The Perfect Entertainment Cube

Productizing Play Without Pain

By Zachary A. Kosma

What a Game Product Is

A game product is a commercial game someone can buy and own, whose core purpose is to reliably produce a specific kind of player experience.

The simplest rigorous definition is:

Games are systems people enter to control how they feel.

Whether that feeling is tension, mastery, relaxation, curiosity, fear, triumph, focus, catharsis, or belonging, that emotional outcome is the real value being delivered.

So a game product isn't "content," and it isn't "features." Those are ingredients. The product is the interactive system that turns time and choices into desired emotional outcomes:

Time in for feelings out.

That's what gameplay is: agency inside a curated system, where the experience becomes personal, repeatable, and worth owning.

The Monetization Shift: Products vs Services

Once monetization enters, there's an important distinction that changes how the whole experience is approached.

Product model

"I own this game, and I can play it whenever I want."

The purchase is primarily about access and ownership of the emotional machine. The feelings are produced through play, and the cost is mostly settled up front. The player controls when, how, and how long they engage. The game doesn't track their absence or punish their return.

Service model

"I spend money inside this game to produce X feeling."

This doesn't make it wrong. It's just a different structure.

When a game becomes a service especially in multiplayer and mobile contexts (battle passes, community chests, boosters, rotating shops) the player isn't only managing:

Time in for feelings out

They're now also managing:

Money in for feelings out

And that changes the dynamic in a real way:

• Feelings can become priced

• Progress can become accelerated

• Social status can become purchased

• Friction can become optional (for a fee)

• The game may track engagement and adjust pressure accordingly

The emotional loop becomes partly economic, not just skill-based.

So the core truth stays the same: all games are about feelings.

But services introduce a second control surface: spending and that fundamentally shifts how the player relates to the system, even when the game is still genuinely fun.

The question becomes: does the player still control both inputs, or does the service manage them on the player's behalf?

When Play Itself Becomes Priced

The most extreme version of this isn't selling convenience or cosmetics, it's charging rent on the emotional machine itself.

Consider the spectrum:

Genshin Impact: Resin gates all meaningful progression. You get roughly 20 minutes of endgame play per day unless you pay. The game doesn't sell you shortcuts, it sells you permission to continue playing.

Clash Royale: Chest timers mean you're paying to play sooner rather than to play better, but the psychological effect is the same activity itself becomes monetized. You didn't lose because you played poorly; you lost because you didn't wait long enough or pay to skip the wait.

Diablo Immortal: Legendary gems are functionally behind spend walls at competitive levels. You can "play" for free, but you can't progress meaningfully without inserting quarters. The game is free to download, but competitive viability costs thousands of dollars.

When core loops are gated by energy systems, timers, or caps that can be bypassed with money, you're not selling convenience, you're selling access to play.

This isn't about cosmetics or optional purchases. It's about the core progression loop being metered and monetized.

The product/service distinction matters here:

A product gives you ownership of the emotional machine. You paid once, and now you control your engagement.

A service can ethically monetize ongoing support, new content, and optional enhancements but when it starts metering access to the core experience itself, it crosses from service into rental agreement with behavioral controls.

The Design / Business Divide

This is where the real tension shows up: design and business are solving different problems.

Design is constrained by experience. It has to deliver a feeling reliably through rules, pacing, challenge, feedback, and clarity. If the system doesn't feel good, nothing else matters.

Business is constrained by reality. It has to fund development, support live operations, pay salaries, acquire users, and survive competition. If the economics don't work, the product doesn't continue.

The divide happens when these constraints collide. Design wants the cleanest emotional loop. Business wants predictability and durability.

And in modern game services, durability often gets implemented as control systems: timers, gates, pressure, limited windows, psychological nudges.

Not because teams are malicious, rather because these mechanics produce measurable increases in retention and spend, making them financially rational to deploy even when they degrade the player experience.

But we need to be precise about what "retention" means in this context, because there are two kinds:

Time-based retention: Getting players to return regularly (DAU/MAU metrics, session frequency)

Revenue-based retention: Getting players to spend regularly (ARPU, conversion rate, LTV)

Traditional service design conflates these optimizing for both simultaneously by making returning players feel obligated to spend. Daily login bonuses, battle passes with expiration timers, limited-time offers that create urgency these mechanics don't just encourage return, they structurally disadvantage players who don't return on the system's schedule.

