Notes
Summary of Findings
Location-based augmented reality (LBAR) games—such as Pokémon Go and Ingress—are becoming increasingly popular. Along with the rise in the popularity of LBAR games, a number of ethical issues with regards to game play and design have emerged. Our research team at the University of Washington surveyed over 2,000 Pokémon Go players to explore how they evaluate the ethicality of common actions within gameplay.
Our study found that players tend to determine the ethicality of certain gameplay actions often based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints. Deontological viewpoints place importance on principles such as fairness, autonomy, merit, and peoples’ individual rights—rather than “good” or “bad” consequences of certain actions. On the other hand, consequentialist viewpoints are concerned with the harm caused by certain actions. For example, If a rule of the game is broken, but it does not affect the progress of other players, then it is fine. Virtue ethics, which is another less prevalent perspective, concerns one’s moral character, and how one’s actions reflect the type of person they want to be.
The results of our survey showed that many players engaged in actions they perceived as ethically questionable during gameplay such as playing while driving, playing for other people, multi-accounting (playing with multiple accounts), trespassing on private property, and spoofing.
A majority of respondents believed that actions that benefit others, that support community interactions, that harm others but do not break the game’s rules, that retaliate against “cheaters,” and that keep others safe were ethically just. Actions with negative consequences in real life (including playing for financial incentive or ignoring one’s surroundings while playing), and manipulating and exploiting game technologies (such as spoofing), were seen as unethical by the majority.
Overall, this data suggests that players do not make ethical judgements based solely on the game's rules, but factor in real-world morals and social etiquette, resulting in situationally fluid value-judgements.
Players also felt conflicted balancing “real-world vs. virtual-world” ethical considerations: acting as a good player vs. a good person, and the importance of the rules and “spirit” of the game. A lack of in-game transparency and accountability, and the sense that “everyone is doing it,” also contributed to unethical behaviors, as it is easy to spoof or multi-account without being caught.
These findings show that players' ethical decisions are impacted by the game’s design, therefore Niantic and other LBAR game creators must be better informed of how they affect players’ actions. Design choices can contribute towards mitigating risky behaviors, for instance Niantic’s speed lock function, which has been included to discourage players from playing while driving.
