Design Risk Score
Verified data69/100
4 mechanics flagged
Why this score
- Pay-to-Win+25
Paying grants a direct gameplay or competitive advantage.
Why this counts
Pay-to-win mechanics undermine competitive integrity and create a two-tier player base divided by spending capacity rather than skill. Research on fairness perception shows they significantly reduce long-term engagement.
- Consumer-protection consensus: paid competitive advantage is the most-cited monetisation harm
- Fairness-perception research on paid advantage in multiplayer games
- Loot Boxes+20
Randomised paid containers that can affect gameplay.
Why this counts
Loot boxes have been regulated or banned in Belgium and the Netherlands as gambling products. Research has found correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling symptom severity (Zendle & Cairns, 2018).
- Belgium & Netherlands gambling regulators — loot boxes classified as gambling (2018)
- Zendle & Cairns, PLOS ONE — loot boxes linked to problem gambling (2018)
- ESRB 'In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)' interactive element (2020)
- Microtransactions+12
In-game purchases sells items that affect gameplay or progression.
- FOMO Events+12
Time-limited content tied to purchasable items.
Why this counts
Przybylski et al. (2013) formalized the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) construct. Games exploit this by attaching scarcity signals to social currency items, creating anxiety that is only relievable through immediate purchase.
- Przybylski et al., Computers in Human Behavior — FoMO construct (2013)
- Scarcity principle (Cialdini) applied to limited-time store offers
Points reflect severity, not just presence — cosmetic-only purchases score far lower than pay-for-power. Total: 69/100. How scoring works →
Joy Index
57/100
Good
Community score: 57/100
Joy reflects genuine enjoyment after accounting for design risk.
Verdict
Reconsider
Worth reconsidering
This game's design leans heavily on maximizing spending over enjoyment. If you play, set firm limits and stay aware of the pressure tactics at work.
- Consider evidence-based alternatives
- If you play, set a hard budget and strict time limits
- Be aware of sunk-cost pressure tactics
Want a reading tuned to what youcare about? Connect your Steam library — your “For you” score stays entirely in your browser.
Score your library →Where to buy
Prefer something else?
Similar games that respect your time and wallet more.
More like this
Similar games, with how each one scores.
Mods
Upload a mod →Detected Design Patterns
Content is available only during a limited window, then rotates out.
Paid containers with randomised contents; item value varies by rarity.
Purchases grant progression or competitive advantage over non-paying players.
Why this score
Verified data- Pay-to-Win+25
Paying grants a direct gameplay or competitive advantage.
Why this counts
Pay-to-win mechanics undermine competitive integrity and create a two-tier player base divided by spending capacity rather than skill. Research on fairness perception shows they significantly reduce long-term engagement.
- Consumer-protection consensus: paid competitive advantage is the most-cited monetisation harm
- Fairness-perception research on paid advantage in multiplayer games
- Loot Boxes+20
Randomised paid containers that can affect gameplay.
Why this counts
Loot boxes have been regulated or banned in Belgium and the Netherlands as gambling products. Research has found correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling symptom severity (Zendle & Cairns, 2018).
- Belgium & Netherlands gambling regulators — loot boxes classified as gambling (2018)
- Zendle & Cairns, PLOS ONE — loot boxes linked to problem gambling (2018)
- ESRB 'In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)' interactive element (2020)
- Microtransactions+12
In-game purchases sells items that affect gameplay or progression.
- FOMO Events+12
Time-limited content tied to purchasable items.
Why this counts
Przybylski et al. (2013) formalized the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) construct. Games exploit this by attaching scarcity signals to social currency items, creating anxiety that is only relievable through immediate purchase.
- Przybylski et al., Computers in Human Behavior — FoMO construct (2013)
- Scarcity principle (Cialdini) applied to limited-time store offers
Points reflect severity, not just presence — cosmetic-only purchases score far lower than pay-for-power. Total: 69/100. How scoring works →
Time Respect
Verified data- Limited-Time Events-20
Time-limited content pressures you to play now instead of when you actually want to.
Embed this score
Drop this in a forum post, wiki, or README — the badge always reflects the current score.