Barend Jackobus Strydom

IMPACT OF MONETISATION FAIRNESS ON DAILY ACTIVE PLAYERS IN FREE-TO-PLAY GAMES Introduction Multiplayer game development has evolved into one of the defining icons of modern entertainment. From its humble beginnings as local arcade machines to a global-spanning online system, multiplayer games grew in scale and complexity, allowing millions to connect, play and form social bonds. Within this new digital era, games are no longer bought and sold in real shops, instead, they are now sold online as digital products. It is within this digital space that a new form of multiplayer game was conceived. The Free-to-play game grew into a multibillion-dollar industry over the last few decades and generated approximately 111.37 billion U.S. dollars worldwide in 2023 (Statista, 2025). This growth is largely due to the fact that developers offer the base game for free to the players and then generate revenue through microtransactions within the game. These microtransactions may come in the form of battle passes, lootboxes and cosmetic purchases. The free-to-play model subsequently created some of today's most popular multiplayer titles, such as Apex Legends(Apex Legends Home - Electronic Arts, n.d.), League of Legends(League of Legends, 2025) and PUBG(KRAFTON Inc., n.d.). This paper will explore how the free-to-play business model is more than a mere financial component, but an integral part of multiplayer game development. It will focus on how the business model influences multiplayer game design, player experience, and fair gameplay. Secondary research is utilised to investigate how montasation affects multiplayer game design and how it also affects the players themselves. The paper is guided by four key questions: ● How do free-to-play monetisation models affect core gameplay design decisions in multiplayer games? ● What impact does monetisation have on players? ● How do developers create a fair monetisation model to avoid becoming pay-to-win? The overall purpose of this essay is to use existing literature, from academic studies and market research, to examine how monetisation shapes multiplayer design. Demostarting careful research and planning can help developers create fair and engaging free-to-play games. Background The roots of free-to-play games can be traced back as far as the 1990s. According to Lu (2024), the first idea of a free-to-play game was from id Software’s Doom. id Software distributed the game as shareware. Shareware is software that is shared by the creator or owner for trial use at little to no cost. This trial version allowed id Software to promote the game, and when the players were hooked, they then had to buy the full game from the publisher. This first version of free software that players could play, and then had to buy the full game later, formed the basis of what we know today as the free-to-play model. However, according to Alha (2020), the true rise of free-to-play multiplayer games came from the South Korean game industry. Due to political tensions between South Korea and Japan in 1998, consoles and games were prohibited from being imported from Japan, and only smuggled or pirated games could be found at that time. South Korea, on the other hand, was seeing an economic growth spurt, which allowed the government to heavily invest in its broadband infrastructure. This lack of games and fast internet caused developers to shift focus to online games. This concentration on online games not only worked as a countermeasure against piracy but also allowed developers to observe new player behaviour. Players started to sell in-game items to each other for real-world currency. Developers realised that by giving the players the game for free, and then adding microtransactions, they can then maximise revenue intake over an extended period. Due to the success of the model in South Korea, the model quickly spread across the world. The free-to-play business model did not just boom within the personal computer space but also took off in the mobile space at a frightening speed. Nieborg (2015) described that the free-to-play model expanded with the release of Apple and Android app stores in the late 2000s, pretty quickly and has become the most prominent business model within the mobile game space. This gave rise to popular games such as Candy Crush and Angry Birds. As the free-to-play model grew, so did the manner in which publishers present microtransactions to their player base. Sormunen (2019) discusses extensively current trends and categorises them as such: ● Virtual currency: This type of currency can be earned within a game by completing tasks, or the player can also buy premium currency for real-world money. ● Cosmetic skins: This is a cosmetic upgrade within the game that changes the character or an item's appearance without affecting gameplay. ● Loot Boxes: This is an item or box that the player can buy with real-world currency that will give the player a randomised item or skin. ● Battle Pass: The battle pass system allows players to get more content through a tier system if they complete an objective or challenge. As with all things in life, there is also a downside to the free-to-play model. In recent years, it has been observed that these microtransaction mechanics can also induce addictive behaviour similar to that of gambling addiction. Petrovskaya and Zendle (2021) address how certain aggressive monetisation tactics within games can be designed to force players subconsciously to spend realworld money and how mechanics such as lootboxes promote similar addictive behaviour as gambling. Literature Review This study examines how the free-to-play revenue model affects game design, but also how it affects players on a psychological level. By examining secondary research from a quantitative perspective, it hopes to also provide insights into creating a fair monetisation model and how secondary data can provide insight into how to enhance player churn. How the F2P model affects game design The literature agrees that game design is highly