Game design
of these practices or iterations of them (such as particular variations of forced outcomes 5 ) are automatically considered to lead to negative outcomes and are already banned in the UK and other jurisdictions under consumer protection regulations. Mitigations available include promoting active, meaningful choices to consumers and recognising where friction is required or can be removed in ways that are shown to benefit consumers. Table 1 below shows the CMA’s summary of OCA practices relating to choice structure and a high level description. We then move to discuss three of these in detail in relation to the gambling sector. Table 1: Choice structure examples OCA practice Description Evidence Defaults ****
OCA practice Description
Evidence
Dark nudge % The choice architect makes it easy or removes friction for consumers to make inadvertent or ill-considered decisions
***
Virtual curren- cies in gaming
The choice architect creates elements of a virtual currency to be used as a substitute for the ‘real-world’ currency The choice architect changes the outcome without giving consumers a choice
**
Forced outcomes %
**
Choice structure – betting and gaming examples All three examples we set out below – Dark Nudge, Sludge, and Choice Overload – are seen as likely to be harmful based on the academic literature. Dark nudge describes instances where friction is removed from a consumer’s journey to allow them to make inadvertent or ill-considered decisions. For this practice, the CMA specifically calls out the gambling sector in its evidence review: “Another domain where dark nudges are especially prevalent is the gambling industry … electronic machines optimise each step of the gambler’s experience by removing friction from the gambling experience through touchscreen buttons that minimise the physical effort of long gambling sessions …. with the jump to “remote” online and mobile gambling, gamblers today can overcome physical limitations and bring those activities into the home and on the go …. generating a new dimension of gambling harm.” Sludge describes the practice of placing onerous steps – “excessive” friction – within consumer journeys that makes it difficult for consumers to get the outcomes they want. This is another practice which the CMA speaks about in the context of the gambling sector, referring to its joint investigation with the Gambling Commission into bonuses and promotions online that concluded in 2019: (Cases so far include) “ online gambling, where our concerns included the use of ‘sludge’ and the potential for bonus promotions to be designed in ways that commit people to repeat wagering.” Choice overload describes the practice of providing so
The choice architect applies a predefined setting that the consumer must take active steps to change The choice architect displays the order of options in a particular way The choice architect presents individual price components without sharing the total or estimated total costs with the consumer The choice architect groups two or more products and/or services in a single ‘package’ at a special price The choice architect provides too many options to compare. The choice architect adds an option to the choice set to make the other option(s) look more attractive to the consumer The choice architect employs visual, aural and tactile features to steer consumers towards certain options
Ranking
***
Partitioned pricing
***
Bundling
***
Choice overload and decoys %
***
Sensory manipulation %
***
Sludge % The choice architect creates excessive or unjustified friction that makes it difficult for consumers to get what they want or to do as they wish
***
5 For example, these include ‘sneak into basket practices’, where a product is included into the shopping basket, but the inclusion is not obvious, for example, through the use of pre-ticked options or ‘bait and switch’ practice, where a consumer is led to do a particular action (e.g. close a window, not get an update), but an unwanted outcome happens.
28 • IMGL Magazine • July 2022
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker