Analyzing the Unfair Play in E-Sports: Lack of Compliance in the Gaming Industry


With internet connectivity reaching almost all households globally, E-sports has gained soaring support.[1] After being featured as a demonstration sport in the Asian Games, in 2018, E-sports has built a strong foundation for being recognized as a real sport.[2] Moreover, the International Olympic Committee intends to initiate an ‘Olympic Virtual Series.’[3] Although no formally recognized governing body for E-sports yet exists, International Esports Federation (IESF) has been conducting tournaments globally to achieve official acceptance.[4] The IESF Statute lays down specific objectives, which range from bringing together all E-sports stakeholders to ensuring fair play.[5] However, the highly generic nature of the Statute, with no mechanism for enforcing the players’ rights, shows the lack of proper governance. This further results in poor implementation and adherence to rules, leading to rights violations on such platforms.

sports and game

[Image Sources : Shutterstock]

The ‘one-sided’ fair play

To eliminate any discrimination in E-sports, it is crucial to understand a game’s player-developer dynamics. Game developers use tools like narrative designing to improve the eudemonic and hedonic experiences. The more engaging the game is, the better it will fare. Narrative designing in E-sports includes the plot, themes, characters, and dialogues. Whatever adds an interactive dimension to the game is part of narrative designing. Frequent updates introducing new characters not only broaden the narrative outlook but also allows players to explore other gameplay possibilities. The interpretative agency of a player determines how a player interacts with a game.[6] This means that due to the frequent updates, players are in a constant flux of having to piece together and re-orient their interpretation of the game.[7]

A player’s agency is vital to determine the result of the game. Making reasoned choices and judgments is part of exercising the player’s agency, ultimately deciding the outcome. For instance, story-based games like Knights of The Old Republic II, and Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, pose specific ethical and moral dilemmas.[8] These choices later affect the in-game characters and, ultimately, affect how the story plays out. In essence, the player also has a substantial role in influencing the progression of events. However, the player agency gets disrupted by the frequent updates and alterations in the game.[9] This interference with their cognitive abilities compels them to follow the authorial intentions of the developers, which serve their strategic needs.

In many games, players are often given the option or even compelled to buy in-game purchases, which offers them several benefits. These in-game purchases require real money to access special characters, powers, or skins.[10] As the game pattern evolves, the player perceives the option of in-game purchases as the binary of either investing a lot of time and effort into the game or just spending money and saving time and effort.[11] The business model of Fortnite is based entirely on this phenomenon. It is a free-to-play game, and yet it was the fourth-highest-grossing game. While Fortnite also has in-game currency, V-Bucks, to make in-game purchases, it does not substantially affect the player’s performance. By spending real money, players can enhance their game experience and gain a competitive edge over others.[12]

When a new item is released of specific strength and utility at a particular cost, its strength or general value is eventually reduced to prepare for another new release. This deliberate reduction of the power of an item is called ‘nerfing.’[13] Buying an item only for it to lose its value later, is a type of predatory monetization. It becomes especially challenging when these paid add-on items provide an advantage against those who play using only free in-game items. This reinforces the ‘pay to win’ model and lures the player to spend more to have a good gaming experience.[14]

Unrealistic presentation of products in dishonest ways, like excessive highlighting of features and not providing enough information about the conditions of the product, is part of predatory advertising. There is also no guarantee that the product purchased would meet the player’s expectations.[15] It is very much possible that he might end up with something different from what he paid for. With no grievance redressal mechanism and no regulations on predatory monetization adopted by game developers, the average consumer’s freedom of choice and conduct is being trampled with.[16]

The problem is that these microtransactions in games do not only serve as a medium to raise revenue, but it also reflects upon how the reins of power lean more towards the developer. It must be understood that video games are a collaborative work where the player and the developer should work together. However, the player’s actions are often subject to the developer’s strategic intentions, which deprives the player of their agency. Such an unequal relationship makes the player vulnerable to being cheated.

