Value obfuscation / false narratives
What a purchase actually yields is misrepresented through framing or false comparison.
- Code
- I6
- Category
- Informational / interface
- Severity
- Medium
- Evidence
- ModerateReported in consumer-law and player-perception work on monetization.
- Purpose served
- Serves businessPrimarily serves the provider's revenue, retention, or data — the most suspect.
- Mechanism family
- Sneaking / Hiding
- Platforms
- Mobile / F2P
- Player costs
- Financial
- Modes
- Deceptive
- Target Audience
- developers
- Tags
- value obfuscationmisrepresentationframingserves businessdeceptive communicationlow transparencyconsent underminedmonetary pressurecognitive pressurevulnerability exploitation
- Also known as
- fake discounts, false value framing
How it works
Inflated ‘original’ prices, fake discounts, or vague yields make purchases look more valuable than they are.
Why it can be harmful
It induces a false belief about value, distorting the player’s cost-benefit judgement at the point of sale.
Examples in the wild
- A game shop '80% off' claim against a price never charged
- In-game bundles whose stated value double-counts items
Illustrative genre examples to aid recognition — not allegations about specific titles.
References
- Bank, D. (2023). Problematic monetization in mobile games in the context of the human right to economic self-determination. Computers in Human Behavior. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107958 · citing patterns
- Petrovskaya, E.; Zendle, D. (2022). Predatory monetisation? A categorisation of unfair, misleading and aggressive monetisation techniques in digital games from the player perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04970-6 · citing patterns
Related patterns
Accidental-purchase / default-to-purchase UI
Purchase is the default or easily mis-tapped path, so spending happens without express, informed consent.
Bad defaults / preselection
The provider-preferred option is already selected or treated as the normal path, so inaction becomes consent, spending, or data sharing.
Comparison prevention
Making it hard to compare prices, odds, or options so players can't judge value.
Feedforward ambiguity / unclear consequences
The interface fails to make clear what a button, prompt, or action will actually do before the player commits.
Illusion of control / skill framing
Chance outcomes are presented as if skill or choice could influence them.
Language inaccessibility / complex copy
Important purchase, privacy, odds, or consent information is presented in language the player cannot reasonably understand.