In a previous post, Dark Patterns: An Introduction to the Darker Side of Engagement, we introduced the concept of dark patterns in gaming, explaining how game developers can exploit certain design techniques to manipulate players into spending more time and money. Our last dark pattern analysis of a game focused on Pokémon Go, examining how the game used location-based incentives and timed events to keep players hooked, despite the repetitive nature of its core gameplay. Today, we will dive into League of Legends (LoL), a game that employs numerous subtle and not-so-subtle techniques to extract value from its players, with implications that extend beyond mere entertainment into psychological manipulation.

At its core, LoL presents itself as a free-to-play multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) game. It sets itself apart from its predecessors like Aeon of Strife or Defense of the Ancients (DotA)—which came into existence during an era monetising mods for games was unthinkable—in a few ways, but one of those is its monetisation. LoL is a standalone game that employs various monetisation strategies, some of which directly impact player experience even if they aren’t obvious pay-to-win features.

By analysing LoL’s design choices through the lens of emerging legal standards and psychological research, we can explore how cosmetics, in-game purchases, and behavioural nudges systematically manipulate the player base into engaging more deeply—and more often—with the game’s monetisation model. What makes this analysis particularly timely is the rising tide of litigation against game companies for these very practices, with lawsuits alleging that developers like Riot Games have crossed the line from ethical engagement into unlawful manipulation.

When Game Design Faces Legal Scrutiny

The concept of “dark patterns” is no longer just a theoretical concern among game critics—it has become a legally actionable practice. In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission defined dark patterns as “design practices that trick or manipulate users into making choices they would not otherwise have made and that may cause harm.” This definition has formed the basis for significant legal actions against major game companies, most notably Epic Games, which faced a $245 million settlement with the FTC over allegations that Fortnite used “digital dark patterns to bill players for unintentional in-game purchases.”

Legal experts like trial lawyer Eric Weiss, who specialises in defending companies from class action lawsuits, warn that game developers need to be “exceedingly careful” about their design choices. The standards for what constitutes a dark pattern remain “broad” and “not prescriptive,” meaning game companies operate in somewhat uncertain legal territory.

What’s particularly relevant to LoL is Weiss’s specific identification of grinding as a recognised dark pattern—defined as “making a free version of a game so cumbersome and labour intensive that the player is induced to unlock new features with in-app purchases.” This legal framework provides an important backdrop for examining LoL’s monetisation strategies, suggesting that some mechanics may not just be ethically questionable but potentially unlawful.

How Cosmetics Affect the Game’s Ecosystem

LoL is primarily known for its cosmetic offerings, especially skins, which alter the appearance of champions (playable characters) in the game. On the surface, skins appear harmless, as they are purely visual and don’t seem to offer any gameplay advantages. However, when we dig deeper, we realise that cosmetics can subtly affect competitive gameplay, adding an element of complexity that impacts both new and experienced players in ways that extend far beyond aesthetics.

The Pay-to-Identify Problem

Each champion in LoL has a unique set of abilities, which are represented by distinct visual effects. When players use a champion skin, the look and feel of these abilities can change significantly, making it harder for opponents to identify them quickly during fast-paced gameplay. This is particularly important in a game like LoL, where timing and positioning are critical. The problem has become increasingly severe as Riot has expanded its skin portfolio to include increasingly elaborate visual effects and animations.

For example, a high-end skin may alter the colour, size, or animation of a champion’s attack. This can lead to confusion or misinterpretation for the opposing team, giving the player with the skin an unintended advantage. It’s not that the skin changes the stats or mechanics of the character, but it complicates the cognitive load required to accurately assess what’s happening in a team fight or skirmish. As more skins are released every year, learning to recognise all the variations becomes an additional hurdle for competitive play, essentially monetising a part of the game’s difficulty. This creates what might be termed a "pay-to-identify" advantage—where players who invest in skins gain subtle benefits through increased visual complexity that their opponents must overcome.

Psychological Pressure of Ownership

The constant release of new skins introduces another form of manipulation: FOMO, or the fear of missing out. Riot often releases skins as part of limited-time events or bundles, creating an artificial scarcity that pressures players into making purchases. Limited-time skins prey on players’ desire for exclusivity and uniqueness in a competitive environment, encouraging them to spend real-world money rather than risk losing out on these cosmetic items forever. This practice aligns with what dark pattern researchers identify as "temporal dark patterns"—design elements that create artificial urgency.

The game also ties skin ownership to social and prestige elements within the community. Many players feel compelled to buy skins because they enhance their perceived status, particularly in ranked games or among friends. The result is a form of social coercion, where not having a skin equates to being left behind by one’s peers. This taps into what psychologists identify as social comparison theory, leveraging our innate tendency to evaluate ourselves in relation to others. The psychological impact is significant—a player might feel social pressure to purchase a skin not because they particularly want it, but because they fear being perceived as less dedicated or skilled without it.

