The game I chose is League of Legends, created by Riot Games. It is a live service multiplayer online battle arena game available on PC, with a large target audience of teenagers (13+) and young adults who enjoy competitive online games. I also enjoy its side mode, Teamfight Tactics (TFT), which is connected to the same ecosystem and also available on the phone. The game constantly updates with new events, skins, characters, and limited content to keep players returning. One important part of the monetization system is skins and randomized skin systems like capsules and gemstones. For example, during limited skin events, players are encouraged to keep opening capsules for rare skin through random rewards instead of directly purchasing them.
I argue that League of Legends and TFT put players at risk for addictive behaviors because they combine randomized reward systems with emotional pressure and live service monetization strategies. The randomness makes players feel like the “next try” could finally give them what they want, whether that is a rare skin or the perfect TFT shop refresh. In League, I personally get very attracted to limited skins and random draws. Even when my luck is bad, I keep spending because I feel like I am already close or have already invested too much to stop. This creates a cycle similar to gambling mechanics in slot machines. TFT feels even more addictive to me because every round includes randomization: random shop refresh, items, and the event of selecting a new character with a new item. Every refresh feels like pulling a slot machine lever. Compared to games like Dota 2 or Hearthstone, League’s systems feel more psychologically intense because randomness exists both inside gameplay and monetization at the same time. Dota 2 also sells skins and drawing treasures, but I personally feel less pressure to buy them because the art style feels less appealing, and the skins are not pushed as aggressively through flashy, limited-time events. Hearthstone is actually very dependent on randomness, too, especially through card pack openings, but its monetization focuses more on collecting cards needed for gameplay rather than cosmetics alone. In League, the skins are tied much more strongly to character identity, visual effects, rarity, and social status in matches, which makes players emotionally attached to obtaining them. Riot also constantly advertises limited skins and limited events, making the experience feel more tempting and emotionally manipulative than those.
One clever design decision from Riot Games is how they blend skill and luck together. In TFT especially, players feel responsible for both success and failure even though randomness heavily influences outcomes. This creates a strong “just one more game” feeling because losses can always be blamed on bad luck while wins feel earned through skill. The game also uses limited-time events, exclusive skins, and near-miss rewards to encourage repeated spending. For example, if a player almost gets enough tokens or almost unlocks a rare skin, they are more likely to continue paying. I think this is where the design becomes ethically questionable. Randomness itself is not automatically bad; chance can make games exciting, dynamic, and replayable.
The mechanics are random draws, loot systems, and TFT refreshes; the dynamics are players chasing better outcomes through repeated play or purchases; and the aesthetics are excitement, hope, frustration, and anticipation. These emotional responses are exactly what keep players engaged. However, when randomness is directly tied to monetization, it can exploit player psychology. League keeps player engage through daily missions, rotating shops, and the fear of missing out. I think it is morally permissible to use chance when probabilities are transparent and not connected to manipulative spending systems. But it becomes morally impermissible when designers intentionally create addiction loops through hidden odds, artificial urgency, and repeated paid attempts. One improvement would be allowing players to directly buy all skins instead of forcing them through randomized systems. This would still let Riot profit while reducing manipulative pressure. TFT balances skill and luck in a way that keeps players feeling partially in control even when outcomes are uncertain. That balance is what makes the system so addictive. Compared to traditional gambling, League disguises these systems within a social and competitive environment, which can make the addictive elements harder to recognize. This assignment changed how I think about live service games because I now notice how many systems are intentionally designed not just to entertain players, but to keep them emotionally and financially invested for as long as possible.
