Monetization Ethics Auditor: An AI Skill Template for Indie Web Games

Many indie game monetization ideas start as reasonable experiments: an optional rewarded ad, a supporter pack, a cosmetic shop, or a subscription-style membership. The risk is that small changes can quietly turn those ideas into pressure, confusion, or player-hostile design.

This page gives you a reusable AI skill template for auditing monetization ideas before implementation. It is designed for web games, roguelikes, small indie projects, and developer content sites that want revenue without damaging player trust.

What This Skill Does

The monetization-ethics-auditor reviews a proposed monetization feature and returns:

It does not estimate revenue, promise approval, or interpret law as legal advice. Its job is to catch design risk early.

When To Use It

Use this skill before adding:

For AdSense, privacy, age-sensitive, payment, or gambling-like mechanics, treat the result as a first-pass product review and still check the current official platform and legal guidance.

The Five Review Axes

AxisQuestionRed flags
AutonomyCan the player easily say no?forced ads, hidden close buttons, blocked progress
FairnessDoes payment distort the game?pay-to-win boosts, leaderboard imbalance
TransparencyAre price, odds, renewal, and data use clear?vague discounts, unclear subscriptions, hidden conditions
ProtectionAre younger or vulnerable players protected?pressure timers, excessive spend loops, gambling-like framing
ReciprocityDoes the player receive fair value?low-value rewards, misleading bundles, repeated interruptions

Skill Prompt

Copy this prompt into your AI coding agent or Hermes-style skill runner.

You are monetization-ethics-auditor.

Review the proposed monetization design for an indie web game or roguelike.

Inputs:
- game_type:
- target_platform:
- target_regions:
- player_age_assumption:
- session_length:
- monetization_features:
- ad_formats:
- paid_items:
- data_collected:
- current_public_pages:

Rules:
1. Protect player autonomy before revenue.
2. Flag forced ads, hidden costs, fake urgency, unclear subscriptions, manipulative pricing, and pay-to-win pressure.
3. Separate ethical design risks from platform-policy, legal, privacy, and age-safety risks.
4. Do not promise revenue increases, AdSense approval, or legal compliance.
5. If the design involves minors, loot boxes, subscriptions, personal data, dynamic pricing, or gambling-like mechanics, mark it as needs-source-review.
6. Prefer opt-in monetization, clear cancellation, honest pricing, and player-readable tradeoffs.
7. Produce practical changes the developer can apply before launch.

Return:
- verdict: ready | needs-change | high-risk | needs-source-review
- risk_summary:
- ethics_table:
- required_changes:
- player_experience_safeguards:
- source_review_needed:
- safer_public_copy:

Example Input

game_type: browser roguelike
target_platform: web
target_regions: US, Korea, EU
player_age_assumption: general audience
session_length: 12-18 minutes
monetization_features:
  - optional rewarded ad after death for a small currency bonus
  - cosmetic supporter pack
ad_formats:
  - rewarded ad
  - static display ad on guide pages
paid_items:
  - cosmetic-only supporter pack
data_collected:
  - anonymous gameplay events
current_public_pages:
  - About
  - Contact
  - Privacy Policy
  - Terms

Example Output Shape

verdict: needs-change

risk_summary:
- Rewarded ads are safer than forced interstitials, but the post-death placement must not pressure the player while frustrated.
- Cosmetic supporter packs are low-risk if they do not affect combat, progression, matchmaking, or leaderboards.
- Anonymous analytics should be explained in the privacy policy before launch.

ethics_table:
| Axis | Status | Notes |
| Autonomy | caution | The player needs a clear "continue without ad" option. |
| Fairness | pass | Cosmetic-only purchases do not affect combat power. |
| Transparency | caution | Explain currency bonus size before the ad starts. |
| Protection | needs-review | General audience + ads requires age and ad-content review. |
| Reciprocity | pass | Optional bonus is understandable if the reward is modest. |

required_changes:
- Add a visible "No thanks" option with equal visual weight.
- Show the exact reward before the ad begins.
- Do not offer the ad on every death; add a cooldown.
- Keep supporter pack rewards cosmetic only.

source_review_needed:
- Current ad platform policies.
- Privacy/cookie language for analytics and ads.
- Age-related ad settings if children may use the site.

Design Rules For Safer Monetization

1. Make refusal normal

A player should be able to decline an ad, offer, or purchase without punishment. The refusal path should be visible, immediate, and emotionally neutral.

2. Separate reward from rescue

Rewarded ads are usually safer when they grant a modest bonus after a run, not when they rescue a player from a painful loss. Avoid turning frustration into pressure.

3. Keep paid power out of competitive systems

If a game has leaderboards, asynchronous competition, daily challenges, or ranked modes, paid power can quickly become a trust problem.

4. Treat subscriptions as high-risk

Subscriptions need clear renewal terms, easy cancellation, and simple language. If the project cannot support that operationally, use one-time purchases or donations instead.

5. Do not optimize for vulnerable moments

Avoid offers triggered by repeated failure, late-night fatigue, long sessions, or emotional low points. Those triggers may improve short-term conversion while damaging trust.

Checklist

References

  1. Google AdSense Help. Google Publisher Policies.
  2. Google AdSense Help. AdSense Program Policies.
  3. Federal Trade Commission. "Bringing Dark Patterns to Light."
  4. Mathur et al. "Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites."