Some time ago, in Dark Patterns: An Introduction to the Darker Side of Engagement, we examined the concepts and types of manipulative design used in gaming. Today, we’ll take that analysis a step further by looking at specific games to see how they implement these manipulative techniques, the effects on players, the revenue they generate, and why these practices are ultimately harmful. What makes Pokémon GO particularly fascinating as a case study is how it disguises its manipulation beneath a veneer of physical activity and social connection. Ready to dive deeper? Let’s get started!

Pokémon GO is a location-based mobile game developed by Niantic. By combining the beloved Pokémon franchise’s “collect ‘em all” mechanic with real-world exploration and exercise, the game became an instant cultural phenomenon. Millions of players around the globe gathered in parks, landmarks, and urban spaces, searching for Pokémon, battling for gyms, and completing in-game events. At its peak, the game had approximately 232 million active players, and it remains incredibly popular years after its initial release, with earnings of over $1 billion reported in 2020 alone.

But beneath the surface of what seems like an innocent game with health benefits lies a deeply manipulative design. Pokémon GO exemplifies how dark patterns are used to create an addictive experience that keeps players coming back and spending more money. The game functions as what academic researchers would classify as a Behaviour Change Support System (BCSS)—a sociotechnical information system with psychological and behavioural outcomes designed to form, alter, or reinforce attitudes and behaviours without using coercion or deception. What makes Pokémon GO particularly effective—and concerning—is how it blends this behaviour modification with sophisticated manipulation techniques.

Monetisation Strategy and Pay-to-Win Elements

One of the most apparent dark patterns in Pokémon GO is its pay-to-win structure. Players can spend real-world money to purchase items like Poké Balls, Lucky Eggs, Incense, and other in-game resources, allowing them to advance more quickly. This is a textbook example of a monetisation strategy that preys on players’ desire for progression. What might start as a free experience quickly becomes a game that incentivises spending money to avoid long, grinding periods of gameplay. This makes it easier for wealthier players to get ahead, creating an unfair advantage for those willing to spend.

The game’s economy is carefully calibrated to create artificial scarcity that drives players toward microtransactions. While players can acquire Pokécoins slowly through gameplay—with a daily limit of 50 coins through gym defence—the amounts are minimal compared to what can be obtained through real money purchases (at a rate of roughly 100 coins per $1 USD). This creates a two-tiered system where free players progress at a crawl while paying players sprint ahead. Recent updates have made it increasingly easier and quicker to spend Pokécoins, prioritising microtransaction facilitation over quality-of-life improvements that would benefit all players equally.

This monetisation approach is particularly effective because it targets our psychological tendency toward escalation of commitment. Once players have invested money into the game, they tend to keep investing even in the face of contrary evidence about whether the spending is justified. This psychological mechanism explains why otherwise rational people continue pouring resources into something—whether it’s time, money, or effort—long after it has ceased to provide proportional enjoyment or value.

Exploiting Psychological Vulnerabilities

Pokémon GO represents a masterclass in exploiting fundamental human psychological vulnerabilities, particularly through its strategic use of FOMO (fear of missing out) and implementation of the sunk-cost fallacy. The game constantly bombards players with time-limited events, exclusive Pokémon that appear for short windows, and special rewards that are only available temporarily. These time-limited manufactured scarcity tactics nudge players to log in regularly to avoid missing out on valuable in-game opportunities. This pressure can easily turn a casual gaming experience into a stress-inducing habit, especially for completionist players who feel they must catch every event Pokémon or acquire every unique reward.

The neurological mechanisms behind this are particularly revealing. Research has established that video games stimulate the reward centres of the human brain, with accomplishments releasing dopamine—the same biomechanical mechanism responsible for everything from sexual gratification to drug addiction. Pokémon GO expertly manipulates this system by introducing unpredictable rewards that prolong dopamine effects. As one analysis notes, “Introducing varied rewards prolongs the dopamine effects for Pokémasters by activating the desire centres of the brain, while simultaneously blunting those associated with judgement and reason.” Much like a slot machine, players get hooked on the thrill of the hunt for “jackpot” rewards, and are only briefly satisfied by smaller payouts.

The game further employs sunk-cost fallacies through its design, encouraging players to keep investing time, effort, and money to maintain their progress. For example, levelling up Pokémon and collecting rare species can require a significant amount of time and resources. Once players have poured dozens (or hundreds) of hours into building their in-game collection, they are more likely to continue playing to justify their investment. The more they’ve committed, the harder it becomes to walk away, which is a classic technique used to trap players in an endless cycle of gameplay and spending. This investment loop is deliberately structured to capitalise on psychological tendencies toward commitment escalation, regardless of whether the continued investment truly serves the player’s best interests.

Addictive Game Design Structures

Pokémon GO is designed around grinding—repetitive tasks like walking long distances, collecting Poké Balls, and battling at gyms to earn incremental progress. Players are given just enough rewards to keep them engaged but not enough to eliminate the incentive to continue grinding. This constant loop of small rewards keeps players playing for hours in pursuit of the next milestone, contributing to the game’s addictive nature.

The game’s design follows what Nir Eyal outlines in his book “Hooked” as the four stages of building habit-forming products: Trigger, Action, Variable Reward, and Investment. Initially, an external trigger, such as a push notification about a nearby rare Pokémon or a time-limited event, prompts the player to open the app. The player then takes action, such as catching Pokémon or spinning Pokéstops. The variable reward comes from not knowing what they’ll find—perhaps a rare Pokémon or a needed item. This variation in discoveries causes the release of dopamine in the brain, which creates positive feelings that keep users engaged. Finally, the investment occurs as players build their collections, level up their Pokémon, and establish connections within the game ecosystem.

This addictive cycle is further reinforced by the game’s interface design, which often prioritises engagement over usability. As one UX designer and player observed, “Despite gaining a sort of muscle memory to brute force my way through the interface, I have to apply conscious effort often to complete tasks. It is the ineffective (bad) design itself that screams, ‘I don’t know where anything is!’.” Features are frequently buried in unintuitive menu locations, and the game includes numerous time-wasting interactions such as lengthy battle animations and flavour text that cannot be skipped. These design choices, while seemingly minor inconveniences, collectively extend engagement time and strengthen the habitual nature of play.

The Health and Social Benefits Debate

Some may argue that Pokémon GO’s health and social benefits justify its manipulative tactics. There’s no denying that the game encourages physical exercise, with many players walking significant distances to catch Pokémon or participate in events. Several scientific studies have confirmed that Pokémon GO increases physical activity. One study found that the game increased the proportion of players who walked over 10,000 steps a day from 15% to 28%, while another showed that playing raised moderate to vigorous physical activity by about 50 minutes per week and reduced sedentary behaviour by 30 minutes daily. The effect was particularly pronounced in players who were overweight or obese.

Additionally, Pokémon GO has fostered social interactions, with players gathering in person or online to exchange tips, coordinate battles, and share their experiences. The game improves social connectedness by creating a ‘sense of belonging’ to a place, which makes it easier to have conversations with strangers and strengthens social ties, thanks to the technology being integrated into daily routines and a shared passion for the game. Research has even suggested that aspects of Pokémon GO “can possibly be leveraged to create social opportunities for individuals who may struggle in this area,” including potentially helping youth with severe social withdrawal.

But do these benefits excuse the game’s darker elements? Not necessarily. While the exercise and social interaction Pokémon GO promotes can be positive, they don’t negate the fact that the game uses psychological manipulation to exploit players. The health benefits are often secondary to the revenue-driving mechanisms designed to keep players engaged and spending. Furthermore, as urban psychologist Colin Ellard points out, the phenomenal popularity of games like Pokémon GO might actually be “a commentary on the impoverished psychological state of the city.” If we need augmented reality games to motivate us to explore our neighbourhoods, it may indicate a deeper failure in urban design rather than a virtue of the game itself.