influenced by the monetisation model that a game will implement. In fact, Markopoulos (2018) found that several experts agree that before game design begins that the developer must have a rough idea how the game is going to generate revenue. He further states that there is no one-size-fits-all method to generating revenue, as what works for AAA companies may not work for a small indie developer. This fact is backed by Nizamoglou (2025), who states that the monetisation model shapes the player's gaming experience and is not an extra to be added later. As indicated by the literature, not only is the free-to-play model essential for generating revenue, but it is also part of the core design framework. Proper planning of monetisation during the initial stage of development is essential as it ensures that the revenue model aligns with the player experience and the overall game design. How monetisation influences player psychology The effect of monetisation in free-to-play multiplayer games on the individual's psychology has been a hotly debated topic over the last few years. On the positive side, scholars such as Turkay and Kinzer (2014) found that through character customisation, players express their unique identities. This allows players to create emotional attachments to their characters and causes them, in turn, to invest emotionally in the game. Creating skins for items or selling limited items within the free-to-play game can allow players to emotionally get attached to the game, and therefore create revenue as well as generate player retention. On the negative side, scholars also found that certain free-to-play monetisation mechanics are designed in such a way that they block players from progressing in the game unless they spend real-world currency. Petrovskaya and Zendle (2021) found in their study that misleading practices such as pay or grind, pay or wait, nerf cycle and progression through spending are quite prominent in the free-to-play models on the market. Markopoulos (2018), in fact, explains that certain developers utilise the brain's chemical release when players are happy to promote the sale of microtransactions. They accomplish this by allowing the player to win in the beginning, allowing the release of chemicals, but then, at a later stage, forcing the game to a near-halt, which drives the brain to crave these chemicals. This forces the players to spend money to relive that sense of accomplishment. Creating a fair monetisation model A theme that constantly appears during the secondary research is the concept of fairness. The literature indicates that fairness is a cornerstone of creating a successful free-to-play multiplayer game. Cometic only montisation is a frequent topic that appears in the research. Jarrett (2021) cites that League of Legends is a prime example of an effective free-to-play model. He states that by only selling cosmetic items within the game, players tend to be satisfied and don't feel restricted, as they do with other games where progression is locked behind a paywall. He also states that since LoL is also a social game, players tend to want to support the developer. As the supporting developer will, in turn, support the social groups that players form as long as the game is active. This data indicates that social spaces help players form connections not only with one another but also create space where the developer is included in the social space. Another feature is that of how the game constantly delivers new content without charging the player base. Players feel that they get value for the money they do spend in the game when new skins are available, without the items feeling forced upon them. Research Methodologies This study uses secondary research methodology to explore how free-to-play monetisation influences multiplayer game design, the effect it has on players and how game fairness can be achieved. Secondary research is especially suitable due to the fact that there are many studies done on these topics. By utilising secondary research such as academic papers, journal entries and statistics, patterns were identified within these papers that helped lay the foundation for the topics discussed. It is approached primarily from a qualitative perspective, but also utilises quantitative data at certain points to emphasise key points. Qualitative data provided insights into players emotions in response to monetisation mechanics. It also provided insight into trends other games follow and how data can be used to identify what works and what does not work. Quantitative data provide statistical data on key points that were found in the qualitative data. Google Scholar was primarily utilised to find the data required. By using key phrases such as freeto-play, microtransactions, player psychology,lootboxes and fairness in games, the correct data could then be found and analysed. Statista and ActivePlayer(2025) played an integral role in securing the necessary data, such as revenue streams and player counts. Limitations on this form of data are that all the data is either from a focused source, for example, games on pc or mobile or is part of older data sources that may have become obsolete as new trends and behaviours replaced them. Results and Analysis Monetisation as a Core Part of Game Design The secondary data indicates that monetisation does influence free-to-play multiplayer game design from the initial phases of development. The fact that Markopoulos (2018) and Nizamoglou (2025) both point out that planning how the game is going to be monetised is of the utmost importance, and that the monetisation method implemented will influence the player experience. The analysis indicates monetisation does have an effect on key design choices. Games like League of Legends design their monetisation in such a manner that gameplay is not affected by their model, but rather works together with gameplay. By implementing gameplay that functions without the need to pay to progress, players are encouraged to build identities through cosmetic purchases without