Target Audience (for both games): Players 12+
Game: Fortnite
Creator: Epic Games
Platform: PC, PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, Mobile
Game: Poker (247FreePoker)
Creator: 247FreePoker
Platform: Website
Both Fortnite and Poker leverage randomness in ways that risk encouraging addictive behaviors. While they leverage randomness in similar ways, their mechanics are pretty different. Fortnite uses aesthetic rewards and real-time gameplay loops and Poker relies on probability and monetary stakes. Both games thrive on their ability to deliver inconsistent rewards that create psychological hooks. The use of chance becomes ethically questionable when it’s intentionally designed to exploit emotional investment, especially among younger or more vulnerable players.
Fortnite is a battle royale game where 100 players compete to be the last standing. It is fast-paced and colorful, targeting teens and young adults. The game once included loot boxes and still uses systems like the Battle Pass, where cosmetic items are tied to time-sensitive challenges. The mechanics in Fortnite include timed events, randomized loot and limited edition skins. Players log in frequently to avoid missing exclusive rewards as the dynamic of the game. The game promotes an environment centering urgency, status, and social belonging. Ethically, this design blurs the line between engagement and coercion. Although the game is free, players risk social exclusion by not acquiring rare skins—especially those tied to cultural identity.This can be particularly exploitative for players who may already feel pressure to conform to remain engaged in the social sphere of the game. For marginalized players, these limited edition systems might be their only way to access representation.
Poker, on the other hand, uses randomness more directly. Each hand is dealt at random, creating a volatile but compelling mix of luck and skill. Texas Hold’em and similar variants bank on probabilistic strategy, but most players experience the game through emotional highs and lows. Repeated near-wins reinforce a compulsion to continue playing, often with real financial stakes. Unlike Fortnite, which relies on cosmetic and social incentives, Poker creates a high-risk environment based on the illusion of control and the chase of recovery.
In order to improve the game and improve the overall game ethics, I would make a few changes. For Fortnite, I would suggest transparency in item drop rates and more stable access to identity-based items. This helps alleviate some pressure that players may face in purchasing in-game items. I would also provide a feature to check-in on players after extended screen time on the game (similar to TikTok). While this won’t blunt addiction, it offers players the opportunity to choose to take a break and become less emotionally invested. For the online poker platform, I would consider more time caps. This allows players to take a break and become less emotionally invested. Instead of riding the urge to make peace with the emotional gameplay, they can take a step back and create friction before continuing gameplay. I would also implement pop-ups or other barriers to investing real money to ensure the players are making these choices with more consciousness.
Both games depend heavily on uncertainty as a core design element. This randomness produces tension and anticipation. These types of experiences can quickly become compulsive and addictive. Readings on addictive loops and ethical monetization challenge the assumption that maximizing player engagement is always a positive outcome. Randomness becomes harmful when paired with monetary systems, artificial scarcity, or social pressure.This ties into a larger issue of systems reflecting the assumptions of their designers. Throughout this critical play, I noticed when randomness becomes a barrier to belonging, progress, or self-expression. When representation is locked behind time, chance, or cash, games unintentionally reinforce the idea that not everyone deserves equal access to joy and belonging.
