Pay-To-Win, Season Passes, and In-Game Purchases; The Exploitation of Modern Gaming

Video games are loved by millions across the world, for one reason or another: they captivate the imagination on a scale that matches and surpasses the film industry, they immerse like no other entertainment medium on the market, or they give the opportunity to play as a space marine shooting demons from hell—who doesn't want that? Many millions more have interacted with them at some other level besides playing as well; be it hardcore gamers who have owned (or still own) several consoles and have no intentions of putting the controller down, or a parent watching their child smash open their first wumpa crate in Crash Bandicoot. Video games have pioneered fun for players for decades now and the medium has seen genuinely incredible growth. However, as with any line of business, the game industry has changed drastically since its inception, and subsequently, so has modern gaming itself.

With the advent of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles, along with their respective online services, it was clear that downloadable content (DLC) would become commonplace as the industry evolved. It made sense at the time—a fully developed, finished game would be provided, with the excitement of future content that would satisfy those with an appetite for more—but it also was not necessary in order for one to enjoy the initial product on its own. They were not financially demanding either, with most post-release content provided for a meager couple of pounds/dollars/euros etc. A clean, mostly benign business model that was seen as a positive evolution for the medium. Or so it was thought.

Go to any modern game released now for current platforms and chances are high that it will require a more fiscally straining purchase of a season pass in order for one to experience the game in its entirety, on top of the already increased price one pays to purchase the game anyway. Publishers still promise future content, but they provide the gamer with the opportunity to pay for it now instead of paying for it when it is officially released. Compared to the previous generations, when a full game was published without any post-release bank account-bashing.

It can be argued that the reason for this system's perseverance despite consumer backlash is in its hiding in plain sight philosophy. Many modern games are treated as services now by publishers, who wish to see their new game continue to be played for years to come. As a result of this mindset, they want new content to be released over the course of months or years to ensure they generate the highest revenue possible for that one game—and when interest in the game has dwindled, they release a sequel and so begins the cycle all over again.

This philosophy also translates into in-game currencies; that is, the financial system that is used by gamers to buy content within the game itself without having to pay real-life money for it. In-game currency is most commonly seen in multiplayer modes, where buying content with fake game-money to improve your online character is part of the online experience. This does not cause alarm in reading, though in practice there is plenty cause for concern. Many games give players the in-game currency sparingly, meaning players must 'grind', or play the game for countless hours to earn enough of the currency to buy the content they want with in-game money. However, this is not the gamer's only option— they may choose to grind, or they can pay genuine cash to achieve the gear they want instantly and then some. Thus, the biggest dilemma for the modern gamer hits them where nobody wants to be hit: their wallet. And unfortunately, for most modern gamers, it is an easy choice.

Do publishers legitimately believe people who play games lack the cognitive ability to understand how they are leeching them for every cent? Well, to be frank, the short answer is yes. Multiplayer-oriented games quickly became the most popular type on the market and still generate so much revenue for publishers that it was painfully obvious to see where it would eventually lead, i.e. the situation gaming is in now. Because these games are so popular and make so much money without enough pushback from the consumers, the practice is simply allowed to continue. Gamers ultimately have nobody to blame for this, but themselves. They have played along with the game without realizing the only way to win is not to play. Literally.

If popular multiplayer shooters did not generate high revenue as a result of consumer dissonance, then publishers would be put in the uncomfortable decision to focus instead on what is good for the gamer and re-evaluate their practices. These types of games have seen some recent controversy surrounding in-game microtransactions, which have resulted in some positive change for the industry, but this kind of resolution is sadly far from the norm. In the end, it is all down to the consumer, the gamer, the demon-slayer, to face these practices head on and knock them down whenever the chance arises.

In conclusion, the state of modern gaming is an embarrassment to everything gaming is supposed to be. It was never intended to be a service for corporations to nickel and dime the gamer for everything they are worth. Instead, it was created for the player to immerse themselves in a world very different from their own, to escape their frustrations, and enjoy themselves regardless of their background, free from any interference from money-obsessed monoliths determined to take advantage of the gamer. And it is time that it returned to its frankly better, original state.