The result is players who return not because they want to play, but because they'll lose value if they don't.

The Bridge: Player Agency Over Inputs

So the question isn't "should monetization exist?"

It's: who is in control of the equation?

A more advanced approach is to treat monetization and playtime as part of UX not as a separate layer competing with it. That means returning to a player-first principle:

Let the player be in control of both inputs:

• time in

• money in

And optimize the system not for maximal extraction, but for maximal agency and sustainable extraction.

In other words: design a game where spending is a choice that supports the experience, not a mechanism that overrides it and where the business wins because the player stays on purpose, not because they were cornered.

This requires informed consent at every layer.

The Informed Consent Principle

Players should be able to make fully informed decisions about both time and money investments before committing.

What informed consent looks like:

• Clear disclosure of what money unlocks (power, cosmetics, time-skips, access)

• Transparent odds on randomized rewards (loot boxes, gacha)

• Honest framing of competitive balance ("This is pay-to-win" vs. "This is cosmetic-only")

• Up-front clarity on time requirements ("This content takes approximately 50 hours to complete")

• No bait-and-switch (don't advertise "free-to-play" if meaningful progression requires payment)

What breaks informed consent:

• Obfuscated costs ("Earn this item through gameplay!" = 600 hours vs. $9.99, undisclosed)

• Manipulative framing ("Limited time!" when it returns every month)

• Hidden competitive implications ("Optional battle pass" that contains meta-defining items)

• Escalating costs not disclosed at entry (early game is generous, late game becomes pay-gated)

• Dark patterns that exploit psychological vulnerabilities (countdown timers, artificial urgency, "other players are buying this")

For products: Informed consent is simpler: you buy it, you own it, the terms don't change.

For services: Informed consent is ongoing players need to understand what they're agreeing to at every spending decision, and the terms shouldn't shift underneath them.

The principle: players should never feel tricked into spending time or money they wouldn't have invested if they'd known the full picture.

The Product Ideal: The Perfect Entertainment Cube

A game product should function like a perfect entertainment cube. A perfect entertainment cube delivers joy at any session length, with no penalties for absence and no hidden costs. It can be picked up for two minutes or two hours, and it delivers value either way. It is portable, self-contained, with no strings attached.

No prescribed guilt. No forced FOMO. No structural pressure to return at specific times. No hidden penalties for absence.

At its most ideal, the cube is a wholly positive and joyous experience.

Even when the player experiences fear, frustration, loss, or horror these are desired feelings they chose to experience. They entered the system to feel these things, and experiencing them brings a form of joy because it's what they came for.

What breaks the cube isn't just scheduling or metering it's the introduction of negative associations the player did not choose and does not want:

• Guilt for not playing enough

• Anxiety about missing out

• Resentment at feeling manipulated

• Frustration at artificial barriers

• Obligation that overrides desire

• Regret about time or money spent

These emotions thwart player agency. The player didn't enter the system to feel guilty, anxious, or resentful. They entered to control how they feel through play and these negative associations are imposed by the system itself, not chosen by the player.

The distinction:

Desired negative emotions (fear in a horror game, frustration at a hard boss, tension in a competitive match) = part of the joyous experience

System-imposed negative emotions (guilt about daily streaks, anxiety about expiring passes, resentment at pay gates) = agency violation

To make that definition rigorous, the cube has three properties that maintain this wholly positive relationship:

1. Session Completeness

Every play session delivers a complete emotional unit at a constant rate of fun density.

A session should feel like a real unit of play, not a partial payment on a debt.

That doesn't mean sessions have to be long. It means they have to be complete.

The ideal is constant fun density: a 1-minute session should deliver the same rate of emotional value as a 1-hour session. The player gets more total value from playing longer, but they're not grinding through low-value time to reach high-value payoffs.