Real-World Consequences and Ethical Implications

Pokémon GO’s influence extends beyond the digital, often with real-world consequences. The game has been associated with numerous accidents and injuries as distracted players wander into dangerous situations. Authorities in Bosnia even had to warn players to stay out of minefields left over from the 1990s conflict, and in Japan, a driver distracted by the game killed a woman just hours after the game’s release. These tragic incidents showcase the darker side of a game that encourages players to stay glued to their screens even in hazardous situations.

Beyond physical safety concerns, the game raises serious questions about data collection and behavioural modification. Shoshana Zuboff, in her work on surveillance capitalism, describes Pokémon GO’s targeted local advertising as an experiment that moves beyond digital ads into real-world behavioural modification. Sponsored locations in the game direct players to businesses, translating clicks into physical visits. This convergence of gamification and targeted advertising reflects a future where our real-world behaviour is manipulated just as easily as our in-game actions, driven by data collection and surveillance.

The ethical implications become even more concerning when we consider Pokémon GO as a behaviour change support system. Academic research has identified at least eight types of behaviour changes facilitated by the game, including added activity in life, enhancing routines, exploration, increased physical activity, strengthening social bonds, lowering social barriers, increased positive emotional expression, and self-treatment. These changes are driven by specific game features, with “game location tied to physical location” and “catching new Pokémon” being the most common features connected to all behaviour changes. While some changes may be positive, the fact that they are driven by a system designed primarily for profit rather than user wellbeing raises important ethical questions about autonomy and manipulation.

The Philosophical Implications of Gamification

What Pokémon Go demonstrates is that the lines between game design, behavioural psychology, and monetisation are becoming increasingly blurred. By adding points, experience bars, and achievements to real-world activities, developers can make even mundane tasks engaging—but at what cost? These tactics prey on human psychology, using addiction-based mechanics to keep people hooked, spending, and investing more time than they might otherwise.

The success of Pokémon GO represents a watershed moment for what we might call the gamification of everyday life. As one analysis pointed out, Pokémon GO is “the world’s most important game” thanks to its success, which will “almost certainly influence the design of future AR experiences for years to come.” The danger lies in normalising manipulative design patterns that prioritise engagement and profit over user wellbeing and autonomy. When these patterns become standard in augmented reality applications, we risk creating a world where our every action is subject to invisible manipulation by corporate interests.

This raises questions about human agency in an increasingly gamified world. If developers can so easily manipulate our behaviour through carefully designed reward systems, what happens to our capacity for intrinsic motivation and authentic experience? The concern is not just about one game but about the precedent it sets for how technology can be used to shape human behavior often without our conscious awareness.

The Need for Critical Engagement

Pokémon GO is more than a game; it’s an experiment in how far gamification and dark patterns can go in influencing real-world behaviour and turning a mobile app into a billion-dollar revenue stream. While it may be fun, engaging, and even beneficial for some, we must remain critical of the methods used to keep us playing—and paying. The game represents a paradoxical combination of genuine benefits and exploitative manipulation, where moments of authentic social connection and physical activity are strategically interwoven with psychological manipulation and monetisation schemes.

As players and as a society, we need to develop greater awareness of these design techniques and advocate for more ethical approaches to game design that don’t rely on manipulation. This might include supporting regulations that limit particularly egregious dark patterns, promoting media literacy around gaming mechanics, and encouraging developers to create experiences that respect players’ autonomy and wellbeing rather than exploiting psychological vulnerabilities.

The phenomenal success of Pokémon GO has undoubtedly paved the way for a new generation of augmented reality experiences. The question remains whether future developers will follow its most manipulative precedents or whether they’ll forge a new path that demonstrates how augmented reality can enhance our lives without compromising our autonomy.

It’s not just one game—it’s a glimpse into a potential future. And as we stand at this technological crossroads, our critical engagement with games like Pokémon GO becomes about shaping what kind of digital future we want to inhabit.