  Motivated by cost of computation in game theory, we explore how changing the
utilities of players (changing their complexity costs) affects the outcome of a
game. We show that even if we improve a player's utility in every action
profile, his payoff in equilibrium might be lower than in the equilibrium
before the change. We provide some conditions on games that are sufficient to
ensure this does not occur. We then show how this counter-intuitive phenomenon
can explain real life phenomena such as free riding, and why this might cause
people to give signals indicating that they are not as good as they really are.