being forced to do so. The data, therefore, supports the idea that monetisation functions as a design framework and can be utilised to enhance the player experience. Psychological Influence of Monetisation The research highlights that there are both positive and negative aspects to the free-to-play model. On the positive side, as indicated by Turkay and Kinzer (2014), identity expression through cosmetics allows players to get emotionally invested in their characters. They also note that by creating these identities, players are encouraged to participate in social spaces within the game. Cosmetic purchases can therefore enhance player satisfaction and can cause them to invest in the game for an extended period of time. However, on the negative side, as noted by Petrovskaya and Zendle (2021) and Markopoulos (2018), underhanded monetisation tactics can cause players to feel frustrated and manipulated into buying in-game progression items. By using psychological pressure tactics, developers can cause players to develop addictive behaviours. These findings suggest that monetisation can either be a boon or a curse on the player experience. Developers should focus on fairness and transparency with monetisation to ensure that player well-being is maintained. Elements of Fair Monetisation Throughout the research, fairness is a strong recurring theme. Jarrett (2021) uses League of Legends as a model for what a fair model should look like. By focusing solely on cosmetics and leaving gameplay unhindered, LoL ensures that the game is fair and thus creates a loyal player base. To prove that the fair free-to-play model implemented by League of Legends is effective. Research was done by analysing 2 models that follow this framework and comparing them to 2 free-to-play models that use pay-to-win mechanics. By analysing player monthly churn, we can see which model is more effective. Utilising data from ActivePlayer(Xoob, 2024) it can be noticed how Fortnite (Battle Royale by Epic - Fortnite, n.d.) and Apex Legends, which use cosmetic upgrades, have better player retention than that of Diablo Immortal (Diablo Immortal, n.d.) and Raid: Shadow Legends (RAID: Shadow Legends, n.d.). Game: Daily Users Player Gain/Loss +123,374 Fortnite 1,316,188 91,752,00 -904 75,600,00 -15,000 75,000,00 -200,00 Apex Legends Diablo Immortal RAID: Shadow Legends The data clearly indicates that when developers focus on cosmetic upgrades over pay-to-win upgrades that player retention is higher. Conclusion This study set out to examine how free-to-play monetisation shapes multiplayer game design, affects players, and contributes to fairness. Drawing from several secondary resources, it was found that the free-to-play model is more than a financial element, but is a key part of the design process and that it directly shapes game progression, the player experience and long-term player engagement. The research demonstrates that monetisation has both a positive and a negative effect on the player psychology. While cosmetic purchases promote player identity and emotional attachment, aggressive monetisation tactics risk exploiting players and alienating them. For this reason, fairness emerges as a fundamental component in designing free-to-play games. Successful developers implement cosmetic-only monetisation, continuous updates, and create social spaces where players support the game voluntarily. Ultimately, this paper proves that secondary research plays a crucial role in the multiplayer game development process. By examining secondary data, developers can gain insights into player expectations, industry trends, and thus enable them to create fair monetisation systems that can be both profitable and still respect players. References: Alha, K. (2020). The Rise of Free-to-Play: How the revenue model changed games and playing. Tampere University Research Portal. https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/the-rise-of-free-to-play-howthe-revenue-model-changed-games-and-/ Apex Legends Home - Electronic Arts. (n.d.). https://www.ea.com/games/apexlegends/apex-legends Jarrett, J. (2021). Gaming the gift: The affective economy of League of Legends ‘fair’ free-to-play model. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/- KRAFTON Inc. (n.d.). PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS. PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS. https://pubg.com/en/events/2025goldenegg Lu, J. [Jay Lu]. (2024, April 4). The rise of Free-To-Play in the gaming industry. Medium. Retrieved December 6, 2025, from https://medium.com/@jaylu1217/the-rise-of-free-to-play-in-the-gamingindustry-ca052b9f95 League of Legends. (2025, April 12). https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-gb/ Markopoulos, P. (2018). The effect of monetization in the gaming industry. BA (Honours) in Games THESIS. Panagiotis Markopoulos. Thesis for: Bachelors of Arts (Honours) in Games DesignAdvisor: Roy Cecelay Authors: https://doi.org/-/rg- Nieborg, D. B. (2015). Crushing Candy: the Free-to-Play game in its connective commodity form. Social Media + Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/- Nizamoglou, A. (2025, May 13). What I wish I knew about monetizing my first game. Meduim. Retrieved December 7, 2025, from https://medium.com/@antonynizamoglou/what-i-wish-i-knew-aboutmonetizing-my-first-game-68fd64d3d43c Statista. (2025, November 27). F2P games revenue worldwide-. https://www.statista.com/statistics/324129/arpu-f2p-mmo/ Petrovskaya, E., & Zendle, D. (2021). Predatory Monetisation? A Categorisation of Unfair, Misleading and Aggressive Monetisation Techniques in Digital Games from the Player Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4),-. https://doi.org/10.1007/s- Sormunen, J. (2019). Sustainability of revenue models and monetization of video games. Aaltodoc (Aalto University). https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/-/42393 Xoob. (2024, May 29). Home - The Game Statistics Authority : ActivePlayer.io. The Game Statistics Authority : ActivePlayer.io. https://activeplayer.io/