@kibasnowpaw :-
As I've said, I'm NOT a 'gamer'. At any rate, I don't see myself as one.
On occasion - when I'm at a lose end - I'll 'lurk' on some of the gaming forums. No intention of creating an a/c, 'cos I'm not
that interested, However:-
With respect to the entire business of microtransactions (battle passes? Loot boxes? Stuff like that, I believe...), I see a fair number of heated discussions on this subject.
It quickly becomes clear that any game studio which employs this stuff unwittingly - or perhaps intentionally? - creates a two-tier system.....and it shows. You have those with higher than usual salaries, with large amounts of disposable income, who see no issues with "buying" advantage as they progress through the game.....and clearly think nothing of it.
Of course, on the flip side you then have those with skill but modest incomes, who cannot afford all these microtransactions. The way forward is stacked against them, because advantage & opportunity for progressing is clearly geared toward those who "stump up" the readies whenever it's expected of them.
Yes, I can appreciate that game studios obviously have increasing overheads to cover, like everybody else. To me, though, this doesn't seem the right way to go about it.....
Like I said; I'm NOT a 'part' of this scene. This is just an observation, looking in from the outside.
Mike.
Mike, honestly, your view from the outside is closer to the truth than you might think.
The two-tier system you describe is real whenever a game sells power, faster progression, better equipment, extra chances, stronger characters, inventory space, stamina, or access to systems that would otherwise require a large amount of time. One player may be more skilled, but another player can simply pay to remove the obstacles placed in front of them. At that point, the game is no longer only testing skill. It is also testing disposable income.
Not every microtransaction gives a direct competitive advantage. Some only sell cosmetics. But even then, the system can still create another kind of hierarchy based on status, rarity, fear of missing out, and who can afford to keep buying every new pass or skin. The advantage may not be extra damage or health, but the psychological pressure is still there.
I also do not think this is happening by accident anymore.
The financial reports show exactly why publishers keep doing it. Take-Two reported that recurrent consumer spending, including virtual currency, add-on content, in-game purchases, and advertising, produced around $5.2 billion and represented more than three quarters of its total revenue for its 2026 financial year.
Ubisoft reported that its own “player recurring investment,” meaning digital items, DLC, season passes, subscriptions, and advertising, represented more than 60% of its net bookings in 2025–26.
When that much money comes from keeping people inside a game and spending after the original purchase, it is obvious which part of the business executives will be told to expand.
It is not normally an investor sitting beside a developer saying, “Put this loot box here.”
The problem is the pressure built into the company. Investors and executives look at net bookings, monthly active users, engagement, recurring spending, retention, and growth. Those figures are easy to put into a spreadsheet.
Whether the player feels respected, whether the game has become exhausting, and whether the design is still enjoyable are much harder to measure.
That creates the disconnect I keep talking about.
The player sees a game.
The financial side sees a product that should continue extracting money every month.
The spending is also extremely uneven. One large study of loot-box spending found that the top 5% of spenders generated about half of all loot-box revenue in the data. It also found a relationship between heavy loot-box spending and problem-gambling severity.
That does not automatically prove that loot boxes create gambling problems, because it may also mean that these systems are especially effective at attracting people who are already vulnerable.
Either explanation should concern us.
Psychologically, these systems use several pressures at once.
With a battle pass, the player has paid for something that expires, so not finishing it feels like wasting money. That makes the person return even when they are tired of playing.
With a loot box, the reward is uncertain, so every failure creates the thought that the next one might contain what they want.
With limited skins and countdowns, the company creates urgency: buy now or lose the chance.
With online communities, rankings, guilds, and visible cosmetics, social comparison adds another push. People see what everyone else has and may begin to feel left behind.
That is not simply offering an optional hat. It is building a shop directly into the reward system of the game.
Regulators have also started taking this seriously.
The US Federal Trade Commission required Epic Games to pay $245 million over allegations that Fortnite used confusing interfaces and other dark patterns that led to unwanted purchases.
European consumer authorities have also criticised systems where virtual currency hides the real price, countdown timers create pressure, and children are directly pushed towards purchases.
Ubisoft is a good example of how far the disconnect can go.
They launched Ubisoft Quartz and advertised “Digits” as the first playable NFTs in a major AAA game. To me, that looked like another attempt to create a market around artificial rarity rather than asking what actually made the game better.
I genuinely think Ubisoft has damaged itself badly.
I am not saying bankruptcy is guaranteed, because nobody can honestly know that. But the financial trouble is real. For 2025–26, Ubisoft reported net bookings down by more than 17%, a non-IFRS operating loss of around €1.04 billion, and negative free cash flow of around €443 million.
The company describes what it is doing as a major strategic reset. Even so, its future plans still include accelerating live services, which shows how difficult it is for these companies to walk away from recurring monetisation once the whole business has been built around it.
This is why I become annoyed when people constantly say, “Vote with your wallet,” but then preorder the next expensive edition, buy the battle pass, purchase the skins, complain for two weeks, and repeat everything when the next game comes out.
Voting with your wallet only works when people actually accept the consequence of missing a game.
Companies do not care very much about angry comments if the sales figures still look good.
If enough people stopped buying these products consistently, not just for one week but every time, some studios would be forced to change. The difficulty is getting millions of people to hold the same line.
I have now made my own line.
I still play the digital games I already have, and I am not against every digital game existing. I also receive review copies through my curator work.
Today, for example, I was offered pre-release access to Dragon Dragon Fire Fire Deluxe. I will probably accept it and review it because I love games, and I also want to help smaller developers keep making them.
That is different to me from throwing more personal money into the same AAA machine.
I also sell the CS2 drops, skins, cases, trading cards, and booster packs that I receive. Depending on the month, that can give me around €5 in Steam Wallet credit.
Right now I have almost €8 from last month and this month. After a few months, that is enough to pick up a reasonable game without putting more money into Steam from my bank account.
I know that is still part of Steam’s closed economy. It is not real cash that I can withdraw. Steam Wallet credit has no cash value outside Steam and cannot normally be transferred to another person.
But it gives me a way to use what the platform gives me without continuously feeding it new money from my own pocket.
My bigger problem now is ownership.
Steam’s agreement says directly that its content is licensed, not sold, that the licence gives no ownership, and that normal game licences cannot be transferred to another person.
So I can sell a physical game disc secondhand, lend it, collect it, or give it away, but I generally cannot sell a digital Steam game after I am finished with it.
That is why I have started buying more physical games from secondhand shops.
I do not mind playing what I already have digitally, accepting review copies, or using Wallet credit earned from drops.
But I am no longer comfortable paying out of pocket for digital games when we are moving further away from ownership and closer to permanent rental controlled by accounts and licences.
So yes, Mike, I understand why you think this looks wrong from the outside.
Studios do have development costs, staff, servers, marketing, and increasing overheads. They need to make money.
But there is a difference between selling a good game at a fair price and designing the game around keeping people psychologically engaged with a shop.
When most of the money no longer comes from selling the game, it should not surprise anyone when the game starts feeling less like entertainment and more like a payment system with gameplay built around it.
