms of tactics, the case caused the player to avoid games with MTX approaches such as these. So, there is no trickery or maneuverability, in this case, just pure avoidance which is also a tactic in

24 itself. Informant B stressed that he thought the producers to be targeting new-comers specifically with this approach, which informant C replied to: I’m sure they have the statistics and make it financial in their favor. I guess it is fair that the companies try to make money off their products, because it is a free to play game. (Informant C) And this is the trend that pragmatic accounts share, they rationalize the reasons behind MTX and RRM as a monetization approach. As informant B continues: I think that is also kind of why, triple-A games are transitioning into these microtransactions models. Because people are still expecting to pay the same 50-60 euro, but they also expect more and more content […] either they make a shorter game or adopt new business model. And that is why you have battlefront, either you have the expensive DLC packs that segments the player base and splits up the community where 10% has one DLC and 20% another and they cannot play together. Alternatively, they were trying to do something more sustainable to keep everyone in the same pool, but failed to do so, because the microtransactions had a huge impact on the competitive gameplay. Which in turn caused fragmentations. (Informant B) This trend of identifying the revenue approaches to MTXs, or strategies, can be perceived as either a result of the strategies visibility for taking a proper place, or a result of the user being “…master [of] “clever tricks of the “weak” within the order established by the “strong,”…” (Certeau, 2011, p. 40). As informant B illustrated with the case of Clash of Clans, there is potentially a specific group of players that are being targeted by the game creators. And since tactic is “a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (Ibid, p. 37), the user needs to master awareness and knowledge about his/her surroundings, in this case, online games’ approach to MTX, for the tactic to be calculated. The same attitude is expressed by informant H: Never felt like buying because the game is already very expensive. […] Mass Effect costs 700, so that makes me not want to spend any more. (Informant H) Instead of illustrating a situation where she was experiencing a MTX approach she disliked, she illustrated the principle of a tactic she has adopted, to remain content with the online games she plays. This goes in line with the Idealist, that she has a principle, but the motivation is not so much because she thinks it is wrong to have pay-to-win mechanisms in MTX, as it is because she simply does not want to pay more for a game. 5.2.5 Enthusiast

The enthusiast arguably sees the community aspect of MTXs and lootboxes as an extremely important chance to express economic commitment, where before you could state your commitment through fan-programming or content creation, like YouTube videos or articles related to the game the player is committed to. For those who do not have the abilities to program, code or edit videos or write extensively about topics on blogs etc. - MTXs and lootboxes allows them to commit to the game and get acknowledged for it by the community. As informant C puts it:

Yeah, I think that is because people want to be part of a community, more than they did before. People today play less games and more of the same game, and when they do that they want to be a part of that community, in turn wanting more of the game. (Informant C)

Whether this account is accurate, is hard to know for sure, as it is more of an identification of other players tactics, rather than the informant’s own. However, if it is the case, that MTX can possess social value within communities, it is an intriguing utilization. Although, premium games have had special editions upon launch for a long time prior to the introduction of MTXs, where users could buy extra content of various forms at an increased price. So, an economic commitment has already been a part of online games for a long time.

The podcast host Morten gives his account of why MTX within Destiny as a locus, is adopting a sufficient strategy: …after the February update, has the “tingling” to you about buying microtransactions disappeared completely. Tess is for me another normal vendor that I can go to when I have accumulated in-game currency, and she is the vendor I am the most anticipated to interact with. (Morten) This can be perceived as an example of game developers adopting deception, or tactics, to meet the strategies of a game community. As Destiny 2 has received a lot of criticism especially for prioritizing the MTX element. Determining if it is the criticism by the game community, alongside related user- generated content, or the game company reevaluating their approach to MTXs, that is the tactic, cannot be known for sure. But the clear distinction of a dominated and dominator that de Certeau refers to, is hard to see in this case. Neither can it be a symbiosis similar to the relationship between fan-programmers and game developers, which Postigo suggested, as it is not a relationship between two entities with the same goal. Instead, it suggests a constantly changing relationship, where power friction certainly occurs but the roles are fluid and ever-changing. 5.2.6 Compliant

The informants accounts identified with the compliant, were in turn also deviating from those of the participants in the survey. The survey the responses were brief, and the participants had scarce reflection over the tendencies surrounding them. In other words, they did not seem to ask the question why or how, in relation to MTXs and lootboxes, but instead comply with the reality at hand. The informants in the focus group-interviews on the other hand suggested pessimism towards these approaches for generating revenue in online games, but still complying with MTXs as an integral element of the online game.

Informant G provides another account on lottery making little sense to the player as a craftsman:

You get lured, you have been grinding for so long and end up missing 1% in-game currency for that one item you want, then it is very easy to just spend 50kr and then you feel like an idiot afterwards. (Informant G)

Although this example does not just exemplify the absence of fulfillment in the lottery, it also works as an example of Hamari & Lehdonvirta’s persuasive technology which is one of the elements in RRMs that makes it distinct from other MTXs16 (Hamari & Lehdonvirta, 2010, p. 22). In terms of tactics, the account suggests that the informant is well aware of the element of trickery and ruse,

16 The other types of MTXs usually feature what Hamari & Lehdonvirta refers to as inconvenient gameplay elements

26 which gives the idea that he accepts it as the circumstance for game-play. So, this is referred to as a tactic of acceptance.

Informant D suggest the same perception, he is compliant but ridicules the trend all in all: It is impossible to avoid because it is in your face when you log in. But since it does not affect the game play it does not bother me. When I log in, I just see the price on these virtual items and think it is ridiculous. (Informant D) This can also be seen as a tactic to be able to deal with a surrounding attempting to incentivize him towards a certain behavior. The realization of not possessing the minimum of power to influence the situation can be very frustrating, so an alternative is to ridicule the confrontation. This can be connected to the reaction players had in relation to the condemnation of buying virtual currency from “farmers” (Scholz, 2013, p. 188 & 189).

To summarize, in this section I identified distinctive features related to each category I proposed. In analyzing the categories and the extracts from the informants, I have argued for similarities, or shared traits, of the fan-programmers and the casual player: which is the prolonging effect, through mods, maps and skins and the user-generated content and participation respectively. Contrary to fan- programmers however, the relationship between the casual player and the producer is not identified as a symbiosis but instead as a power relationship where the presumed producer is starting to adopt tactics, and vice versa. In addition, Postigo’s understanding of fan-programmers and de Certeau’s conception of tactics and strategies, combined helps to illuminate the possibility that the players, when engaging in community debates surrounding MTXs, make his/her tactics mappable to the producer. In relation to producers adopting tactics, there are accounts that reflect this, as they express enthusiasm towards their locus/place, because they do not feel incentivized towards purchasing MTXs. This ever-changing relationship I argue to be exemplifying the player community and the game companies exchanging the roles of adopting strategies or tactics. In relation to the enthusiastic attitudes towards MTXs I also identified accounts who on the contrary reflected acceptance, but a compliant acceptance of the existence of persuasive technology. This I consider to be a compliant tactic, as the players expressed little will of changing their surroundings. Players who shared similar attitudes of indifference would also adopt the tactics of ridiculing, similar to that of player reactions towards virtual migrants, or “farmers”. This I argue is a tactic of last resort, as the player sees little means to change the circumstances, for the sake of meaning-making, he/she adopts any explanation.

I have also identified contradicting attitudes towards MTXs, between socialized players and infrequent players, where the accounts of the socialized players showed extensive and thought through arguments for how online game companies should approach MTXs. This was suggested to be due to socialized players having a higher level of immersion, and therefore an easier time estimating alternative MTX approaches, compared to the infrequent player that might not possess the same ability to think of ideal alternatives to MTX approaches. This I argued to be an example of the tactic of mastering the domain of the adversary. Some attitudes that expressed same feature of mastering one’s surroundings, were more pragmatic, in the sense that this tactic was expressed by reasoning the MTX development, as opposed to that of the socialized players that would adopt the tactic of assessing a better ideal to MTX approach.

Lastly, I discovered attitudes related to Liboriussen’s concept of Craftsmanship within games. These accounts emphasize the need for minimum reward from RRMs, and this is arguably the element of being able to see the project in progress. While most tactics that were raised, were identified with one of the six categories, what can be said in general is that they share the principle of craftsmanship. Those who were positive towards MTXs generally saw it as an option of improving their gameplay experience because they would see their project in progress. Those who were negative towards MTXs would perceive MTXs to be removing exactly this aspect of craftsmanship, although if MTXs permitted a minimum reward, they could accept its presence [MTXs]. And accounts on RRM in MTXs would express initial excitement about the thrill of lottery, but the thrill would quickly evaporate, as it does not permit the player the joy of anticipation.