Even in a massive game an RPG with a 100-hour campaign, a strategy game with month-long progression any individual session, even a short one, should reliably deliver some emotional outcome:

• progress

• mastery

• discovery

• relief

• social connection

• closure on a micro-goal

What this looks like when it works:

You play for 2 minutes: you complete a micro-challenge, make visible progress, feel satisfied.

You play for 2 hours: you complete multiple challenges, make substantial progress, feel accomplished.

The rate of fun is consistent; you're not forced to play longer to get to "the good part." Every moment of engagement is joyous because it's delivering what you came for.

What this looks like when it's broken:

"You've run out of energy. Come back in 4 hours or refill for $0.99."

Negative emotion introduced: Frustration at being locked out. This wasn't chosen; the player wanted to keep playing and is now being told they can't, introducing resentment toward the system.

"Daily quest incomplete. Return tomorrow to maintain your streak."

Negative emotion introduced: Guilt for potentially "wasting" a day. Anxiety about obligation. This wasn't chosen; the player is now worried about something they didn't want to worry about.

"You've cleared the trash mobs for 45 minutes. Now you can fight the boss."

Negative emotion introduced: Frustration at wasted time. Resentment that fun was backloaded. This wasn't chosen; The player wanted to have fun for 45 minutes, not pay dues to access fun later.

"Battle pass expires in 3 days. Play now or lose access to 40% of this season's rewards."

Negative emotion introduced: Anxiety. FOMO. Pressure. This wasn't chosen; the player is now stressed about playing when they might not have wanted to.

When a session ends with these unchosen negative emotions: guilt, anxiety, resentment, frustration at the system rather than at chosen challenges the cube is broken.

The game is no longer a joyous experience you control. It's a relationship creating negative feelings you didn't ask for.

Product vs. Service:

Products naturally support session completeness because they're designed for self-directed engagement. You play when you want, stop when you want, and the experience doesn't create guilt or anxiety about your choices.

Services can maintain session completeness, but only if they resist creating unchosen negative associations. The service should enhance joy (new content, community, ongoing support), not introduce guilt, anxiety, or obligation.

Designer takeaway: If players feel bad about when they play, how long they play, or whether they play rather than feeling challenged by what they're playing you've introduced unchosen negative emotions that break the cube.

2. Player Sovereignty Over Time

The system does not enforce schedules or create unchosen negative associations with absence.

This is the critical distinction:

Player-driven goals (I want to beat this boss / rank up / finish this build) = legitimate design challenge

Even if these create frustration, tension, or struggle these are chosen emotions. The player wants to feel the challenge. Overcoming it brings joy.

System-driven obligations (I have to log in today / I have to grind now / I have to spend before it rotates) = unchosen negative emotions

These create guilt, anxiety, resentment, and obligation feelings the player didn't choose and doesn't want.

What breaks the cube is schedule-enforcing design that introduces negative emotional associations:

• Streak mechanics that punish missed days: Creates guilt and anxiety about absence

• Daily login ladders that reset on absence: Creates obligation and resentment

• Limited-time events that remove content permanently: Creates FOMO and pressure

• Energy systems that dictate when play is allowed: Creates frustration and resentment at being locked out

• Battle passes that expire: Creates anxiety and regret about "wasted" purchases

These aren't challenge structures. They're mechanisms that make players feel bad about their relationship with the game itself.

The player didn't enter the system to feel guilty about not playing. They entered to feel joyous through chosen challenges. Introducing guilt, anxiety, and obligation thwarts their agency over their emotional experience.

But we need to be precise here about time-based design in products vs. services.

Product-based time design (maintains wholly positive experience):

Weekly raid resets create rhythm and prevent burnout. Missing a week doesn't create guilt, it just means you play next week. No negative association introduced.

Seasonal content drops New content arrives periodically, creating anticipation (a positive emotion). Old content remains accessible. No FOMO, no anxiety.

Event rotations with full disclosure "This dungeon is available this month" creates variety and anticipation. Players know when it's coming back. No permanent loss, no negative emotions.

Service-based time design (introduces unchosen negative associations):

Weekly limited-time events with exclusive rewards Missing this week means permanent loss. Introduces: FOMO, anxiety, regret.

