Spending Money in Free-to-Play Games: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Motives, Impulsivity and Internet Gaming Disorder Specificities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-to-Play games (F2P) have spread widely all over the world in recent years. The current economic model for these games is based on microtransactions, where gamers can purchase additional items or services inside the game. The aim of the present study was (1) to describe the profiles and gaming patterns of F2P gamers, and (2) to compare F2P gamers who spend money and those who do not, in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, gaming experience, motivations, impulsivity, and risk of Internet gaming disorder (IGD), in a representative sample of 5062 French online gamers. Among the total sample, 68.6% were past-year F2P gamers. Among the F2P gamers, 26.1% had spent money in the game. Spending in the game was strongly associated with IGD (6.9% of F2P gamers were disordered gamers). Flow (gaming experience) and escape (motivation) were strongly associated with spending in the game and IGD. Negative urgency (impulsivity) was positively associated with spending in the game while positive urgency was positively associated with IGD. Given the strong association between spending in the game and IGD, these results highlight the importance of prevention and regulation in the field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".