Fairness in Video Games

Abstract

The goal of this research is to gain additional insights into the loot box controversy by analyzing the discourse used by game journalists and gamers on loot boxes in video games. The research question is: What is the discourse used by game media on loot boxes in the video games Star Wars: Battlefront 2? To answer the question, I will make use of a critical discourse analysis around the discourse on loot boxes in Star Wars: Battlefront 2. This game sparked controversy because of the way loot boxes were implemented in the game. It also became controversial because it started a debate about gambling in video games since loot boxes are an example of a gamblified element in games. While mainstream media debate whether gambling in games should be prohibited, game media are more interested in how these gambling elements are implemented in games. Van Dijk’s method for a critical discourse analysis will be applied to analyze the discourse used in several articles and comments on articles by game media on the subject. The research will show that for game media, the debate about gambling in video games is trivial compared to the discussion about fairness in video games. Fairness is a subjective concept and has different forms; we learn that fairness in gameplay is very different from fairness in game economics. And even within gameplay and game economics there are several kinds of fairness. However, the analysis will show that the consensus is that video games like Star Wars: Battlefront 2 are unfair with their current implementation of loot boxes. Publishers might have to change the business strategies that use these gamblified elements to tranquillize the friction between the publishers and their clients.