We Are Our Own Worst Enemy
Over the last five years, there has been an ever-increasing degree of monetisation in mainstream video games. The situation has sparked debate not only among gamers but also in the mainstream press. Loot boxes and the entire business model of “pay to start” has finally reached the scrutiny of several national governments. Furthermore, the triple A video games industry has been held to account and pressed to justify such practises. Yet despite the public attention and a degree of pushback from some gamers, the situation doesn’t in anyway look like it’s going to be resolved. In fact sales data seems to show that despite some negative coverage both in the video games media and the traditional press, games with egregious business models are far from being rejected by customers. Quite the opposite. Ironically two of the worst offenders that have recently been held up as games that exploit gamers financially, have just achieved record sales. Both Mario Kart Tour and NBA 2K20 have proven to be massive hits.
For those gamers who are looking for change, this is a sad situation. Most reasonable and measured individuals recognise that the video games industry is a commercial endeavour and that developers and publishers needs to make money. The bone of contention is that excessive monetisation is actually spoiling games by impeding gameplay and progression. A game built around monetisation has different priorities to a game primarily designed just to be played. Ultimately there is a contradiction between a game in the traditional sense and a “live service”. Is it therefore unreasonable to try and seek the middle ground where a company can make a healthy profit, without compromising the game or the experience of playing it? We’ll it would appear that the answer is “yes, it is unreasonable” and sadly, the point of failure and source of blame is ultimately not actually the video games industry but gamers themselves. We are our own worst enemy.
It is naïve to expect big corporations to act ethically and sensibly when it comes to accruing wealth. If you want a companies such as Activision Blizzard, 2K Games or Ubisoft to moderate their financial strategy when it comes to video games, you must compel them to do so by law. As for any concerted effort by gamers to “school” these publishers through the old cliché of “voting with your wallet”, it is doomed to failure. Because gamers are not a homogeneous group. For every gamer that thinks that monetisation of gaming has gone too far, there is one who thinks the opposite and yet another who simply doesn’t care. Also, cognitive dissonance seems to be the default setting for most people when it comes to social issues these days. We all too often notionally agree with an ethical principle up to the point where acting upon it requires us to make a sacrifice or go without. Another factor that also impacts upon one’s attitude towards microtransactions, season passes and lootboxes is the generational difference in our attitudes towards money.
Naturally there are gamers with large disposable incomes who don’t concern themselves with the reality of game related monetisation. Any obstacle to enjoyment can be overcome by the application of money. However, in my lifetime there has been major changes in the regulation of consumer borrowing. Simply put, credit is easily accessible (despite the financial crash of 2008) and consumers are encouraged to spend. To put this in perspective, UK credit card debt was at £72.5 billion at the end of July 2019. So when video gamer publishers talk about “whales”, who exactly are they talking about? Those who can genuinely afford too throw money around or those who feel obliged to do so, with money they don’t really have? Over the course of my life, I’ve learned the esoteric and unfashionable act of living within my financial means. I would say that this is a social norm more pertinent to the over fifties. But for many people half my age, they have grown up in a world where ownership has been supplanted by paying for a service and the entire point of credit is to use it to try and live the lifestyle, you think you deserve.
So regardless of the “selective gamer pushback” and a degree of negative PR that is mainly driven by a moral imperative, the video game industry has had its monetisation policies 100% validated by recent sales figures. Hence it is highly unlikely that we shall see any major change in business practises in the immediate future. As a result, I shall continue to avoid many major triple A titles such as Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint (a franchise I had previously enjoyed) and will continue my blanket boycott of mobile games. But the rather unpalatable reality is that future games development is going to be determined by those who are currently enabling the monetisation practises of the video games industry. However there’s a chance that even the most ambivalent gamer may eventually be inconvenienced by some future iniquity of the video games industry. Yet I suspect that even if this tipping point is achieved, many gamers would refuse to acknowledge their involvement in creating the problem in the first place and their respective blame.
