Spot fairness and consumer protection risks in video game monetisation design.
A guided assessment that flags recurring issues in transparency, consent, decision pressure, and minor-related safeguards. The outcome highlights areas that should be reviewed and documented during the design and iteration processes.
Purpose
Why the tool exists and how it is intended to be used.
Rationale
Design choices shape how prices, offers, and safeguards are perceived and used.
Intended users
For indie teams and UX specialists who need a structured basis for discussion and documentation without specialised legal expertise.
What it checks
Real-money price transparency, consent and transaction control, decision pressure cues, and minor-related safeguards.
Where it helps
Early-stage flow design, reviews of live-ops changes, and lightweight reporting for internal alignment.
Assessment
A guided flow from context to questions, producing a concern orientation.
Criteria reference
The domains and observable indicators the assessment is grounded in.
A) Price transparency and virtual currency clarity
The assessment checks whether users can understand the real-money cost at the moment of decision, including where virtual currencies are used. Risk increases where real-money equivalence is absent, hidden behind additional steps, or distorted through layered conversions or systematically misaligned bundles.
B) Consent and transaction control
This domain covers whether the purchase journey supports deliberate consent and user control. It focuses on explicit confirmation before charging, symmetry between opting in and opting out, clear disclosure of recurring commitments, and practical access to refunds, withdrawal, and complaint pathways.
C) Choice architecture and decision pressure
The assessment examines whether choices are presented neutrally and whether pressure signals are used responsibly. It flags misleading labels, hidden refusal options, repeated prompting after refusal, and urgency cues that can reduce deliberation or materially impair voluntary choice.
D) Minors and safeguards
Where minors are plausibly exposed, consumer-protection sensitivity increases. This domain therefore checks for child-directed urging and the presence of meaningful default safeguards, such as purchase confirmations, parental controls, or spending limits.
What the result means
How to interpret concern levels and use them responsibly.
Minimal concern
Few indicators are present, or they appear in clarity-preserving forms. Decision-point transparency and user control remain the primary considerations.
Moderate concern
Some indicators suggest avoidable ambiguity, pressure cues, or asymmetric friction. The flagged domains merit review, and mitigation choices should be documented.
Elevated concern
Multiple indicators co-occur, or higher-severity signals are present. The flagged domains should be prioritised for review, and mitigation should be considered before release.
Scope and limitations
What the assessment covers and what it cannot conclude.
What it covers
- Monetisation-related UX decision points assessable from interface and interaction design
- Mechanisms affecting transparency, consent, and decision pressure
- Minors-related sensitivity and the presence of practical safeguards
What it does not cover
- Full legal compliance assessment under all jurisdictional interpretations
- Longitudinal player outcomes or causal harm measurement
- Non-observable practices such as personalised targeting, dynamic pricing, or experimentation logic