Battle passes that expire You paid for rewards, but if you don't play enough on the game's schedule, you lose what you purchased. Introduces: Guilt, anxiety, resentment, regret.

Daily login bonuses with escalating rewards: Missing a day resets progress. Introduces: Guilt about absence, obligation to return daily, anxiety about "wasting" potential rewards.

The distinction is: Does the time-based design create positive anticipation, or does it create negative emotions about absence?

Products use time to organize content and create positive anticipation. The relationship stays joyous.

Services can ethically use time to structure live content but only if absence doesn't create guilt, anxiety, FOMO, or resentment. Time-based content should be about when something joyous is available, not about making players feel bad for not being there.

The key test is: does thinking about the game when you're NOT playing create positive feelings (excitement, anticipation) or negative feelings (guilt, anxiety, obligation)?

If it creates negative feelings the cube is broken. The game has introduced unchosen emotional associations that override the player's agency over their emotional experience.

Designer takeaway: Your game should never make players feel bad about their engagement choices. If absence creates guilt, if not spending creates resentment, if short sessions create anxiety you've broken the wholly joyous experience the player came for.

3. Transparent Exchange

Investment requirements (time and money) are fully legible, maintaining positive emotional association.

The product ideal is not "everything is free."

The product ideal is: the deal is clear, and the player never feels tricked, manipulated, or resentful about what they spent.

If money unlocks something, it should be clear what it unlocks. If time unlocks something, it should be clear how much time it takes. If the game is competitive, it should be clear what spending changes.

Transparency maintains the wholly positive experience because it preserves trust and informed consent.

When the exchange is clear, spending feels good. You chose it, you knew what you were getting, you got what you expected. Positive association.

When the exchange is obscured, spending creates resentment, regret, and feeling manipulated. Negative association you didn't choose.

This is where a lot of games fail not because monetization exists, but because the terms are intentionally obscured, creating unchosen negative emotions:

Disguised gates: "You can earn this item through gameplay!" (600 hours vs. $9.99, undisclosed)

Negative emotion introduced: Resentment when you discover the real cost. Regret about time wasted. Feeling tricked.

Unclear odds: "Epic loot box!" (0.03% chance, disclosed in legal footer)

Negative emotion introduced: Regret after spending. Feeling manipulated. Resentment toward the game.

Ambiguous power ceilings: "All items are earnable!" ($2,000 or 3,000 hours for competitive viability)

Negative emotion introduced: Frustration. Resentment at being misled. Regret about early investment.

"Limited" that never ends: "Limited-time exclusive!" (returns every 3 months)

Negative emotion introduced: Regret about impulse purchase. Resentment at false urgency. Feeling manipulated.

"Optional" that's structurally required: "Battle pass is optional" (contains meta-defining items)

Negative emotion introduced: Resentment at being told it's optional when it functionally isn't. Feeling deceived.

Bait-and-switch progression: Early game generous, late game pay-gated

Negative emotion introduced: Massive resentment. Regret about invested time. Feeling trapped by sunk cost.

These obscured costs break the wholly positive relationship. The player came for joy, and instead experienced manipulation, regret, and resentment toward the game itself.

A cube doesn't hide the cost of the feelings it sells, because hidden costs introduce unchosen negative emotions that thwart agency.

Product vs. Service:

Products make transparency easier when you pay once, you know what you're getting, the relationship stays positive.

Services require ongoing transparency because the deal evolves. Every spending opportunity should preserve the positive relationship:

• Clear disclosure of what you're buying

• Honest framing of competitive implications

• Transparent odds and costs

• No bait-and-switch

• No manipulative urgency

When services maintain transparency, spending feels like supporting something you love. When they obscure costs, spending creates resentment toward something that's manipulating you.

Designer takeaway: If discovering the truth about your monetization makes players angry, you've designed manipulation, not value exchange. Transparency isn't just ethical, it's the only way to maintain a wholly positive emotional relationship with your players.

Ethical Artificial Scarcity

Scarcity is a legitimate design tool that creates value, focus, and meaningful choice. But there's a difference between scarcity that enhances experience and scarcity that manipulates behavior.

Ethical scarcity (experience-enhancing):

Seasonal cosmetics tied to real-world events: "Halloween skins available in October" creates thematic coherence and anticipation. Players understand the logic, and it enhances immersion.

Rotating game modes with disclosed schedules: "Capture the Flag is available weekends" creates predictable variety without punishment. You know when it's coming back.

Limited edition physical goods: "500 signed art prints" is real scarcity tied to actual production constraints. Players can make informed decisions about value.

In-game resource scarcity challenges: Limited inventory slots, scarce crafting materials, and strategic resource management. This is core to many game genres and creates meaningful decisions.

Unethical scarcity (manipulation):

Artificial urgency with no disclosed return: "Last chance! 24 hours only!" when the item will return next month under different framing. This is false scarcity designed to pressure impulse purchases.

Rotating shops with undisclosed schedules: "This might never come back!" creates FOMO without giving players information to make rational decisions.

Exclusive rewards gated behind limited-time grinds: "Complete 50 hours of play this week or lose this item forever" punish players with jobs, families, or other commitments.

Pay-gated event participation: "Buy this pass to access the limited-time event" combines payment with time pressure, double-gating content.

The ethical test: Does scarcity serve the experience (theme, challenge, meaningful choice), or does it serve retention/monetization metrics by creating pressure?

Product vs. Service:

Products rarely use artificial time-based scarcity because there's no ongoing relationship to maintain. Scarcity in products is usually design-based (limited inventory, strategic resources).

Services can ethically use scarcity for seasonal theming and content rotation but only with full disclosure, predictable schedules, and no punishment for absence.

Designer takeaway: If your scarcity mechanic would feel manipulative if disclosed honestly ("We're creating urgency to increase conversion rates"), redesign it. Scarcity should create value, not anxiety.

The Test

To determine if a game respects the Perfect Entertainment Cube ideal, apply these three tests:

Test 1: Session Completeness

Can a player have a single session of any length and come away feeling they got value proportional to time invested?

• Does a 2-minute session feel complete and worthwhile?

• Does a 2-hour session maintain consistent fun density without grinding?

• Is the fun frontloaded, or do short sessions feel like paying dues to access the real game later?

If yes: the game delivers complete emotional units at constant density

If no: the game is metering emotional outcomes across enforced time windows or backloading fun behind grind/pay gates

Test 2: Player Sovereignty Over Time

Can a player walk away for a week, a month, or a year, and return without penalty or structural disadvantage?

• Are there mechanics that punish absence (streak resets, expired passes, lost rewards)?

• Does the game enforce a schedule (daily quests, time-limited events with exclusive rewards)?

• Can the player engage on their own timeline without losing competitive standing or social status?

• Does thinking about the game when NOT playing create positive feelings (anticipation) or negative feelings (guilt, anxiety)?

If yes: the game respects player agency over temporal investment

If no: the game is enforcing obligations through absence punishment and introducing unchosen negative emotions

Test 3: Transparent Exchange

Can a player understand the full cost (time and money) of any emotional outcome or competitive standing before committing?

• Are time requirements for progression disclosed up front?

• Are spending implications for competitive balance clear?

• Are odds for randomized rewards transparent?

• Is "limited time" honest, or is it artificial urgency?

• Does the game use bait-and-switch (generous early, gated late)?

• Does discovering the truth about costs create resentment?

If yes: the exchange is legible and the player can make informed decisions without feeling manipulated

If no: the game is obscuring costs to manipulate spending behavior and will introduce unchosen negative emotions (resentment, regret)

If a game passes all three tests, it behaves like a product even if it's a service.

If it fails any test, it behaves like a service with obligations even if it's sold as a product.

What Ethical Service Models Look Like

This doesn't mean abandoning free-to-play models or live service games entirely. It means designing them so players maintain agency over both time and money inputs while preserving a wholly positive emotional relationship.

Here's what that looks like in practice:

Cosmetics-Only Monetization

Path of Exile: The entire game is free. All gameplay content is accessible without payment. Monetization is purely cosmetic and storage convenience. You can play for thousands of hours and spend nothing, or you can spend to support the developers and customize your character's appearance. The deal is completely transparent, and spending doesn't create competitive advantage.

