The title essentially says it all. I am asking since I came across the following statement: “Zero-sum games are also known as games of pure conflict”. This seemed to imply that zero-sum and pure conflict are synonyms, which confuses me since I figured that all constant-sum games should be games of pure conflict, by definition. So, are all constant-sum games games of pure conflict or are there some constant sum games that do not follow this rule?


For most purposes, there is no difference between (two-player) zero-sum and constant-sum games. One usually assumes in game theory that players maximize expected utility. Payoff functions are von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. One does not change the preferences induced by such a payoff function if one adds or subtracts a constant. One can, therefore, transform every constant-sum game into a zero-sum game without changing preferences and behavior.

  • $\begingroup$ There are underlying assumptions here which raise issues in reality. The first is that the game is zero-sum or constant-sum in utility terms rather than some other measure. But there is experimental evidence that individuals show different behaviour when faced with large changes in total utility: if the possible outcomes are $+10$ or $-10$ people often try hard to reduce the risk of a $-10$ outcome, and make different decisions when faced with possible outcomes of say $+560$ or $+540$ $\endgroup$ – Henry Jun 24 '20 at 11:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are confusing money and utility. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Jun 24 '20 at 11:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.