<p>This paper considers how act consequentialism can engage with the Gamer’s Dilemma (the seeming moral distinction between virtual murder and virtual child molestation in video games). I argue that often the dilemma is implicitly or explicitly framed in a way that presumes that an answer can only be in terms of action types rather than tokens. This framing unfairly stacks the deck against act consequentialist approaches. An act consequentialist approach to the Gamer’s Dilemma speaks to its own set of concerns, and this paper proposes three ways consequentialists can address the dilemma: adopting rule utilitarianism, taking a regulative approach focused on laws and policies, or examining typical cases to develop heuristics. Each of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and it’s important to recognize what the specific concerns of each approach are, as well as their particular strengths and limitations. By clarifying these different consequentialist framings, I demonstrate ways in which consequentialism can meaningfully contribute to debates on the ethics of virtual actions. I conclude by outlining some methodological benefits of bringing clarity to the particular way(s) that consequentialism can speak to the Gamer’s Dilemma and suggest how existing discussions using deontological and virtue ethical approaches might be productively reframed in consequentialist terms.</p>