Game Creation, Monetisation Models, and Ethical Concerns

Key insights

7 takeaways

01
Norwegian game studios have struggled to monetise since about 2012, when premium pricing declined on mobile and free-to-play became the expected norm, with informants blaming piracy, cheap online distribution, and oversupply of titles.
02
The market is dominated by a few large firms, so smaller studios find success elusive regardless of quality, according to interviewees across three small to mid-sized companies.
03
Monetisation is steeply skewed: only about 3 percent of players paid in a leading freemium title, and fewer than 0.1 percent did in the Philippines, while friend recommendations converted far better than store visibility.
04
The indie studio kept premium pricing and reported profitability, whereas the freemium studio adapted to free-to-play and gradually adopted loot-box-style mechanics, reasoning that the market rewarded them.
05
Premium and indie firms avoided hard-currency energy systems, loot boxes, and interruptive microtransactions, citing child audiences or artistic principles, while the freemium firm denied ethical responsibility and reasoned utilitarianly, accepting some manipulation for the majority's benefit.
06
Each business model defines quality differently: freemium prioritises retention, time-on-device, and user numbers; premium emphasises production value and gameplay; indie emphasises originality and artistic immersion.
07
The authors conclude that designers' ethics are shaped by genre, their conception of players and markets, and their sense of responsibility, and they call for more precise operationalisation of "ethical" in game ethics research.

Summary

Norwegian game studios have faced mounting difficulty monetising their products since around 2012, when premium pricing declined on mobile and free-to-play became the expected norm. Drawing on interviews with staff at three small to mid-sized companies, the study examines how freemium, premium, and indie developers respond to this shift, and how their commercial strategies intersect with ethical judgement. Informants widely agree that the market is dominated by a few large firms, making success elusive for smaller studios regardless of quality, and attribute the pressure to piracy, inexpensive online distribution, and an oversupply of titles.

The companies adopt markedly different strategies. The indie studio retained premium pricing and reported profitability, while the freemium studio adapted to free-to-play. Monetisation data underscore the challenge: only about 3 percent of players paid in a leading freemium title, and fewer than 0.1 percent in the Philippines, while recommendations from friends converted far better than store visibility. Ethical positions diverge accordingly. The premium and indie firms avoided hard-currency energy systems, loot boxes, or interruptive microtransactions, citing child audiences or artistic principles. The freemium firm initially resisted but gradually adopted loot-box-style mechanics, reasoning that the market rewarded them.

Underlying these differences is a sharp contrast in moral reasoning. The freemium company denies ethical responsibility and reasons in a utilitarian manner, accepting some manipulation of players for the benefit of the majority, whereas the premium and indie firms claim responsibility and draw on deontological or virtue-based principles. Each business model also defines quality differently: retention, time-on-device, and user numbers for freemium; production value and gameplay for premium; originality and artistic immersion for indie. The authors conclude that designers' ethics are shaped by genre, their conception of players and markets, and their sense of responsibility, and they call for more precise operationalisation of "ethical" in game ethics research.