6. Discussion & Conclusion

The categorization of player attitudes towards MTXs underlines the multiple and complex reactions that exist towards the new monetization models that are being adopted in online games. This provides insight as to players value creation when playing online games. The attitudes insinuate a general conflict of contradicting attitudes, where some players experience it to be an addition to their value- creation in gameplay, others see it as limiting the chance of competing as a craftsman. So, how do these new economic models create value? The problem of the craftsman is that it is socially interrelated, as competition is the measure of oneself compared to the other(s). So, to achieve the joy of craftsmanship it is not enough if you, alone, avoid the new economic models, everyone else needs to do the same to prevent the competition from being rigged. However, MTXs cannot be discarded completely as a craftsman’s tool, as it is arguably still the thorough estimation and assessment of micro-goals that works towards the bigger picture.

When a player purchases MTXs, s/he has to estimate from a broad range of options, what will benefit the most in accomplishing the project at hand, and it is these measured estimations and potential creative choices that make the purchasing of MTXs just as much a part of craftsmanship. For example, a player can be creative about his/her composition of skins or cosmetics for his/her avatar, just as much as when a player is creative about creating the appearance of the avatar/character the first time they play the game. Why should the economic aspect rend it non-creative? This suggests that the controversy might have more to do with real-world principles invading the online world. The informants stated repeatedly the frustration over creativity and accomplishments not reflecting ability or skill, but instead the size of one’s wallet, this perception arguably is not only in relation to individuals accumulated capital, but might as well refer to other social constructions of inequality: race, gender, class, ethnicity etc. not to mention cognitive, developmental, intellectual, and physical disabilities. So, online games can be argued to be a place of near equality, in John Rawls thought, which means, a place free of social constructions of inequality. With MTXs the inequality of the real world and its social constructions arguably invade the space, where leisure time could be spend avoiding exactly this, and the attitudes, as well as, tactics offers insight as to how the players deal with or avoid this invasion. However, wherever there are social interactions there will necessarily also be social constructions. So, this near equality that the players experience, is only equality or

28 escape from the unequal social constructions of the real world. Within the social world of online games, unequal constructions are also made.

In relation to the research field and the gap, identified in previous research, of scholars having primarily focused on studying players or game design. This study provides information and insight, that with the additional contribution, eventually can close the gap between the research of players and game design, by studying how they react to one another. The study compliments the discussion of symbiosis between game designers and their players, raised by Postigo (2007) and Arvidsson & Sandvik (2007). I argue that with the introduction of MTXs as a new model for revenue generation, the symbiosis encapsulates a much broader audience. - Previously online games could survive by targeting a niche audience that would also provide qualified feedback, whereas, now online game companies need to consider feedback to be qualified all-around to be able to balance MTXs in a way everyone, not just fan-programmers or the socialized, can accept.

This encapsulation of a broader audience into the symbiosis between player and game company, reflect the broader power relationship between these two entities. As de Certeau emphasizes: power is not fixed and neither are the roles as superior or subordinate, dominant or dominated. Instead it is everchanging depending on the strategies and tactics adopted by producer or user (2011, p. 37). MTXs is a strategy adopted with a specific goal of generating revenue from game-play, and this action suggests the position of a superior. However, the strategy is arguably an act of desperation, due to economic uncertainty, that undermines the power of the producer. Therefore, this strategy has shifted the power relationship, to a degree where it cannot without hesitation, be stated that the game companies are in fact the producers deploying strategies upon the users. Instead, players are now engaging in not just tactic production, but also production of user-generated content and debate participation, which game companies most likely utilize to estimate how to adopt MTXs in the best suitable way for the broader audience. This utilization can be considered a tactic adopted by the presumed producer: the online game companies.

This change in power balance, and to some degree, the roles as producer or user, suggests a change in commercialization and commodification within the online game industry. As already explained in the background, MTXs is an extension of the transitioning from end-production to episodic content creation. Episodic content creation is a cultural development of repeated purchases and instant gratification, but the extension lies in the limited need for advertisement or persuasion required from the company. This commercialization is arguably persuasive in itself, as the user feels empowered by the ability to determine exactly what and which amount of content s/he wish to buy to improve the game-play experience. The downside to this commercial extension is the estimation of the essential product: is it the MTXs or the game providing meaning to these MTXs that is the primary source of revenue? Freemium games exemplify a model that emphasizes the importance of MTXs, whereas premium games exemplify the importance of the game and its meaning making for MTX purchases. The importance of MTXs for revenue generation also have implications on commodification, where the conventional commodification was to convince and persuade the user of his/her need of the end- product, through advertisement. But MTXs suggests a perpetual cycle of commodification (Lizardi, 2012, p. 41), where persuasion takes the form of gameplay limitations or reducing the amount of the

29 original content available to the player initially. It is not possible to prove whether companies in fact reduce the quality of their initial product to incentivize the perpetual cycle of commodification in the players at a later stage, but if the primary source of revenue is MTXs, it is unlikely that MTXs development and design is not running in parallel with the creation of the game itself. This is what is the commodification that has caused the general controversy on MTXs, players are increasingly suspicious of game companies selling them an incomplete product. This suspicious relationship suggests the symbiosis between game companies and players, to be a primarily economic relationship rather than the social relationship that arguably existed when the symbiosis consisted of fan- programmers, socialized players and game designers. 6.1 Final Remark

In this study, I have explored the field of online games, more precisely the means of companies generating economic revenue on gameplay. The changing economic landscape of online games, which has been marked by a period of overproduction of games to meet player’s needs, needs which later turned for the opposite: namely playing fewer games and more of the same. The game companies have, as a result, introduced microtransactions as a new way of generating revenue. The lootbox, which is a microtransaction that features Random Reward Mechanics, has been especially notorious in the gaming communities, which, in turn, has made players in these communities produce user- generated content, such as Microtransactions.zone, as a reaction.

While this can be perceived as a collaborative tactic to deal with/counter the producers’ monetization strategies, the aim has been to reach the individual level of adopting means to counter these emerging tendencies.

To do this I raised three questions:

- What are the players’ attitudes towards lootboxes and microtransactions in online games? - How do players make sense of these new models of value extraction? - What kind of reactions do these models provoke on the part of the players? Which I answered with the help of de Certeau’s concepts of strategies and tactics. In answering the first question, I first adopted the data from the survey to get an overview of distinct types of attitudes. This, in turn, helped me in proposing six categories, this categorization is a general answer to the first question of player attitudes.

In answering the second question, I adopted the proposed categories and applied them to the qualitative material from focus group-interviews and podcast. With the help of de Certeau’s concept of strategies, I elicited how players make sense of these emerging approaches to revenue generation. In addition, I discovered that the category type: Pragmatists, were the most frequent in this type of meaning-making. In answering the third question, I further adopted de Certeau’s concept of tactics to elicit player reactions towards these monetization approaches. Apart from the categories representing attitudes, they also represent different types of tactics in dealing with microtransactions. The Activist, as the

30 name states, adopt active tactics in the sense of community participation and user-generated content. The Idealist idealizes the approach to microtransactions, in turn, evening his/her understanding of the power relationship between user and producer, which is considered a tactic. The Agile accepts the conditions of microtransactions invasive element, on the premise that the microtransactions award a minimum of progression, this is related to craftsmanship. The Pragmatist attempt to master his/her surroundings or map out the producer strategies, to be able to estimate tactics with precision. The Enthusiast perceive microtransactions as a tactic for expressing social commitment to the game community. The Compliant complied with the conditions of microtransactions and it as a persuasive technology or adopt tactics of ridiculing microtransactions, as a last resort. Mapping out attitudes towards microtransactions were crucial for establishing that the topic at hand is more complex than simply dichotomizing for or against attitudes. It also provided a structural approach in dealing with and discovering different types of strategies and tactics, which is arguably needed in the case of de Certeau’s theoretical framework, where abstract concepts can be difficult to apply in a logical way. Although every choice has its limitations, and in this case, the categorization can be perceived as blindfolding the analyst from making other types of discoveries. This was a sacrifice I was willing to make for the sake of clarity in a complex topic of research. Therefore, the proposed categorization of player attitudes cannot be generalized in any way, since it only works as a tool for structuring the analysis of tactics and strategies. However, while the categorization could be deemed a weakness, it also provides strength in its complementary nature to the theory. It can be boldly stated that it strengthened de Certeau’s theory all in all, by underlining that users adopt multiple tactics and apply them differently depending on time, space, and context.

In the contemporary world of the western hemisphere, a majority of the population is experiencing continuously increasing leisure time. The debate on reduced 38-hour work week is a testimony to this, as well as robotic science impacting regular citizens in their life and every day, by handling everyday-practices such as vacuum cleaning. It can be argued that games, and especially online games for its social aspect, will be much more regular practice for leisure time exhaustion. This makes game design and players interact with games so much more important to understand. Especially due to the scarce governmental legislation/regulation on games as opposed to other forms of corporate services and goods. With this increasing trend, it also becomes valid to start talking about consumption in any form of video games, as not just consumption but consumption-within-consumption, for the sake of precision. The academic field of player and game studies, would arguably benefit from more conceptual precision. Establishing concepts that adequately describe RRMs as well as the “recursive” phenomenon of consumption-within-consumption, are the conceptual shortcomings permeating this study. Which is the reasons for why I perceive that to be of important, for future studies.