When Cosmetics Become Gambling

Perhaps the most concerning development in LoL’s cosmetic strategy is the introduction of gacha-style mechanics for obtaining premium skins. In 2023, Riot faced significant community backlash when it introduced the Dark Cosmic Jhin Erasure chroma through a system that guaranteed players would obtain the skin only after opening 30 capsules at a cost of approximately $200. With only a 1% chance of obtaining the skin before hitting the 30-capsule threshold, this system effectively functions as a gambling mechanism dressed up as a cosmetic reward.

This approach represents a significant escalation in LoL’s monetisation strategy, moving from direct purchases to randomised rewards that exploit the same psychological mechanisms as slot machines. This mechanic is particularly problematic because it normalises gambling behaviour among players, including younger audiences who may be especially vulnerable to these manipulation tactics.

The Hidden Psychology

To fully understand LoL’s dark patterns, we must examine the psychological underpinnings of its design. The game employs several sophisticated techniques that go beyond superficial monetisation to impact player motivation and behaviour at a fundamental level.

Motivational Profiling and the Spectrum of Engagement

Research published in Frontiers in Psychology has identified four distinct motivational profiles among LoL players: Intrinsic, Autonomous, External, and Amotivated. This study found that while more self-determined profiles (“Intrinsic” and “Autonomous”) reported positive experiences, players with “Amotivated” and “External” profiles “derive less enjoyment, experience more negative affect and tension, and score lower on vitality, indicating game engagement that is potentially detrimental to players’ well-being.”

What makes this finding particularly relevant to dark patterns is that the study found minimal differences in actual gameplay behaviour between these motivational profiles. This means that from the outside, amotivated players who may be suffering negative consequences look very similar to intrinsically motivated players who are having genuinely positive experiences.

For game developers, this is convenient—it means that harmful engagement patterns don’t necessarily manifest in ways that would alert community managers or customer service representatives. Players who feel compelled to play out of obligation rather than genuine enjoyment will still log the same hours and potentially make the same purchases, making them profitable even in their dissatisfaction.

Operant Conditioning and Variable Reward Schedules

At the heart of LoL’ retention strategy is what psychologists call operant conditioning—specifically, the use of variable ratio reward schedules. This is “the most manipulative reward delivery schedule known to man and the basis of all addictions.” In practice, this means that players are rewarded at unpredictable intervals for their engagement, whether through loot boxes, random drops, or competitive victories.

This system works by triggering dopamine responses in the brain similar to those observed in gambling addiction. The unpredictable nature of the rewards—whether you’ll get a Hextech chest, a key fragment, or a coveted skin shard—keeps players engaged through what’s known as intermittent reinforcement. This psychological principle explains why players might spend hours grinding matches despite not genuinely enjoying the experience—they’re caught in a cycle of anticipation that can be more compelling than the actual reward.

Revenue Generation Through Subtle Manipulation

Monetisation models like the one used in LoL have proven highly successful for Riot. It generates billions of dollars in revenue annually, largely thanks to microtransactions related to cosmetic items. But to make matters worse, the game’s currency system further obscures real-world spending. LoL uses Riot Points (RP) as its premium currency, which players purchase with real money. However, RP comes in bundles that don’t align neatly with item costs, creating what’s known as "currency conversion dark patterns". For instance, a player might need to buy a $10 RP bundle to purchase a $7 skin, leaving them with leftover currency that creates psychological pressure to make additional purchases to “use up” the remaining balance. This practice intentionally makes it difficult for players to track their actual spending, distancing the psychological weight of financial transactions from the pleasure of acquisition.

In addition to these manipulative practices, there’s also an opportunity cost for the company. When skins become popular, it incentivises Riot to devote more resources to features that generate revenue rather than those that enhance gameplay. Artists, modellers, and designers are often employed to create new skins and cosmetic features, leaving fewer resources for gameplay updates, balance patches, or other improvements that could benefit the player base. The focus on profitable features, like skins, reflects a broader shift where revenue generation becomes the main priority, overshadowing meaningful gameplay advancements.

As a result, Riot is more likely to pour resources into releasing high-quality skins that appeal to large segments of the player base. This often comes at the expense of deeper gameplay improvements or system overhauls that could add long-term value. Innovative new mechanics or meaningful expansions are deprioritised because they don’t have the immediate and measurable financial return that cosmetics do. This creates a development cycle driven not by player needs or community feedback but by the short-term gain of cosmetics revenue.

