Abstract
Microtransactions in video games have drawn the attention of researchers and regulators alike. Broadly, there have been calls for regulation of in-game purchases because of their potentially negative consequences for players. As such, microtransactions are currently being evaluated through a consequentialist perspective, with effects on players being prioritised in decision-making. We argue that consequentialism may not be the optimal framework in this domain, considering the multiple stakeholders in the conversation and their intentions, as well as the way evaluation is carried out in other public health areas. Understanding the many points of view in this issue is essential if we are to create an environment through which good is truly maximised for both those who create games and those who play them.
