Feedforward ambiguity / unclear consequences
The interface fails to make clear what a button, prompt, or action will actually do before the player commits.
- Code
- I16
- Category
- Informational / interface
- Severity
- Medium
- Evidence
- EmergingGray et al. introduce feedforward ambiguity as a pattern; game-specific support comes from player-perception work on deceptive gameplay and interface cues.
- Purpose served
- Serves businessPrimarily serves the provider's revenue, retention, or data — the most suspect.
- Mechanism family
- Interface interference
- Platforms
- Mobile / F2P · PC / console · Live-service
- Target Audience
- developers
- Tags
- feedforward ambiguityunclear consequencesambiguitypurchase flowinterface cuesserves businessdeceptive communicationlow transparencyconsent underminedtemporal pressuremonetary pressurecognitive pressureemotional pressurevulnerability exploitation
- Also known as
- unclear consequence, ambiguous action, misleading affordance
How it works
Labels, icons, animations, or placement suggest one outcome while the actual outcome is different or materially more consequential. Unlike broad trick wording, the problem is the missing or misleading feedforward cue about what will happen next.
Why it can be harmful
Games often ask for rapid, repeated action. When consequence cues are ambiguous, players can spend currency, consume scarce resources, reveal data, start timers, or change irreversible settings without a fair chance to predict the result.
Examples in the wild
- A glowing 'open' affordance that consumes premium currency without saying so
- A reroll button that spends a rare item without previewing the cost
- A game social-share icon that posts publicly rather than opening a private invite
- A claim prompt that starts a timed event instead of merely collecting a reward
Illustrative genre examples to aid recognition — not allegations about specific titles.
References
- Gray, C. M.; Santos, C. T.; Bielova, N.; Mildner, T. (2024). An ontology of dark patterns knowledge: Foundations, definitions, and a pathway for shared knowledge-building. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642436 · citing patterns
- King, J. (2023). Investigating players' perceptions of deceptive design practices within a 3D gameplay context. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI PLAY). doi.org/10.1145/3611053 · citing patterns
- Yin, M. (2024). Lies, deceit, and hallucinations: Player perception and expectations regarding trust and deception in games. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642253 · citing patterns
- Deceptive Design (n.d.). Trick wording. Deceptive Design. deceptive.design/types/trick-wording/ · citing patterns
Related patterns
Trick wording / misleading copy
Confusing, ambiguous, or expectation-violating wording makes the player take an action they did not mean to take.
Bad defaults / preselection
The provider-preferred option is already selected or treated as the normal path, so inaction becomes consent, spending, or data sharing.
Fake social proof
Fabricated or unverifiable signals of others' activity — “1M players bought this!”, fake live counters — used to pressure decisions.
Accidental-purchase / default-to-purchase UI
Purchase is the default or easily mis-tapped path, so spending happens without express, informed consent.
Language inaccessibility / complex copy
Important purchase, privacy, odds, or consent information is presented in language the player cannot reasonably understand.
Personalised spend-optimisation
Silently using a player's behavioural data to tune offers, prices, odds, difficulty, or matchmaking to maximise that individual's spending.