Pay to (Not) Play: Monetizing Impatience in Mobile Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile gaming is a rapidly growing and incredibly profitable sector; having grown seven-fold over the past 10 years, it now grosses over $100 billion annually. This growth was due in large part to a shift in monetization strategies: rather than charging players an upfront cost ("pay-to-play"), games often request optional microtransactions throughout gameplay ("free-to-play"). We focus on a common scenario in which games include wait times---gating either items or game progression---that players can pay to skip. Game designers typically say that they optimize for player happiness rather than revenue; however, prices for skips are typically set at levels that few players are willing to pay, leading to low purchase rates. Under a traditional analysis, it would seem that game designers fail at their stated goal if few players buy what they are selling. We argue that an alternate model can better explain this dynamic: players value tasks more highly as they are perceived to be more difficult. While skips can increase players' utilities by providing instant gratification, pricing skips too cheaply can lower players' utilities by decreasing the perceived amount of work needed to complete a task. We show that high revenue, high player utility, and low purchase rates can all coexist under this model, particularly under a realistic distribution of players having few buyers but a few big-spending "whales." We also investigate how a game designer should optimize prices under our model. An appendix of the paper with proofs, more comprehensive results and visualizations can be found at https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10205.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".