In this paper we look at three different groups of games. The traditional payment methods for games, although they do have their problems, are typically less problematic from ethical perspective than their more modern counterparts. Payment methods such as lure-to-pay use psychological tricks to lock the player to the game. Whereas pay to pass boring parts or pay to win just use game-external mechanics to make the play easier, and thus intent to, and have consequences other than at least many of the players would want to. This paper is a first stab at the topic from a Moorean just-consequentialist perspective, and in future papers we intend to compare a wider range of philosophical methods, payment methods as well as look into empirical data on players views on the topic.