Another topic for future studies, is the shortcoming of only empirically providing insight to player attitudes of players with time and privilege to engage in online games as leisure players. I argue that the research design and its research paradigm and theoretical framework can be adopted in a study on the player workers, to elicit the other side of the coin in the audience study. I consider this to be of importance, due to the implications that MTXs must necessarily also have had on this type of players. In the background I argued that MTXs is in fact a marketing adaptation of the MMO and

MMORPG phenomenon of player workers. Now that players do not have to turn to player workers to purchase content instead of engaging in time-consuming game-play, but instead can buy it from the game company directly, the demand for player workers must necessarily have gone down. Or, have the player workers, similarly to the leisure players, adopted new tactics in dealing with the new business models/strategies?

Bibliography Agarwal, P. (2017, December 20). The Economics of Microtransactions in Video Games. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/economics-of- microtransactions/ Arvidsson, A., & Sandvik, K. (2007). Gameplay as design: Uses of computer players immaterial labour. Northern Lights: Film and Media Studies Yearbook, 5(1), 89-104. Baym, N. K., & Markham, A. N. (2009). Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Blaikie, Norman (2009) Designing Social Research, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Business Wire. (2009, August 27). Zynga's FarmVille Becomes Largest and Fastest Growing Social Game Ever. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from http://news.sys-con.com/node/1084929 Certeau, M. D. (2011). Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press. Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge, MA: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology. Deuze, M., Martin, C. B., & Allen, C. (2007). The Professional Identity of Gameworkers. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 13(4), 335-353. Durain, J. (2017, November 16). #lootboxes je dépose une question écrite @mounir et écrit à l'@arjel pour trouver le meilleur moyen d'éviter des dérives pic.twitter.com/1p65PW4wjq. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://twitter.com/Jeromedurain/status/931184414909923329 De Peuter, G. and Dyer-Witheford, N. (2005) ‘A Playful Multitude? Mobilising and Counter- Mobilising Immaterial Game Labor’, Fibre Culture 5. URL (accessed 5 April 2018): http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5 Gach, E. (2017, November 30). Meet The 19-Year-Old Who Spent Over $17,000 On Microtransactions. Retrieved from https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/meet-the-19- year-old-who-spent-over-17000-on-microtransactions/ Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Hodkinson, P. (2017). Media, culture and society: An introduction. Los Angeles ; London ; New Delhi ; Singapore ; Washington DC ; Melbourne: Sage. Hornsby, D., Eklund, J., Kronborg, M. S., Grabarczyk, P., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018, April 26). OpenITU: Loot Boxes – Gaming or Gambling? Lecture presented at OpenITU in Rued Langaards Vej, 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark. Huijbregts, J. (2017, November 16). Belgische kansspelcommissie onderzoekt microtransacties in games. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/131909/belgische-kansspelcommissie-onderzoekt- microtransacties-in-games.html Kansspelautoriteit, Wees alert op online spellen met loot boxes. (2017, November 9). Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.kansspelautoriteit.nl/nieuws/alle- nieuwsberichten/2017/november/kansspelautoriteit-0/ Kerr, A. (2006) The Business and Culture of Digital Games: Gamework/Gameplay. London: Sage publications. Knaus, C. (2017, November 24). Gambling regulators to investigate 'loot boxes' in video games. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/games/2017/nov/24/gambling-regulators-to-investigate- loot-boxes-in-video-games Lawson, Michael. “Belgium Follows Dutch Lead with Loot Box Ban.” TotallyGaming.com, 27 Apr. 2018, https://www.totallygaming.com/news/betting/belgium-follows-dutch-lead- loot-box-ban. Liboriussen, B. (2013). Craft, Creativity, Computer Games: The Fusion of Play and Material Consciousness. Philosophy & Technology, 26(3), 273-282. Lizardi, R. (2012). DLC: Perpetual Commodification of the Video Game. Democratic Communiqué, 25(1), 33-45. Retrieved May 29, 2018. Löwgren, J., & Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative media: Production, consumption, and design interventions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Manovich, L. (2009). The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production? Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 319-331. Makuch, E. (2018, February 14). US Senator Takes Aim At Predatory Loot Boxes And Microtransactions. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.gamespot.com/articles/us-senator-takes-aim-at-predatory-loot-boxes-and- m/1100-6456796/ Martínez, C., Jarlbro, G., & Sandberg, H. (2013). Children’s Views and Practices Regarding Online Advertising. Nordicom Review, 34(2). Miltenberger, R. G. (2008). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (Fourth ed.). California: Thomson/Wadsworth. Pickering, M. (2008). Research methods for cultural studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Postigo, H. (2007). Of Mods and Modders. Games and Culture, 2(4), 300-313. Scholz, T. (2013). Digital labor the Internet as playground and factory. New York: Routledge. Simon, and Taylor. “MICROTRANSACTION.ZONE.” MICROTRANSACTION.ZONE - MICROTRANSACTION.ZONE, http://www.microtransaction.zone/.

Statista. (2017, June). Apple store downloads 2016 | Statistic. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/263794/number-of-downloads-from-the-apple-app- store/ Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Tomić, N. (2017). Effects of Micro Transactions on Video Games Industry. Megatrend Review, 14(3), 239-258. Retrieved May 10, 2018. Totilo, S. (2012, June 20). The Strange, Scary, Fascinating, Exciting Future of Video Games, According to A Giant. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://kotaku.com/5919847/the-strange-scary-fascinating-exciting-future-of-videogames-according-to-a-giant

Appendix 1 – Survey Results

Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions 13 responses

Because I like to get addons to the game im playing I do it because it’s fun for me makes me feel better/ enjoy the games more Have bought visual/cosmetic changes for characters in game, it gives a small advantage in certain situations and more joy when your avatar looks the way you want The most micro-transactions I've encountered are cosmetic changes in game such as the loot boxes found in CS:GO and skins in League of Legends. Myself I don't see the point of this as I'm mostly in for the gameplay. I bought it when it was in its infancy and when it felt reasonable. I have, however, stopped buying anything that does not add in-game content to a reasonable price (almost exclusively on sale) and also completely stopped buying anything from EA due to their disrespectful practices (loot boxes and microtransactions) towards consumers. Want to get advantages that otherwise take too long to get Mostly for Vanity items To speed up gameplay I bought them to get an XP boost and new skins in Heroes of the Storm. Other than that, I do not buy them, since I see it as a waste of money and they usually occur in bad games. I do, because I am a nerd and like fancy in game stuff I need some stuff from the vendor. I feel that it's not worth it. How do you often encounter micro-transaction offers? And in relation to what games?

14 responses

Every 6 months or so, League of Legends On mobile games I see them all the time, but never on computer games All the time. It’s annoying. Pop-ups Every time you play games Daily on various forums and in the login layout for the games I play League of Legends, with skins and discounts in the store on the platform.

Both free-to-play games and games I have bought have offers in the menu that tries to get you to buy more stuff. I do not play any game that tries to shove it down my throat anymore. Online store, Hearthstone Vendor character in virtual space No pop-ups, but certain things cost e.g. a currency that the player often cannot collect within reasonable time. I generally don't play the types of game that use micro-transactions. Except like in Overwatch, where it is only cosmetic changes, and where you get loot-boxes anyway. I associate the important micro-transactions with horrible phone games or free to play games with no interesting content. To me, these games are an Obstacle to themselves with this paywall of micro-transactions. Every time you log in in most online multiplayer games you see offers Often. Pop-up's while playing. Most often in mobilegames.

Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers

15 responses

I personally hate it In general, I don’t like them Anger. Waste of lifetime. Often, I think it’s too expensive. but end up buying it anyways First experience was on PC platform, where it was okay because you could play without them, if you just farmed a bit extra. But with time it has turned to all mobile games as well as PC free to play games are gated by long waiting times which you cannot farm your way through unless you buy a virtual currency which can shorten the waiting time ones, which is rather frustrating when you earlier would unlock permanent content (similar to DLC today). Leads the thoughts towards money over user-experience. Personally, I don't fancy micro-transactions. I specifically dislike them if they are a kind of pay to win, or if content is slowly portioned out through micro-transactions, there I'd rather have one expansion pack to buy. However, if the micro-transactions are purely for cosmetic changes I do not have a problem with them and they can actually be a good thing as the game developer can earn money, the ones who appreciate the cosmetic changes can buy what they want but at the same time the gameplay is not changed. I was too young and naive to understand it but thanks to horrible companies such as Electronic Arts, who took the practices to the extreme, I am completely against loot boxes in any game and more or less completely against microtransactions (unless it's a free-to-play game). I think it is a good concept for those who does not play regularly, to be able to remain competitive at the cost of a small sum money. It also feels good with the discount that exists. Annoyance Scam You often compete to be the best in games. But being the best is not something you should be able to buy yourself to. Games that have non-cosmetic micro transactions feel like they are made only to earn money, not to be works of art. I don't play games to waste time and money, therefore I do not play those types of games. It is an anti-consumer system. Most of the time I tell myself I will not buy it, but if I end up enjoying a game I sometimes buy stuff if I like it / to support the game I don't mind Loots box, as long is not for PAY to WIN. I find them to be very disturbing while playing. I ignore them by closing the offer when it pop's up to be able to continue playing. Annoying ads Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? 14 responses

Not really much i can do, its a part of the game i play at this point Pure willpower Looking away, checking mails or playing a game on the phone (if timed). No I stick to old offline games or subscription based games Think twice about the buy, do I need this or is it plain stupid? I am currently boycotting EA and wary of buying games from companies such as Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard. Due to my disgust towards these business practices I have completely stopped supporting it (i.e. buying). No No I only play for as long as I think it is fun. They stop being fun when I can feel there is no progression anymore, without having to buy something in the game. I just don't look for the type of games with important micro-transactions. Just not buy it I just deny the offer by clicking it down when it appears, without even considering what the offer is about. Just quickly deny and close popups

Participants who think that micro-transactions change games How is game-play with micro-transactions different from game-play without? 8 responses

Depends on the content you get from it, if it’s a pay to win systems i despise it, but if its pure cosmetics I don’t mind Seems more serious and it makes me want to pay for it. Sometimes a skin can make it more fun. Micro-transactions have turned many games into money machines, where previously it was the game that cost money, it is now the extra content and the gambling system with lootboxes that provides revenue. Many gamers have adapted to the new way of buying games, where the game is free, but you buy addons. Game communities were previously about the missions/experiences/walkthroughs of the game, but now it is much more focused on individual gamers gains from lootboxes and who’s the best. This depends on the type of micro-transaction. Simple skin buys are just a way of buying status while gambling loot boxes does not really need to affect the gameplay but can cause gambling addiction to some people. As for the pay to win kind of micro transactions, or similar, they can basically ruin the entire experience of a game.

Microtransactions has ruined immersion by giving (or rather encouraging) the player to buy stronger weapons or other advantages. Character skins that used to be unlocked by playing the game have now become something you have to pay for. Player immersion and player reward have been ruined by microtransactions. Without micro-transactions, the players skills play a bigger role than the other way around. Single player game should not have loot Box, online games is ok. How does these differences impact your gaming experience? 8 responses

All from shitty to nothing I prefer games without popup. alot in some games. I generally avoid games with lootbox effect, similar to that I don’t play lottery, I want to know what I’m paying for. I have mostly encountered the micro-transactions where you can buy skins. This has not had any large change in my gaming experience, maybe even positive as some of the skins look really good and the game developer has put large amounts of time to make them. When I play a game, I want to be immersed and games that are balanced around the player paying and/or shoving ads for new content up my face has ruined my immersion. The result has been that I am more picky when I buy games and completely ignored interesting titles that have microtransactions or loot boxes. It is more fun to be good at a game that does not have micro-transactions. Not much, I can choose whether or not to by a loot box.

If yes, did the video strengthen or change your perception of micro-transactions changing games? And why? 5 responses

No Not really, was about skin trading and gambling in CS:GO - Jim Sterling's The Jimquisition has shaped my opinion to what it is now. This is because his videos have provided me with many new insights, perspectives and facts on the issue. It does because sometimes, you don't see the perspective like others whos goes in depth.

Participants who think games are the same, with or without microtransactions

If yes, did the video(s) have any influence on your later gaming experience? and why/why not?

2 responses

I might be more aware of the business model of games now, and always check reviews before buying. If they mention an odd business model, I'm out. No, I still don’t think micro-transactions are worth it for my gaming experience.

Appendix 2 – Categorization of Survey Results

Category: Accounts: Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions Activist - completely stopped buying anything from EA due to their disrespectful practices (loot boxes and microtransactions) towards consumers. Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers - I was too young and naive to understand it but thanks to horrible companies such as Electronic Arts, who took the practices to the extreme, I am completely against loot boxes in any game and more or less completely against microtransactions (unless it's a free-to-play game). Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? - I am currently boycotting EA and wary of buying games from companies such as Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard. Due to my disgust towards these business practices I have completely stopped supporting it (i.e. buying). Did the video strengthen or change your perception of micro-transactions changing games? And why?

- Jim Sterling's The Jimquisition has shaped my opinion to what it is now. This is because his videos have provided me with many new insights, perspectives and facts on the issue.

Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions Idealist - The most micro-transactions I've encountered are cosmetic changes in game such as the loot boxes found in CS:GO and skins in League of Legends. Myself I don't see the point of this as I'm mostly in for the gameplay. - I do not buy them, since I see it as a waste of money and they usually occur in bad games. How do you often encounter micro-transaction offers? And in relation to what games? - not play any game that tries to shove it down my throat anymore. - I generally don't play the types of game that use micro-transactions. Except like in Overwatch, where it is only cosmetic changes, and where you get loot-boxes anyway. Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers - I specifically dislike them if they are a kind of pay to win, or if content is slowly portioned out through micro-transactions, there I'd rather have one expansion pack to buy. - You often compete to be the best in games. But being the best is not something you should be able to buy yourself to. How is game-play with micro-transactions different from game-play without? - Depends on the content you get from it, if it’s a pay to win systems i despise it, but if its pure cosmetics I don’t mind - Player immersion and player reward have been ruined by microtransactions. - Without micro-transactions, the players skills play a bigger role than the other way around. How does these differences impact your gaming experience? - When I play a game, I want to be immersed and games that are balanced around the player paying and/or shoving ads for new content up my face has ruined my immersion. - It is more fun to be good at a game that does not have microtransactions. Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions Agile - I bought it when it was in its infancy and when it felt reasonable. I have, however, stopped buying anything that does not add in-game content to a reasonable price Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers - First experience was on PC platform, where it was okay because you could play without them, if you just farmed a bit extra - I find them to be very disturbing while playing. I ignore them by closing the offer when it pop's up to be able to continue playing.

Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? - Looking away, checking mails or playing a game on the phone (if timed). - I stick to old offline games or subscription based games - I only play for as long as I think it is fun. They stop being fun when I can feel there is no progression anymore, without having to buy something in the game. - I just don't look for the type of games with important microtransactions. - I just deny the offer by clicking it down when it appears, without even considering what the offer is about. - Just quickly deny and close popups How is game-play with micro-transactions different from game-play without? - This depends on the type of micro-transaction. Simple skin buys are just a way of buying status while gambling loot boxes does not really need to affect the gameplay but can cause gambling addiction to some people. As for the pay to win kind of micro transactions, or similar, they can basically ruin the entire experience of a game. - This has not had any large change in my gaming experience, maybe even positive as some of the skins look really good and the game developer has put large amounts of time to make them. - Not much, I can choose whether or not to by a loot box.

Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions Pragmatist - makes me feel better/ enjoy the games more - Want to get advantages that otherwise take too long to get - I need some stuff from the vendor. - I feel that it's not worth it. Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers - Waste of lifetime. - I don't mind Loots box, as long is not for PAY to WIN. Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? - Think twice about the buy, do I need this or is it plain stupid? How does these differences impact your gaming experience? - I generally avoid games with lootbox effect, similar to that I don’t play lottery, I want to know what I’m paying for.

Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions Enthusiast - Because I like to get addons to the game I’m playing - I do it because it’s fun for me - Have bought visual/cosmetic changes for characters in game, it gives a small advantage in certain situations and more joy when your avatar looks the way you want - I do, because I am a nerd and like fancy in game stuff

- Most of the time I tell myself I will not buy it, but if I end up enjoying a game I sometimes buy stuff if I like it / to support the game Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers - if the micro-transactions are purely for cosmetic changes I do not have a problem with them and they can actually be a good thing as the game developer can earn money, the ones who appreciate the cosmetic changes can buy what they want but at the same time the gameplay is not changed.

Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers Compliant - I personally hate it - In general, I don’t like them - Often, I think it’s too expensive. but end up buying it anyways - Annoying ads Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? - Not really much I can do, it is a part of the game I play at this point - Pure willpower - No - No - Just not buy it

Appendix 3 – Focus-group Interviews, Individual Interview and Podcast Details & Questions

Overview Source Participants Focus-group interview 1 Informant A Informant B Informant C Focus-group interview 2 Informant D Informant E Focus-group interview 2 Informant F Informant G Individual interview Informant H Podcast Morten Nikolaj Mika Interviews Details Focus-group interview Participants: 3 Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Date: 15/04/2018

Conducted: Offline in Malmö, Sweden. Focus-group interview Participants: 2 Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Date: 22/04/2018 Conducted: Online Focus-group interview Participants: 2 Gender: Male Nationality: Danish Date: 23/04/2018 Conducted: Online Individual interview Participants: 1 Gender: Female Nationality: Swedish Date: 28/04/2018 Conducted: Offline in Malmö, Sweden

Individual Interview Informant A Gender: Female Nationality: Swedish Games: Candy Crush, Mass Effect and Hitman Platform: PS and Mobile phone MTX encounters: Pop-ups and Fun Pain Conducted: April 28, 2018

Focus Group Interview 1 - Offline Informant B Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Games: World of Warcraft, For Honor, Diablo 3 Platform: PS and Mobile phone MTX encounters: Lootboxes, In-game currency, upon login Conducted: April 15, 2018

Informant C Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Games: World of Warcraft, Overwatch, Clash of Clans Platform: PC and Mobile phone MTX encounters: Lootboxes, in-game currency, pop-ups, upon login Conducted: April 15, 2018

Informant D Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Games: World of Warcraft, Overwatch, Counter-Strike Platform: PC and PS MTX encounters: Lootboxes, in-game currency, upon-login Conducted: April 15, 2018

Focus Group Interview 2 - Online Informant E Gender: Male Nationality: Danish Games: Halo, Division, Assassins Creed, Destiny Platform: PS and Xbox MTX encounters: Lootboxes, in-game currency, upon login Conducted: April 23, 2018 Informant F Gender: Male Nationality: Danish Games: Battlefield, Assassins Creed, Destiny Platform: PS and PC MTX encounters: Lootboxes, in-game currency, upon login Conducted: April 23, 2018

Focus Group Interview 3 - Online Informant G Gender: Male Nationality: Swedish Games: Hearthstone, FIFA, Call of Duty, Fortnite Platform: PS and Mobile phone MTX encounters: RMM, Lootboxes Conducted: April 22, 2018 Informant H Nationality: Swedish Gender: Male Games: Hearthstone Platform: PC and Mobile phone MTX encounters: RMM Conducted: April 22, 2018

Podcast Informant Morten, Nikolaj & Mika

Gender: Male Nationality: Danish Games: Destiny 2 Platform: PS MTX encounters: Bright Engram – equivalent to lootboxes Conducted: April 11, 2018

Questions posed to the hosts of the Podcast: De Danske Guardians Hello Morten and Co. I have listened to your podcast for a good time now. I am in the process of a study on micro-transaction (MTX), and would like to hear if I could ask you some questions that you might discuss in your next episode or pose to your listeners? - I am aware that the debate has been completely eliminated and there is almost no more to say. But I would like to hear more about your playing the experience, rather than argument for or against. This means a discussion on players' immediate reactions and feelings when his/her player experience is directly or indirectly interrupted by MTX offers, or content that is framed around MTX. - In addition, I am interested in hearing how players consciously or unconsciously adapt to this kind of commercial circumstances in play. Is it 100% acceptance? Or avoid in Tess and thereby the Tower? Ignore incentives such as 3x weekly experience rate? - Are there other game mechanics that you see grounded in MTX rather than original game content and storyline? - In addition, of course, there is the whole community aspect. I think the debate has been very focused on defining against and against MTX players. Where I'd like to hear more about experiencing fragmentations in communities when you're online? - Is it suddenly unfortunate to have Tess equipment on? Are there any groups that express themselves in the game? - I realize that there are very open questions that may not be idle in a podcast, and if that is the case, it is fully understood if you choose not to take it with. Podcast link: Urup, M. V. (2018, April 11). De Danske Guardians - en Destiny podcast Episode 80 - Kæmpe nyhedsuge!! [Audio blog post]. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://itunes.apple.com/dk/podcast/danske-guardians-en-destiny/id1153562353?mt=2 Appendix 4 – Focus-group Interviews, Individual Interviews and Podcast Transcripts Focus-group Interview 1 A: I have experienced in so many games, almost all of the most recent ones have it in some way even though most of them don’t label it as lootboxes its always some way you can buy something. I have certainly been doing that. There are different models, usually you can just work yourself up to buy it with in-game currency, but some you can buy it with real money. And if that’s what you consider microtransactions well then pretty much every game I have has it in some sense. Me: As far as I have understood it is not a microtransaction when its bought with generated in-game currency.

A: No but if they make it unfeasible to obtain with the right amount of, so a normal person cannot get it, but only people that play all day. B: Yeah there has been cases where you have to play six weeks continuously to unlock a character. Or pay like 7 euros. Me: Any games specifically? B: Battlefront 2 most recently had some issues with that. A: And the problem with Battlefront 2, is obviously that had gameplay mechanics attached to it. But there are other games for example, I’m a big fan of For Honor, and they have lootboxes but they are cosmetic only. So that makes it a little more okay, as it flies under the radar, for the controversy a bit. But they put it in there, and they know people are going to want to buy it cause it’s a game where one of the goals is to look cool. And they know that you kind of cannot get that without paying for it. So essentially, yeah, you can get it for free, but in practice it is impossible. Me: yeah unless you want to spend said hours. A: No, weeks or months. C: But I also think there is a difference between said random way of gaining things, and like loot boxes. Overwatch is a very interesting example, because I bought a lot of lootboxes, and they are random. But they are all cosmetics, so they don’t really affect gameplay at all. And then you have the League of Legends model where you have to directly buy what you want, like the skins, they are still just cosmetic. So, I think there is a difference between the randomness and direct buy, one is more gamble, but you don’t really gain anything. A: perceived value. C: Yeah, the perceived value goes up. B: You are never going to end up with more money than you spend. C: I don’t know exactly how Counterstrike works, but I guess you can earn money on that. Me: Yeah you can trade your acquired skins and cosmetics through third part online markets. So, essentially this type of gambling is just bad gambling? A: Well it is for sure gambling. Cause as with all gambling, if it is into that addiction where you feel rewarded, and the reward is that you feel happy and excited, which is what you get with lootboxes. B: Yeah but usually the problem with real gambling, is that you always have in back of your mind that you always have the chance of gaining more money back. In this type of gambling you will only receive cool looking items. A: I am not sure what the exact definition of gambling is, but the way I see it. B: - But you know you are never going to get the money back - A: No but I think it is more like, alright I pay 1 dollar and there is a 50% chance I feel rewarded and a 50% chance that I feel shit. That’s sort of gamble.

B: Yeah but there is a lot of people that start losing, and then they try to get back on top. And spend more money, by putting more money to get more back. That issue doesn’t exist with gambling in gaming, as you will never get the money back – you just spend the money. A: The deal with the gambling addiction is, you want to get that hype from the gambling reward. It is only for that chance of the big reward, so many people gamble and not many think they will become millionaire. People they just want that feeling of winning something. B: At least the most games I have been playing, particularly Overwatch, even the best rewards are not that rare, so you don’t get a super legendary item that only 2 in the world have. If you really want a item, you just have to spend 3 hours to grind the points to get it, so it is not a super hype. There might be games out there that has that super rare thing you can sell on eBay for 10 thousand. Me: Have you played games where you can pass on items? C: No, just counterstrike but I haven’t got into the trading aspects. A: I don’t know if its regulated now, but we all used to play World of Warcraft. And at least on our server, it was very common for the bigger guilds to charge for one to come on their raids and if a suitable item dropped, that player could have it. But it is more like a service, but you don’t know if the item you want drops: so that’s sort of gambling in a way. B: Yeah but also that is not really systematically done. You are talking 0.0001% of the user base that has made use of these kind of services. A: Yeah, there is also diablo 3 before they changed how the auction house worked. There you could get some really exotic items that are worth thousands of dollars, and the game facilitated the trade of that for real money. B: As far as I know though, diablo didn’t have any form of micro purchase you could use to get items in game. A: No but since there are millions playing the game, every item is going to be on the auction house. And but it is sold by players, and you can buy it for real money. And last question was if you have played games where you can pass items on. Me: I thought this would be a great incentive for players to use gambling services, such as lootboxes, if they were able to get money returns from it, through for example Auction House. B: In the case of Diablo there were no gambling aspect of which you could get items and then sell on Auction House. C: I think the gambling part was just killing bosses (Grind) and let that be the addictive motivation to get items you could sell on the auction house. B: It is basically a setup for wanting to play the game. A: We need to define if we are talking about gambling or microtransactions. You also have the whole gold selling aspect. B: In general Blizzard is a very good company when it comes to be an example of how to do it right. For example, with World of Warcraft, they do sell Microtransactions in the form of mounts etc. for

