How scoring works
Sifter gives every game two numbers. They’re built to be factual and unbiased— the same for everyone, based on how a game actually makes money and holds attention, not on whether it’s the kind of game you happen to like.
Design Risk 0–100
How predatory a game’s monetisation and engagement design is. Lower is better. It’s a severity-weighted total across three categories: monetisation, manipulation, and compulsion.
Joy Index 0–100
Genuine enjoyment: community satisfaction, minus a penalty for design risk. Higher is better. A great game with fair monetisation scores high on both.
Scored by harm, not presence
Having a cash shop isn’t automatically bad. What matters is what money buys. Every purchase mechanic is weighted by its impact, so cosmetic-only spending is treated very differently from pay-for-power:
Cosmetic
Skins / visuals only — no gameplay advantage
Convenience
Time-savers, grind-skips — no competitive power
Power
Affects gameplay, progression, or competition
Randomised
Loot boxes / gacha — gambling-like, weighted heavily
Verified vs Estimated
Hand-checked against the game’s live storefront. We do this for high-traffic games whose monetisation the store listing doesn’t spell out in words — a gacha game says “convene,” not “gacha.” High confidence.
Inferred from the Steam store listing when we don’t have verified data. Deliberately conservative — we only flag a concern when there’s evidence for it, and we label it as an estimate so you know.
See it in action
66
Risk
Wuthering Waves
red-flagRandomised paid pulls for characters/gear that affect power.
54
Joy
24
Risk
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
mindfulRandomised paid containers — gambling-like mechanics, cosmetic outcomes.
67
Joy
2
Risk
Rust
healthyIn-game purchases sells cosmetic items only — no gameplay advantage.
73
Joy
0
Risk
Hogwarts Legacy
healthyNo monetisation or engagement concerns detected.
74
Joy
These scores are computed live by the same engine that scores your library — so this page always reflects the real model.
Objective first, then personal
The scores above never change from person to person — they’re the objective facts. On top of that, the optional “For you” reading re-weights those same facts by what you care about (for example, if randomised monetisation bothers you more than time-gates). It changes the emphasis of the advice — never the underlying score.
Scoring is open source. Weightings are based on published research and each game’s live storefront.