The gap between a developer and the player stays unregulated and unorganized. The imbalance of power gives unfair leverage to the developer of the game. As a consequence, a level playing field is compromised. It is disgruntling that the IESF Statutes have no mention of the rules and protocols that have to be followed by the developers. Considering the prevalence of unfair and misleading practices like compelling players to buy in-game purchases and nerfing the already acquired powers, a thorough review of consumer laws in E-sports is needed.[17]

The Way Forward

E-sports is a mystery. It is a sport, a technological innovation, and a profit-maximizing business, all at the same time. In the form of a sport, it has leagues, teams, skilled players, sponsors, broadcasters, and significant prize money. However, it is being held back from getting its due recognition of a ‘real sport.’ Unlike real sports, it is not considered a bulwark of socio-cultural ethics, resulting in many policies, governance, regulatory and legal issues. Due to this detachment from the real world, the ‘magic circle’ which protects the virtual world from outside influences exceeds the scope of consent, and it is argued that it should lead to legal liabilities.

There is a sheer absence of any global regulatory authority for E-sports, but the IESF statute presents a rudimental repository of some fundamentals sought to be achieved through E-sports. The main objective of the Statute is to ensure fair play, but the lack of compliance results in a ‘one-sided’ fair play, with the power leaning more toward the game developers. The developers can manipulate the game to serve their strategic motives and disrupt a player’s agency of how he chooses to interact with the game. To maximize their profit-making, games have strongly asserted the ‘play-to-win’ model, which not only takes away the quality experience of the game but also lures the players to use their money to gain an advantage. This is particularly problematic as those who don’t invest their money, would stand little chance of making progress in the game, regardless of their skills.

It is crucial to understand that while making in-game purchases, a player’s role coincides with that of a consumer. At such a juncture, predatory pricing and misleading advertisements deployed in the garb of ‘additional’ in-game purchases should be seen from the lens of unfair trade practices used to overpower players systematically. There is an urgent need to have regulations to increase the transparency on in-game purchases by evaluating the value propositions of these micro-transactions. There must be a robust consumer protection framework in place that will give guarantees about these purchases.

Author: : Sunidhi Kashyap, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1] Geyser, W. (2022) The Incredible Growth of eSports [+ eSports Statistics] W, Influencer Marketing Hub. Available at: (Accessed: 2022).

[2] Venkat, R. (2021) Asian Games 2022: Esports to make debut; FIFA, pubg, dota 2 among eight medal events, International Olympic Committee. Available at: (Accessed: October 17, 2022).

[3] Palar, S. (2021) The Olympic Virtual Series, International Olympic Committee. Available at: (Accessed: October 21, 2022).

[4] Admin (2022) What we do, International Esports Federation. Available at: (Accessed: October 21, 2022).

[5] Admin (2022) Rules & regulations, International Esports Federation. Available at: (Accessed: October 15, 2022).

[6] Jennings, S.C. (2019) A meta-synthesis of agency in game studies. trends, troubles, trajectories, Game Journal. Ludica. Available at: (Accessed: October 16, 2022).

[7] Ruotsalainen, M. and Blom, J. (2022) “The Player’s Interpretative Agency and the Developer’s Disruptive Powers: How Blizzard Enforces Authorial Intention in OverwatchJ,” in Modes of Esports Engagement in Overwatch. Springer International Publishing, pp. 49–62.

[8] Stang, S. (2019) Game studies, Game Studies – “This Action Will Have Consequences”: Interactivity and Player Agency. Available at: (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

[9] Stuart, K. (2015) Video games aren’t about power – they’re about agency, The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Available at: (Accessed: October 19, 2022).

[10] Blank, A.R. (2021) “The Cost of a Bundle of Wood: Video Games and In-app Purchases,” Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 45(3), pp. 739–772.

[11] ibid.

[12] Ganti, A. (2022) How Does Fortnite Make Money?, Investopedia. Investopedia. Available at: (Accessed: October 20, 2022).

[13] Winters, C. and Winters, C. (2020) Buffing, nerfing, and op: What video games can teach us about talent management, Casey Accidental. Available at: (Accessed: October 22, 2022).

[14] Wong, A.W.-T. (2019) “Analysis of Global Regulatory Schemes on Chance-Based Microtransactions,” Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 19, pp. 111–154.

[15] Lui, D., Thompson, B. and Rich, C. (2020) “Blurring Lines: Gambling and Loot Boxes in Video Game Industry,” York Law Review, 1, pp. 7–35.

[16] Sigmon, K.A. (2021) “Pay to Play: Video Game Monetization Patents and the Doctrine of Moral Utility,” Georgetown Law Technology Review, 5(1), pp. 72–98.

[17] Arneaud, S.K. (2021) “Video Games and the Federal Trade Commission Act: An Analysis of the Practices of Video Game Developers and Their Effects on Players,” Florida A & M University Law Review, 16(1), pp. 47–66.

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010