Abstract
Revenue generation in modern digital games is often dependent on in-game continuous player spending. This brings concerns that games may be including features which drive player spending in potentially harmful ways. Moreover, it is unknown what types of individuals may be vulnerable to these design-driven harms. We used player-donated, objective data of playtime and in-game spending from a sample of 295 players of games previously identified as 'designed to drive spending'. We combined this with psycho-environmental characteristics and wellbeing measures administered to the players. Quantile regression analyses did not show an interaction between player characteristics and playtime/spend as predictors of wellbeing outcomes; nor did we find a difference in wellbeing between players of these games and games with alternative monetization models. This is discussed in light of a low proportion of spenders in the sample, which may affect results pertaining to the moderating role of spend. However, it suggests that while design features in games aiming to drive player spend may be unethical and problematic, they may not necessarily cause harm to the normative player.