50 money. But those items are separate from items in the game. It’s a lot about prestige in these games, so if you kill a hard boss or get a rare loot, you get a unique mount that cannot be bought with money. But you can still buy cool mounts for real money. A: I think that’s important, in WoW when you see someone on the purchasable mounts everyone know “oh he paid 10 euro for that mount” and nobody cares. In another game, you don’t know if he is a super pro player or if he bought himself to that item. B: I think that’s a really good distinction, like if you want to keep those systems separate. A: The most common argument these days is, “oh but you can also get that item through in-game currency, so it is okay”. Me: Does that annoy you in anyway? If you were a player that got a item through a in-game activity or challenge, but you know others could get it through microtransactions? A: Yeah, I would hate it. I wouldn’t even bother in that case. We used to be one of the better guilds on our serve, and we got a very prestigious reward and a title that went with it. I was very proud of it, because that meant so much that I knew that I had accomplished something that others could never do. But if people can just buy it that takes it all away. B: I think my two guidelines are: You cannot buy stuff that makes you better, and if you can buy stuff it has to be separated from the items you can acquire through gameplay. C: What about Overwatch, how does that work? B: Those a purely cosmetics… C: But isn’t the mount in WoW also cosmetic? B: The mounts in WoW represents accomplishments, rather than... Let’s say in Overwatch, if you had place nr 1 in a 100 consecutive Overwatch matches, and then you won a specific Skin, but if you then could just buy that Skin it would take away the point. Me: How do you experience these lootboxes or microtransactions, is a vendor you can just turn to or is the microtransaction vendors “aggressive”? A: I can’t say that it has been that “pushed” in the games that I play. Obviously, it is always going to be on the frontpage upon login. But there is no pop-up. And in the games, that I play it has never been implemented into the core mechanics of the game, not like it was in battlefront 2. B: If it is a free-to-play game you will have a higher tolerance for having things that require money. You sort of expect to have to pay. But if it is a full price game for 60 euros and then they have microtransactions being the main thing that drags the game, that’s very frustrating, which was the case of Battlefront 2 which was a super slow crawl to incentivize people to spend money. Me: A lot of people have said that, if there wasn’t microtransactions like that, they would be much more expensive. A: Yeah but these game companies are making more money than they ever did before, so im not certain how true that statement is. It feels like they have a duty to make as much profit as possible.

And I think that is more where it is at. The increasing expenses cannot be that much to explain microtransactions. Me: Has there been trends of game developers introducing microtransactions when the profit slows down after the launch hype? C: I think they usually start out with it, they know that they need to have a steady stream to keep the game alive. People are buying games and spending more time in each game, rather than spending two weeks on a game and then moving on to the next game. B: its triple-A’s games business model from having a main game and then having a DLC package. Now you have 1 game and you add small updates including microtransactions instead of having chunks of content coming out with paywalls. C: That can be better for the end-user, because if you have it in a optional way, rather than forcing people to buy it. You still have to incentivize people to spend money, but in the right way, then I think it is more sustainable. Overwatch is a good example, and everything that is released is for everyone, so everyone stays together and there is no fragmentation/segmentation within the community which is good. And like what they have is cosmetic, the things you buy. If you have that, you can decide if it has to be random or direct purchases, where random last longer in terms of re- playability. Me: So, you have done both kinds of purchases? A: That was what I was going to get to, most of these games that I tolerate the random element within. Although, I prefer set price and to know what you buy like in League of Legends. But those that have the random element in it, also have this crafting element, you can disenchant/destroy an item and receive materials or in-game currency that gets you a little closer to the cosmetic item that you actually wanted. So even if I lose, I will still get 5 euro of materials. Me: Could it be argued that, that is not essentially gambling because you will always end up with “something”? vs All or nothing? A: That is how I consider it, I make my purchases calls based on if I think the minimum reward, in terms of materials or in-game currency recovered from destroyed un-wanted items. Not all games have this mechanic. C: Then you also have mobile games, the free-to-play with microtransactions, like clash of clans. Those are so designed to just have microtransactions in mind, it works and its very interesting to see how players behave, given the chose to wait and hour to continue playing or pay that 3 euro to continue an hour. It’s different from buying virtual items, and is a different type of incentive. B: I played a lot of clash of clans with relatives. The first couple of days you could play and save yourself a few hours by spending money. But a week into the game, the cooldowns are days and then to finish one building would cost you several hundred crowns. They get most of the money, I think, from the people who are new to the game. It quickly becomes unfeasible to spend money. A: Or just more expensive and people do it anyway. A lot of people do that, according to statistics, I understand the people. The money means so little to some people, and the game makes money off these people. A lot of people have spent half millions on microtransactions.

B: There certainly are whales, but I think they would earn more money if they had a more even spending-curve that makes it more feasible to spend money for a longer period of time. A: You want the peak of the spending-curve to be as high as possible, so people reach point of no return, and stick around even though its expensive. C: I am sure they have the statistics and make it financial in their favor. I guess it is fair that the companies try to make money off their products, because it is a free to play game. Me: Have you, maybe, adopted any ways of avoiding or dealing with the frustrating and aggressive microtransaction approach that some games adopt? A: I certainly stopped playing games. I played a free-to-play mobile game, and I loved it. They were generous with the rewards you would get for free in the beginning, but as they got more time to develop the game, the trend became every month or every 14 day there would be a new release of a hero or item that were super powerful. And this got very expensive. I do not mind playing the game one hour a day, but to keep up with in-game currency I had to play 10 times that to keep up, so I quit. Games with the same model I will not even touch now. So, it definitely has influenced my purchases decisions, that I now avoid games with this approach. Me: You all seem to have very clear ideas of different types of marketing approaches that companies can take. B: I mean if you are a keen gamer, you come across these differences and quickly you notice when games adopt familiar models. So, you see the patterns, and you quickly learn to compare and assess the revenue strategies and determine if you are interested or not. And the consumer base is getting smaller and smaller, because they are adapting to these business models. And I think, just looking at the recent Battlefront 2 controversy, you can’t completely ignore it. The player base is informed now, and you cannot just ignore it, you have to deal with it in a way that works for the players too. A: It has become a selling point, one year in advance developers they announce that their upcoming game will not have microtransactions. And everybody seems to think that will determine if it is a good game. B: I have a personal developer friend, one of the main selling points are mobile apps, and he is selling point is that he does not have microtransactions or in-game purchases. He gets a lot of good review just on that, from the community. So, I think it is very widely spread. A: That person has also experienced with releasing different versions of his game, so it is still free- to-play, but his core-user-base, you can see how they quickly get sour and feel betrayed, when they’re not receiving updates because his focused on another version. And this is even though the game is for free. So, community management is much more important, as people feel much more entitled to new content and upgrades now. C: Yeah, I think that is because people want to be part of a community, more than they did before. People today play less games and more of the same game, and when they do that they want to be a part of that community, in turn wanting more of the game. So, if there’s no content coming out, they get upset. Maybe the developers have moved on to a new project. So.

A: I remember growing up in high school, back then you bought a couple of games every month and you played it for 20 hours and then you were done. These days you are like, “nah I won’t commit to this game because it’s going to be dead in 30 hours anyway”. So, today games are not even an attractive purchases option if it’s not going to be played in one year. Me: But that is because it is so dependent on it being an online community etc. C: It’s not just an online-multiplayer game phenomenon, people in single player games often also feel entitled to more content like DLCs. B: I think that is also kind of why, triple-A games are transitioning into these microtransactions models. Because people are still expecting to pay the same 50-60 euro, but they also expect more and more content. A: But they are not getting more, microtransactions are not there to provide players with more content. They take out bits and then you release the rest later through microtransactions. Campaigns used to be 20 hours, not it is like 4 hours and then it is going to be released through DLCs etc. later. B: Most single player games are around 9-12 hours, but some are more, RPGs are usually more. A: The latest Wolfenstein is like 6 hours, which is really short for a single player only game. Me: Then you are just thrown right into microtransactions? A: No, games are just getting shorter and shorter. B: Production costs has gone up as well. People are expecting a lot more, compared to 10 years ago, but at the same time they cannot charge more. So, either they make a shorter game or adopt new business model. And that is why you have battlefront, either you have the expensive DLC packs that segments the player base and splits up the community where 10% has one DLC and 20% another and they cannot play together. Alternatively, they were trying to do something more sustainable to keep everyone in the same pool, but failed to do so, because the microtransactions had a huge impact on the competitive gameplay. Which in turn caused fragmentations. Me: This sounds a lot the problem within splitting the community up, have you experienced any fragmentations in this sense? A: Yeah in all the Battlefield games has had that problem, as soon as content are released, only a few players get a few maps and they get split into all the exclusive maps that others couldn’t access making it impossible to play with others. So even if it’s a great game, I would not buy it as I have no one to play with. B: That is the exact issue with DLCs in multiplayer games, even if you buy it you will be playing alone. The problem is, in games with dedicated servers usually have five or six favorite servers, but suddenly they run a map from the expansion that only 20% own, and then the server is not full anymore and the community starts to die. Me: Can you relate this to microtransactions splitting communities? B: Microtransactions are more the response to the problem of splitting communities. DLCs used to be the old way.

