Skip to content
Exploitative Patternsin Games
I10SevereEvidence: Emerging

Personalised spend-optimisation

Silently using a player's behavioural data to tune offers, prices, odds, difficulty, or matchmaking to maximise that individual's spending.

Code
I10
Category
Informational / interface
Severity
Severe
Evidence
EmergingPrecautionary severe rating based on the potential harm of covert individual targeting; game-specific evidence remains emerging.
Purpose served
Serves businessPrimarily serves the provider's revenue, retention, or data — the most suspect.
Mechanism family
Sneaking / Hiding
Platforms
Mobile / F2P · Live-service
Player costs
FinancialData / privacyAutonomy / choiceCompetitive fairnessEmotional / psychological
Modes
ExploitativeManipulativeDeceptiveMalicious
Target Audience
policymakers
Also known as
dynamic spend optimisation, algorithmic targeting, personalised pricing

How it works

Dynamic systems informed by play and purchase history adjust what each player sees — offers, “frustration → sell-a-fix” difficulty, or matchmaking that surrounds them with spenders — optimised per person to increase spend, invisibly.

Why it can be harmful

Invisible, individualised targeting defeats informed consent and comparison, can exploit identified vulnerabilities (a data-protection concern), and manufactures false social proof; children and at-risk players cannot detect or resist it. The severity rating is precautionary: the harm could be severe when such targeting is deployed at scale, even though the public game-specific evidence base is still emerging.

Examples in the wild

  • Behaviour-tuned in-game offers and dynamic pricing
  • Game difficulty tuned to sell a fix
  • Matchmaking that normalises spending

Illustrative genre examples to aid recognition — not allegations about specific titles.

References

  1. King, D. L.; Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Unfair play? Video games as exploitative monetized services: An examination of game patents from a consumer protection perspective. Computers in Human Behavior. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.017 · citing patterns
  2. Helberger, N.; Sax, M.; Strycharz, J. (2021). Choice architectures in the digital economy: Towards a new understanding of digital vulnerability. Journal of Consumer Policy. doi.org/10.1007/s10603-021-09500-5 · citing patterns
  3. Strycharz, J.; Duivenvoorde, B. (2021). The exploitation of vulnerability through personalised marketing communication: Are consumers protected?. Internet Policy Review. doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1585 · citing patterns
  4. van Rooij, A. J.; Birk, M. V.; van der Hof, S.; Oostenbach, K., et al. (2025). Game-check: Development, application and visualization of a classification system for behavioral design in games. Trimbos Institute, Eindhoven University of Technology & Leiden University (for the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations). osf.io/5qzda/ · citing patterns
  5. 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

Related patterns