About the Game
Pokémon GO is an augmented reality mobile game where the player explores the real world to find and catch Pokémon using GPS technology. Players can train and evolve their Pokémon, battle in Gyms, complete Field Research tasks, and participate in special events. The game was developed by Niantic and originally released for iOS and Android devices in 2016. The game’s target audience includes fans of exploration and real-world interaction, players who enjoy collecting and leveling up Pokémon and those who like competitive battles and community-based gameplay. The game also appeals to both nostalgic fans of the Pokémon franchise and new players looking for a socially engaging and active gaming experience.
How might this game put people at risk for addiction
Pokémon Go might put people at risk for addiction because the game encourages players to spend money, which creates a stronger emotional and financial investment. For example, Pokémon Go has PokéStops where players collect daily rewards, and these rewards build up over the week. But in order to collect them, the player’s bag needs to have space. Pokémon Go makes it really easy for the bag to get full (see image below), which pushes players to spend real money on PokéCoins to expand their bag. Additionally, the game features limited-time raids that require a raid pass to join. The only way to fully participate in multiple raids in a single day is by spending money. These raids often feature rare Pokémon, and the time limit creates FOMO, pressuring players to pay. Together, these features mirror Fortnite’s dark design. In Fortnite, the item shop also uses time-sensitive offers to create urgency and push spending. Both games are using dark design to keep players engaged and spending money, which can lead to addiction.
How is randomness feeding into addiction?
Randomness in Pokémon Go feeds into addiction because the Pokémon that spawn are not guaranteed, meaning players will sometimes spend money to get certain Pokémon. For example as discussed previously, there are limited-time raids that encourage players to spend money to participate. These raids often feature rare or powerful Pokémon, and the only way to do multiple raids in a day is to buy extra raid passes using real money. Likewise, Pokémon Go has items like Incense and Lure Modules (see images below) that increase the spawn rate of Pokémon. These items are only given to the player occasionally, usually when leveling up, but they help players level up faster. This creates a loop where the player is pushed to buy these items in the shop to make progress more efficiently. The objective of Pokémon Go is to catch Pokémon, but the easiest and fastest way to do that is by spending money. This is a clear example of dark design, where the game uses chance and scarcity to push players toward in-game purchases.
How does it compare to other games that use chance or probability?
Pokémon Go and Fortnite both use chance and probability to keep players hooked, but they do it in different ways. Pokémon Go relies more on input randomness because players can’t control which Pokémon appear. Like in Pokemon Go it depends on where they are, what time it is, and what events are happening. This randomness encourages players to spend money on things like Incense or Lure Modules to make more Pokémon spawn. In contrast, Fortnite uses more output randomness. Players choose where to land and how to move, but the weapons and items they find are random. This creates excitement because players never know exactly what they’ll get after making a decision. Both games use this randomness to keep players engaged, but Pokémon Go makes money more central to advancement. For example, players might buy items to increase their odds of catching rare Pokémon, while in Fortnite, players might spend money in the item shop because of aesthetics.
When is it morally permissible or impermissible to use chance in your games?
From my observations, I believe that it is morally permissible to use chance in games when no real money is involved. When no actual money is involved, there are less consequences to the actions of players. Likewise, when a game has no real money, players can engage with the randomness just for fun. They aren’t being pushed to spend in order to keep up or succeed. But when a game uses chance to encourage players to spend money, especially in situations where there is FOMO or limited-time offers, it starts to feel manipulative. This is when it becomes morally wrong. Players might spend more than they want to just to keep playing or to get a rare item. So it is fine to use chance when it is just part of the game, but it becomes a problem when it is tied to money and used to make players addicted.