C: If you’re giving all the content away for free, then you have to gain the money from elsewhere. And the only thing left that is not super invasive, is the cosmetic microtransactions, which is why I think companies have gone down that road. Me: I heard players complain about how game developers stop caring about content equipment/cosmetics and only focusing on microtransactions being cool. A: Yeah, I was going to get to that. I think developers are “shooting themselves in the foot”, because if they are making a great game that players would want to play for a longer time, the players would also feel like buying the cool skins or cosmetics. But now the developers are making shitty games and making up for it with microtransactions. But people are still only going to buy these microtransactions if the game is good. I have stopped playing games when it became shit, but if they had focused on the game I would have stayed and continuously buy microtransactions. Focus-group Interview 2 D: I have played Hearthstone, FIFA and Call of Duty. One on mobile and two on console. E: I have only played Hearthstone. Me: Do you make use of microtransactions? E: I have bought a lot of packs over the years I have played. D: I think I’ve bought a lot, but not as much. Mostly welcome bundles. And in FIFA I have made use of microtransactions twice. Me: What kind of microtransactions is it then? D: In Hearthstone its packs that basically are loot boxes. And the same in FIFA, but you get players not equipment. Me: What is your initial thoughts on random reward? E: It is terrible because you usually must pay a lot more to get what you want. But it is a little bit exciting because it is sort of a roulette. D: It gives you more pleasure when you open something. E: that is the whole idea I guess of people spending more on it. Me: I want to get an idea of your experience of it. Like the element of excitement. – Do you feel that gets enhanced by mechanics, such as color, sound etc. when buying loot boxes? Can you describe how? D: If you just bought the cards in Hearthstone and they just appeared in the collection, the experience would go down drastically. So, the whole thing of turning the cards, and colors flashing up adds to the experience. Me: Do you feel games are being focused on these microtransactions? D: It gets a little annoying if it becomes a huge part requiring you to buy, because then people with economic capital becomes the “winners” of the game. But I have not experienced this to be so severe

55 as for example Battlefront 2. And if the games would go that direction, I would just stop playing. I guess it is also a matter of the cost of the packs, and how much you have to spend to have a fun time playing. Me: You have experienced games before; would you say games are better now or worse off. D: Ideally, I would prefer everything to be in the game by default. Not having to spend extra money would be better. In the Call of Duty I have there’s six expansions for example. Me: In relation to microtransactions, what is it that irritating? Is it the fact that you feel “milked” or is it the advertising aspect? E: If the games are pay-to-win, then I think it’s completely terrible. But I don’t have a problem with games having microtransactions in them, if it is just cosmetics as that actually boosts the experience of playing. D: In Fortnite everyone has the same basic stats, but you can buy skins and hammers that doesn’t influence the game. This is fine, because you don’t have to “pay up to keep up”. Me: What is it that is important / fun about these skins? D: For me they don’t matter, but for others I guess it is fun. In competitive games you feel that you have to, like in Hearthstone if you stop playing a year and then return your whole collection will have lost its value and you have to spend a lot to get back up. Me: This obligation, is there anything else you do when encountering these microtransactions to deal with or avoid them? E: You could avoid buying the packs in Hearthstone, but then you would have to spend a lot of time to get them. But that feels like you are just wasting your time. And then it’s not really worth it. Me: Is it always the same price you spend, or do you get the same amount of performance increase per package? D: In Hearthstone you always buy when the new expansion drops, and then you hope for getting most of the cards you need so you don’t have to spend more money before next expansion. Me: What does an expansion package cost? D: 400 hundred Swedish KR. Which contains about 70% of the released cards. Me: How many times do you buy these expansions packs? Does it lose appeal the second time? D: I only do it once, and then I just collect in-game currency to spend on the next expansion pack. E: In Hearthstone you also get DLC content, that is not specifically loot boxes, and they provide side experiences, which are exclusive purchases that cannot be bought with in-game currency. Me: How does that influence the player community then? Some having one expansion pack and others have another. Does it generate a sense of fragmentation?

E: No not really, it’s not like you play in a separate expansion. Everybody is playing in the same “pool”, it’s just that you collect different cards from various expansions. When you then play, anyone can play against anyone. D: I guess fragmentation becomes those who don’t have the cards to rank up higher, in that case. In other games, like Call of Duty, you have to buy separate expansions to be able to play certain maps and that’s definitely fragmentation. Me: What about your friends then? If you play against each other and your friend doesn’t have a specific package does it become pointless? D: Yeah, I play with a friend who does not play consistently and he will have a hard time if I do not go easy at him. So, we usually just play for fun. E: It is like a soft obstacle, you can still play but it is not really as fun. And the level goes down. Me: In relation to advertisements and pop-ups. Is it annoying, and do you adopt work-arounds? D: It is impossible to avoid because it is in your face when you log in. But since it does not affect the game play it does not bother me. When I log in, I just see the price on these virtual items and think it is ridiculous. Me: What do you think of other players buying these items? Is it cool? D: Yeah, if it was for free I would not hesitate. Me: Have you seen the topic of microtransaction being discussed on forums or watched videos about it? D: Yeah, especially related to Battlefront. And the general discussion on pricing for loot boxes. The tone is generally negative, but I haven’t participated in the debate myself. Focus-group Interview 3 G: For my part, I have played battlefield back from when it was the Vietnam version. Assasins Creed, the old ones. On PC and PlayStation. F: Halo on Xbox. Division. Assassins Creed. Me: What kind of experiences do you have of Microtransactions? In relation to purchasing? G: Yes, but only in Destiny currently. In Destiny they have changed lootboxes, and it makes no sense. I think the most cosmetics should not be in lootboxes, but instead be a part of the content as incentive for playing the game. Me: So, it is only in Destiny you have bought microtransactions? G: Yes, only Destiny, or I might have bought a weapon in Battlefield once. And in Final Fantasy which I have played, I have bought a bunch of microtransactions because I think it looks good. F: I feel the same way with Division, where I have bought them. Me: Why do you buy it?

F: Because you want to have it, it looks good. Me: How often is it in relation to other players, that you get the urge to buy them? As in, do you experience/see microtransaction items on other players and think ”that one I got to have”? F: Not that often, since I don’t look it up on YouTube. Me: What about Tess, what do you think of the layout surrounding microtransactions? - The way the vendor is presented to you. G: In Battlefield it’s possible to buy random packages. It’s a menu you enter before going online. Its called Battlestore. Me: Is it similar to Fortnite? As in, it is the first thing you encounter when you open the game? And what do you think about this? G: It does not mean that much to me, I don’t use it after all. They also advertise for it on PlayStation store. F: As it is right now, it does not bother me. But I can see how someone quickly can spend a lot of money on it. But I think it is here to stay, and if it does not express itself in microtransactions, it will do it in another way. Me: Yes, and that is what is interesting, that it has come to stay. – And what do you do then? How does it change your game-play? G: If you look back to PlayStation 1 and 2, with that thought in the back of the head, I do not think it bothers me with microtransactions. Mig: What about Destiny? Do you always do the weekly milestones that are associated with microtransactions? F: Yes, because it is for free and it is only a weekly possibility that you almost feel like you have to do. But you can also just buy the items if that’s what you wish, but the problem is the random aspect. But if you make sure to accomplish these weekly milestones, then there is an overall bigger chance that you will get what you want. Me: How does that feel then, when you really are against these microtransactions, but find yourself in a situation where you are working towards them anyway? As in the content related to microtransactions. G: You get lured, you have been grinding for so long and end up missing 1% in-game currency for that one item you want, then it is very easy to just spend 50kr and then you feel like an idiot afterwards. Me: How do you feel about the reward-distribution, in relation to the quality of content rewards and the rewards from microtransactions? G: Some games know how, others dont. In Destiny 1 people hated Tess, because you were forced to buy the items if you wanted them. There was no alternative way to obtain them through the game. It does not belong in single-player games. It would work if you distribute the content through limited edition, exclusive or deluxe edition of the premium game, and you then would be receiving the items through economic commitment to the game.

F: It makes no sense in single-player games, since you are the only one that can see these cosmetics. And the point is after all to show yourself to others, and be admired, and the whole social aspect does not exist in single-player games. In multi-player games there will always be something extra or new, and the value will decay. G: In mobile games it takes the worse form, and it is dangerous for children who cannot manage it. In relation to Xbox and PlayStation, mobile games are the worst kind due to advertisements and temptations. Me: Can you describe these feelings, visual experiences etc. when you open a lootbox? G: Pure disappointment. It certainly is visual fireworks, but the enthusiasm decay quickly after you get used to it. So, it quickly does not matter. You get the same of the same all the time, up to multiple times. Even though a skin or item has a rare label, it is not rare, because there is inflation in it. The same ship, scooter or ghost that everyone else have just with a different color. Me: Have you ever participated in any kind of community debate on Reddit or YouTube, or seen and clips on YouTube related to microtransactions? G: I read a lot about it, sometimes I also participate in the debate by putting up a post. Me: Is that a reaction, that you are writing? G: Yes, it is because I feel that the companies are exploiting me as a consumer. Me: But it goes both ways, when you get something it is great, whereas when you do not it is disappointing. G: Yes, but before you get there, you have to spend thousands of crowns. F: No, I do not participate in any debates or read about it. Individual Interview H: Candy crush, Mass Effect and Hitman. 2 on PS and 1 on mobile phone. Me: What kind of microtransactions have you experienced? H: Pop-ups, and waiting to get life. Hitman was just a demo, and you were forced to wait multiple hours if you wanted to continue to play. And Mass Effect was the purchase of multiple weapons. Me: What kind of initial feelings do you get in relation to pop-ups and weapons? H: Never felt like buying because the game is already very expensive. Me: How do you respond then to the game wanting you to make these purchases? H: I get rather irritated, but it’s different. In Candy crush it doesn’t cost anything to get the game, so I understand that they want to earn money. But Mass Effect costs 700, so that makes me not want to spend any more. Mass effect can be online, but I only played the single player set. Me: If you were online, would you feel more like buying these microtransactions? H: Yeah maybe, I can imagine I would feel more incentivized to buy because others do.