This approach leads to a game ecosystem where profitability takes precedence over improving the core gameplay experience. While some might argue that this is the price of sustaining a free-to-play model, the broader implication is that Riot, like many other companies employing similar strategies, is willing to sacrifice the quality of its game for increased monetisation. The prioritisation of cosmetic content over gameplay enhancements contributes to a stagnation in innovation, where the game’s evolution is slower and driven by financial incentives rather than creative vision.

Manufactured Instability as a Revenue Driver

Another tactic that Riot uses to maintain player engagement is the constantly shifting in-game meta. The meta, or the most dominant strategies, champions, and builds at any given time, is frequently adjusted through patches and balance changes. Some believe that balance changes are crucial to maintaining competitive integrity, even though this is not necessarily the case at all. Regardless, the intentional creation of overpowered champions that later get patched can foster increased engagement and spending.

The introduction of overpowered champions or balance changes that shake up the meta is often not accidental. When a new champion enters the game, they are frequently released with abilities or stats that make them particularly strong. This creates a flurry of excitement, driving players to purchase and experiment with the new character. In the case of cosmetics, this also drives sales for the champion’s skins, as players who pick up the new character are likely to purchase skins to customise their look.

This tactic can be seen as a deliberate effort by Riot to influence the meta in ways that generate more player engagement. Overpowered champions often dominate the game for a period before a balance patch “fixes” the issue. By the time the patch is released, however, Riot has already profited from the initial surge in interest and purchases. This cycle creates a predictable pattern: a new champion or major balance change is introduced, the meta shifts dramatically, players are incentivised to adapt by buying new content, and then the issue is patched to restore balance—until the next new release. The player base becomes trapped in a cycle of continual adjustment, which can be frustrating for those who have invested time mastering a particular strategy or champion, only to have the meta shift again.

Additionally, by intentionally fostering these imbalances, Riot encourages an environment where players feel they must stay on top of the meta to remain competitive. This creates an implicit pressure to spend money on new champions or skins, especially if the current meta favours a newly released overpowered character.

Riot profits both from the initial imbalance and the subsequent patch, as players scramble to adapt to the ever-changing environment. This tactic can make it harder for casual players to enjoy the game on their own terms, as they are constantly being asked to keep up with a shifting meta that prioritises engagement over fairness.

The Real-World Consequences [2025 Update]

The discussion of dark patterns would be incomplete without addressing the very real harm they can cause when taken to extremes. Recent research has established concerning connections between certain game design elements and gaming disorder (GD), which the World Health Organisation now recognises as an official diagnosis. Studies have found that symptom burden of GD is highest for those playing Free-to-Play (F2P) games like LoL compared to Pay-to-Play (P2P) titles. Furthermore, players of competitive games, including MOBAs, “endorsed higher GD symptom burden.”

These findings take on greater significance in light of the ongoing lawsuits against Riot and other game companies. In California, numerous cases have been consolidated into Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) No. 5363, overseen by Judge Samantha P. Jessner. These lawsuits allege that LoL’ “deliberate incorporation of addictive game mechanics” has caused real harm to vulnerable players, particularly young people. The complaints point to specific design elements including the “competitive ranking system,” “daily missions and quests,” “event-exclusive content,” and “variable reward schedules” as contributors to addictive behaviour patterns.

The legal complaints describe players who “spent thousands of dollars on in-game purchases, failed academically, lost employment, or required outpatient counselling and psychiatric treatment for gaming-related depression, anxiety, and social isolation.” While these represent extreme cases, they highlight the potential consequences of design choices that prioritise engagement and monetisation over player wellbeing. What makes these lawsuits particularly noteworthy is their legal theory—they argue that game companies have a duty to avoid implementing systems they know or should know could cause harm, especially to vulnerable populations like children and adolescents.

Toward a More Ethical Future in Game Design

LoL may be free to download, but the reality is that many players end up paying far more than they would for a traditional game, thanks to the manipulative design of its microtransaction systems. From cosmetics that subtly affect gameplay to monetisation schemes that exploit psychological vulnerabilities, LoL demonstrates how even seemingly benign purchases can have a significant impact on the gaming experience. The emerging legal and scientific consensus suggests that what many players have long felt intuitively—that some game systems feel unfairly manipulative—is now being validated through research and litigation.

As we continue to explore dark patterns in gaming, it’s essential to remain aware of how these designs shape not only our play but also our spending habits and even our psychological wellbeing. Next time we queue up for a match, let’s think about the systems at play—both in-game and behind the scenes—and ask ourselves whether our experience is being driven by skill and genuine enjoyment or by the incentives designed to keep us hooked and spending.

As players become more educated about these manipulative tactics and legal systems continue to evolve in response, we may see a future where dark patterns become less prevalent—or at least less effective. Until then, critical examination of these systems remains our best defence against manipulation, allowing us to reclaim agency over how we play and how we spend.