In this dissertation we examine experience as a commodity in the Design Field. We argue that the notion of experience employed in the Field is acritical and incorrect, because it evokes a technological determinism when it should recognize it as a social construct, that is, something that is historically built, which manifests the context s ideology and the experience holder s idiosyncrasies. Therefore, to examine this via the Social Criticism bias, we first define what experience means in the Design field with two identified strands - one called theoretical humanist, and the other market oriented. After that, we extend our experience understanding with concepts from the Philosophy Field. Following, we define the meaning of commodity and its condition in late capitalism. We clarify its elemental form - which persists in contemporaneity — as well as the implications of capitalism expansion, which caused changes in the spheres of production and circulation that influenced and still influences the Design Field. At last, we discuss if what is considered experience in the Design Field can really hold this name, and if it really is a commodity. In this discussion, we propose that the Field doesn t design, or design for, an experience, because it doesn t acknowledge the limits of its praxis - it still designs objects and their modes of use, not experiences - nor the experience holder s idiosyncrasies. Consequently, experience can t be a commodity, because it can t be designed and also because it doesn t fit to the commodity elemental form. In this way, we theorize that what the Design Field commercializes are only promises — promises of use or experience that might not occur - or simply a symbolic value.