If you have been paying attention to gaming news in the past few years, you may have noticed a series of debates regarding microtransactions and their impact on games. From humble beginnings in mobile games, they have become the focal point of numerous controversies, boycotts and protests affecting even the most lofty and successful game franchises, having taken on a life of their own. Are microtransactions a problem that have been let fester for far too long?
For those who might not be in-the-know, what exactly are microtransactions? Microtransactions, often shortened to MTX for simplicity’s sake, are items or services a player can buy in a game’s dedicated store, either with real-life money or with the equivalent in ‘In-Game Currency’ earned by playing the game. These microtransactions can range from cosmetics like new looks for your items or characters, to more noticeable additions such as new weapons or abilities.
Originally appearing in free-to-download games on app stores, they were designed as a source of revenue in a market where developers were selling games for free. However, as time went on, microtransactions began to trickle from the world of mobile gaming into more popular releases. AAA games like Halo and Call of Duty would soon begin to feature new versions of their character customisation services, augmented by these microtransactions. Cosmetics for your avatar that before were unlockable by completing challenges in-game were being phased out in favour of simply finding an item you liked in the MTX store and purchasing it directly.
As companies realised the potential of these services, they began to modify them in order to generate the most profit possible, resulting in the creation of Lootboxes. Lootboxes are a form of microtransaction in which a player purchases a collection of random items of varying rarities. There are normally numerous boxes of increasing value, with the added price guaranteeing rarer items. But therein lies the issue with lootboxes: You aren’t guaranteed to receive the item you want. It’s all based on the rarity of the box you purchased and sheer luck. Microtransactions have gone from seeing something you like and buying it for a fee, to gambling this fee on a lootbox that may net you something good. This form of microtransaction culture has been equated to gambling and, due to the negative impact it may have on vulnerable audiences, has landed companies such as Electronic Arts in hot water with lawmakers due to the lootbox system that appears in its FIFA series.
A more nuanced issue consumers have with MTX is their effect on the games themselves. MTX can generally be placed into two groups: Cosmetic and Non-Cosmetic. The first are regarded as the more acceptable form of MTX, not having any impact on the games in which they are featured other than appearances. For example, they can be character skins, weapon designs or emotes (Expressions or dances that can be performed in-game). They are merely for show and do nothing to change the way the game is played. Non-Cosmetic microtransactions are any MTX that influences the balance of power in a game. This can include more powerful weapons, upgrading abilities and even hiding entire characters behind a paywall. Often referred to as “Pay-to-Win”, these microtransactions are heavily frowned upon as players argue that skill is being replaced by the depth of one’s wallet.
This strategy is what set EA in the sights of consumer backlash once again with the second instalment of their Star Wars: Battlefront series. Darth Vader, an iconic character in the Star Wars saga, was locked behind a progression system that was deemed to take an inordinate amount of time to progress through. The alternative offered was simply to pay money for the credits and unlock the character sooner. The reaction of players was so severe that the game was patched to remove microtransactions, although a heavily modified version of the service was later implemented.
It would be remiss to not mention a more positive implementation of microtransactions. Games such as Fortnite have pioneered a ‘Battlepass’ system, where a player pays €9.50 for access to a two-month long progression system where they can unlock various items, including in-game currency. Enough of this currency can be earned in one season to purchase the next battlepass, creating a cycle of free content. This allows players to obtain the game for free, then pay what they wish for new cosmetic content. This method also rewards dedicated players as they will receive the most desireable unlockables faster the more they play.
It’s clear that microtransactions are here to stay due to their profitability, but the question is how they will shape games in the future. Will a more lucrative version take the place of lootboxes, or will cosmetics win out as the dominant form of passive microtransactions?
