Language inaccessibility / complex copy
Important purchase, privacy, odds, or consent information is presented in language the player cannot reasonably understand.
- Code
- I15
- Category
- Informational / interface
- Severity
- Medium
- Evidence
- EmergingGray et al.'s ontology names wrong-language and complex-language patterns; game-specific evidence overlaps with trick wording and consent-flow research.
- 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 · UGC platforms
- Player costs
- Autonomy / choiceFinancialData / privacy
- Target Audience
- developers
- Tags
- language inaccessibilitycomplex languagewrong languageconsenttransparencyserves businesscommercialized to childrendeceptive communicationlow transparencyconsent underminedmonetary pressurecognitive pressuredata pressureaccess pressureugc platformsvulnerability exploitation
- Also known as
- complex language, wrong language, unreadable disclosure
How it works
Disclosures use legalistic, technical, untranslated, or age-inappropriate wording while the action button remains simple and salient. The result is a consent or purchase flow that appears transparent but is not intelligible to the affected player.
Why it can be harmful
Disclosure does not protect autonomy if the player cannot understand it. In games, complex or inaccessible wording is especially harmful for children, cross-language audiences, and fast-paced play contexts where players are pushed to continue quickly.
Examples in the wild
- Loot-box odds or subscription terms written in dense legal language
- Game tracking or personalised-offer consent shown only in the wrong language
- Child-facing game purchase prompts with adult legal vocabulary
- Game account-linking terms hidden behind untranslated platform jargon
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
- Deceptive Design (n.d.). Trick wording. Deceptive Design. deceptive.design/types/trick-wording/ · citing patterns
- Mathur, A.; Kshirsagar, M.; Mayer, J. (2021). What makes a dark pattern... dark? Design attributes, normative considerations, and measurement methods. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445610 · citing patterns
- Nguyen, J.; Ruberg, B. (2020). Challenges of designing consent: Consent mechanics in video games as models for interactive user agency. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376827 · citing patterns
Related patterns
Bad defaults / preselection
The provider-preferred option is already selected or treated as the normal path, so inaction becomes consent, spending, or data sharing.
Trick wording / misleading copy
Confusing, ambiguous, or expectation-violating wording makes the player take an action they did not mean to take.
Accidental-purchase / default-to-purchase UI
Purchase is the default or easily mis-tapped path, so spending happens without express, informed consent.
Comparison prevention
Making it hard to compare prices, odds, or options so players can't judge value.
Personalised spend-optimisation
Silently using a player's behavioural data to tune offers, prices, odds, difficulty, or matchmaking to maximise that individual's spending.
Forced registration / data disclosure
Access to play, rewards, or social features is made conditional on creating an account, linking an identity, or sharing unnecessary personal or contact data.