Deep Rock Galactic: Battle pass that never expires. You can complete Season 1's pass in Season 5 if you want. No FOMO, no urgency, no punishment for absence. You pay for cosmetics and you get them on your own timeline.

Subscription Models with Full Access

Final Fantasy XIV: Subscription gives you full access to all content. No energy gates, no pay-to-win, no limited-time exclusive power. You pay monthly for access, and the game respects your time investment within that subscription. You're not managing two input variables (time AND money beyond the sub) just one.

The game also clearly discloses what the subscription includes, and there's no bait-and-switch where essential content gets paywalled beyond the subscription.

Premium Currency That Doesn't Gate Core Progression

Warframe: Free-to-play with premium currency, but you can trade with other players to earn that currency through gameplay. Grindy, but transparent. No energy systems that stop you from playing. No limited-time content that disappears forever. The game shows you exactly what grind is required vs. what payment shortcuts exist.

Community-Focused Monetization

It Takes Two / A Way Out (Friends Pass): One player purchases the full game, and can invite a friend to play the entire co-op campaign for free through a "Friends Pass." You're literally buying access for someone else, monetizing the act of bringing someone into a shared experience. This became a popular model in co-op games where the purchase is explicitly social.

AFK Arena (Noble Society / Team Subscriptions): Subscription passes where one player's purchase creates benefits that extend through the guild system: guild progression acceleration, shared assistance mechanics, and community reinforcement.

Guild Wars 2 (Guild Hall Upgrades): Guild members contribute resources (which can be acquired through play or accelerated via gold, which can be purchased) toward building shared guild halls. These upgrades unlock collective buffs, services, improved guild features, and a shared "home base" that represents your community's identity and investment.

Community-focused monetization directs spending toward shared social infrastructure: guild upgrades, collective progression, bringing friends into the experience, and group-enhancing benefits.

Ethical service models separate monetization from core progression and competitive standing, maintain transparent exchange, don't punish temporal absence, and preserve a wholly positive emotional relationship with players.

Designer takeaway: You can build sustainable services without behavioral manipulation. The trade-off is smaller revenue per user, but the upside is longer player retention, better brand equity, and a relationship built on consent rather than coercion.

Core Principles for Designers

If you take nothing else from this framework, remember these:

1. Constant Fun Density

Every minute of play should deliver value. If short sessions feel hollow, you're metering fun behind time or payment gates.

2. Invitation, Not Obligation

Time-based content should create anticipation (new content available!), not coercion (you'll lose value if you don't engage now).

3. Preserve the Wholly Positive Experience

Players came to control how they feel through play. Never introduce unchosen negative emotions: guilt, anxiety, resentment, regret about engagement choices. Even negative emotions like fear or frustration should be chosen as part of the experience the player wanted.

4. Informed Consent at Every Layer

Players should never feel tricked. Disclose costs, odds, competitive implications, and time requirements before players commit. Transparency preserves trust and keeps the relationship positive.

5. Distinguish Player Goals from System Obligations

Challenges players set for themselves = good design. Schedules the system enforces through punishment = extraction design that introduces unchosen negative emotions.

6. Scarcity Should Serve Experience, Not Metrics

Use scarcity to create meaningful choice and thematic coherence, not to manufacture urgency and pressure spending.

7. Separate Monetization from Core Progression

Players should be able to access the full emotional range of your game without spending. Monetization should enhance (cosmetics, convenience, support) not unlock (power, access, competitive viability).

8. Products and Services Both Require Respect

A product gives ownership and autonomy. A service can offer ongoing value but only if it maintains player sovereignty over time and money while preserving a wholly positive emotional relationship.

The Core Principle

Games should produce desired emotional outcomes through player-controlled inputs of time and money not through system-controlled obligations that override agency or introduce unchosen negative emotions.

That's the bridge.

That's what it means to build products and services that respect the emotional trade at the center of play.

Not by eliminating monetization, but by subordinating it to player agency over time and money.

Not by removing challenge or negative emotions, but by ensuring all emotions experienced stem from the player’s input, not imposed by the system.

It's how the industry survives long-term without cannibalizing what makes games worth playing in the first place.

Join the conversation on LinkedIn