Me: I’m thinking of in which order to pose the questions, because I want you to feel that you can talk freely and not insecure that you don’t know enough. So, it’s quite important that you feel that, what you have to say is valuable. H: I have a hard time remembering how it was. But I have never bought microtransactions. Me: Okay, how do you react to these irritations from microtransactions. How do you respond to for example pop-up offers? H: I think it’s the difference between playing PlayStation and on the phone. I feel more relaxed with the PlayStation as opposed to the phone. When it becomes too much, on the phone, I lose my interest and I stop playing. In Mass Effect I could basically ignore the microtransactions because the microtransactions were not as aggressive, it was not the first layout presented to you when you log in. Podcast Material Nikolaj: Let us start with the gaming experience, I think the most recurrent about microtransactions, for my part, as well as the most disturbing or negative about it, is that it pulls you out of the experience. Because as soon as you are reminded about these microtransactions, when you are asked to spend money or lured to it, then it is as if it intrudes. It penetrates into your gaming experience and remind you about that what you are currently doing, as in the time you are investing, have in and of its own no value, because you can just pay you way to it. Thereof arises the fragmentation amongst the players, because either you spend money on it, or you do not and in turn try to forget about the fact that other players do it. Overall it pulls you out of your experience, it feels wrong, like a virus spreading through the system. Morten: But can we not hear about your experience? Nikolaj: But that is what I did? It penetrates the game and removes my focus from the game – I lose my motivation for spending time on the game. Morten: But that is not true, because last episode you said that microtransactions and Eververse in Destiny are in a great place. Nikolaj: Yes, right now! I thought we were talking about microtransactions in general. – but it is because it is not taking so much space at the moment, I am rarely reminded about it, and the supply has no influence on performance in the game. It is not pay-to-win. Morten: I would like to draw a comparison, because for my part, Tess after the February update, has the “tingling” to you about buying microtransactions has disappeared completely. Tess is for me another normal vendor that I can go to when I have accumulated in-game currency, and she is the vendor I am the most anticipated to interact with. Nikolaj: Yes exactly! And currency is not either exclusive, you can get it through game-play by dismantling the engrams you do not want. And you get it okay quickly, even though I use bright dust on those medallions. But it does not disturb me at all, and that I am happy for.

Mika: I think it is in a really good place, and that is due to when you go there it is not pay-to-win but you get something visual for you guardian, and after they turned down the experience then it feels as if it is raining down our heads with them. And when you get them all the time, then you do not get this feeling of having to spend money. Nikolaj: No, I have not used a single crown either. Morten: I used 70 crowns in the begging of Destiny 2. And that was actually a repeating thought in the begging of the game, if I should buy a bit extra. But that feeling is completely gone now, I actually feel that Tess have one of the most interesting loot-tables right now, and that does not bother me at all since I get so many engrams. And it is also where I can get the unique ornaments which gives me the desire to chase it.

Mika: That we do not have this desire, I think has a lot to do with that we have played Destiny 2 a lot, and actually do not need that many items. I think it would be interesting to hear it from one that has just gotten into the game, if he/she looks at us and thinks “wauw, they have spent a lot of money on microtransactions”. One of the points of critic Tess received, was that the loot she had ought to be a part of the game, connected to raids or trials. But now we have specific loot for Nightfall, and that fill out exactly that gap. And that makes the things about Tess feel a little more like a bonus, instead the feeling of it being taken from somewhere else in the game. Morten: I would also really like to say something wild, this is probably controversial: I think that, right now, not in 2 weeks, is the best moment at all to play Destiny. Because haters on Destiny, are like hysterical children that screams, but now the hysterical children have fallen asleep, and now only the grownups remain in the company, who can just talk normally and have a good time. And our community is fantastic, so many are online and we sit and talk. – but in 2 weeks we will have the announcement of the next season, and then the noise returns, the noise of anticipations that can never be redeemed. Morten: I do not think groups are created in the community as a result of microtransactions. If you have received ornaments you have been lucky with RNG, that makes you stand out in game play from other players. Mika: It is one of the unique things, that you can show something others do not have. And I think we have a big respect for that as a community, it is just a part of the grind in Destiny. It is of cause disappointing that Abdi gets the hand cannon me and Nikolaj did not get, but we are still happy for him.

Appendix 5 – Survey Questions

User experience of Lootboxes and Micro- transactions in gaming

You are being invited to participate in a research study: Meta-consumerism in the digital world. This study is being done by Daniel Franks Nielsen from the University of Malmö. The purpose of this research study is to identify user experiences of lootboxes and other forms of micro-transactions in video games, and will take you approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. You are free to omit any question. We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study; however, as with any online related activity the risk of a breach is always possible. To the best of our ability your answers in this study will remain confidential. We will minimize any risks by assuring confidentiality in that only the investigator can identify the responses of individual subjects, and the researcher will make every effort to prevent anyone outside of the project from connecting individual subjects with their responses, up till the point where the data will be destroyed. Which will be in august 2018.

It is important that the interviewee understands that this study is not focused on attitudes towards the increasing implementation of lootboxes and micro-transactions. What I aim to grasp is rather the initial user experience. This means feelings, thoughts and specific behavior that occur or change, when encountering these digital commercial methods.

Micro-transactions throughout this interview will be referring to all types of small-amount digital purchases including lootboxes.

Definition of micro-transactions: Microtransaction (sometimes abbreviated as MTX) is a business model where users can purchase virtual goods via micropayments. Microtransactions are often used in free-to-play games to provide a revenue source for the developers.

*It is not required to answer the questions in English. If your language is Danish or Swedish it will suffice.

Date of birth

Example: 15 December 2012

Gender

Mark only one oval.

Male Female Other

Nationality

What gamer segment do you associate yourself the most with? Below you will see six types of identified gamer characteristics17

Mark only one oval.

Omni Gamer Social Gamer Console Gamer Casual Gamer Free & Mobile Gamer Family Gamer

Have you ever bought a lootbox or other types of micro transactions? Mark only one oval. 1 2 3 4 5

No, never Yes, multiple times

17 NPD Group. (2016, August 29). Gamer Segmentation 2016: See the Forest and the Trees. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/infographics/2016/gamer-segmentation-2016/

If yes, what types of micro-transactions have you encountered? Below you will see six types of micro-transactions and the characteristics of them.

Tick all that apply.

In-game Currency Dicount Offers Random Chance Skill Games Fun Pain Reward Removal

Describe why you do, or don’t, buy micro-transactions

How do you often encounter micro-transaction offers? And in relation to what games? ex. pop-up ads as you play, vendor character in the virtual space, or separate online store

Describe your initial response or reaction to micro-transaction offers Please write all that comes to mind, and think about feelings, thoughts and specific behavior that occur or change, when encountering these digital commercial methods

Have you adopted any methods to avoid/prevent micro-transaction offers? Ex. avoiding certain virtual areas where you often experience offers to appear, change to another game, contacted the game developers and complained, developed reflexes to quickly deny offers, or acceptance

Do you think micro-transactions have changed your gaming experience? Mark only one oval.

Yes Skip to section 2.

No Skip to section 3.

2. Micro-transactions change video games

How is game-play with micro-transactions different from game-play without? Think about structural implications here, rather than your own gaming experience. E.g. How

65 community change as a result of, how the virtual space is formed around micro-transactions, or sensory experiences like sound, vision etc.

How does these differences impact your gaming experience?

Have you participated in any online community debate around micro-transactions? Mark only one oval.

Yes

If yes, where? And did this debate strengthen or change your perception of microtransactions changing games? And why?

If no, have you watched any videos by content creators, related to micro-transactions? Mark only one oval.

Yes No

If yes, did the video strengthen or change your perception of micro-transactions changing games? And why?

Are you a content creator of a video game? if yes, please describe what you do Content creation include maintaining and updating web sites, blogging, photography, videography, online commentary and the maintenance of social media accounts

3. Video games are the same, with or without micro-transactions

Have you participated in any online community debate around micro-transactions? Mark only one oval.

Yes

If yes, where? And did this debate have any influence on your later gaming experience? and why/why not?

If no, have you watched any videos by content creators, related to micro-transactions? Mark only one oval.

Yes No

If yes, did the video(s) have any influence on your later gaming experience? and why/why not?

Are you a content creator of a video game? If yes, please describe what you do Content creation include maintaining and updating web sites, blogging, photography, videography, online commentary and the maintenance of social media accounts