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.
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.
Excessive Monetisation
I have numerous happy memories from playing Super Mario Kart on the SNES back in the early nineties. It was at the time and remains so today, a truly great game because it’s fun, very accessible and inherently social. Hence over the years there have been multiple iterations of Mario Kart across all of Nintendo’s platforms. All of which have been well received and provided gamers with what they want. In many ways it is one of key titles that have made Nintendo a global success as a gaming company and a brand. If you see any advertising featuring Mario and friends in go-karts, then it can be taken as read that the game will be a yet another great instalment of the franchise. Or can it? Which brings me neatly (and sadly not happily) to Mario Kart Tour; Nintendo’s latest foray on mobile platforms.
I have numerous happy memories from playing Super Mario Kart on the SNES back in the early nineties. It was at the time and remains so today, a truly great game because it’s fun, very accessible and inherently social. Hence over the years there have been multiple iterations of Mario Kart across all of Nintendo’s platforms. All of which have been well received and provided gamers with what they want. In many ways it is one of key titles that have made Nintendo a global success as a gaming company and a brand. If you see any advertising featuring Mario and friends in go-karts, then it can be taken as read that the game will be a yet another great instalment of the franchise. Or can it? Which brings me neatly (and sadly not happily) to Mario Kart Tour; Nintendo’s latest foray on mobile platforms.
Mario Kart Tour is a litany of gacha mechanics, multiple currencies and gated content. It’s a game that’s designed upon grinding through levels and earning currencies. Racing go-karts appears to be very much a secondary consideration. Naturally the game has the traditional Nintendo aesthetic, with the colourful environment and characters looking great on a modern smartphone screen. But it’s all superficial, as the game itself is hideously compromised by its monetisation. Characters, tracks and vehicles are locked behind pay walls that you can grind for, or if you prefer, spend some money to access. In its base form Mario Kart Tour is little more than a gaming tease. If you want to actually play the game in any meaningful sense, then you have to pay. And then there’s the insanity of the Gold Pass, a £4.99 monthly subscription allowing access to the 200cc racing class, which gives the highest point rewards and the best races. A price point that also buys you access to Apple Arcade and a hundred of the best mobile games around.
However, Nintendo are not the only company that’s happy to push ahead into the realms of excessive monetisation. Ubisoft have seen triple A gaming as a “service” for several years. However, the recent release of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint takes monetisation to new levels. There’s such a degree of microtransactional content it’s almost as if Ubisoft are trolling their player base. Skill points, crafting materials, weapons and their associated upgrades, are available to be purchased, right from the get-go. All of which have a direct impact on gameplay. And folk use to balk at the idea of a paid season pass. Plus some of the items in the in-game store are exclusives and not available by any other means other than paying. Considering that the base game (or should I say empty shell of a game) costs £60, it raises the question exactly how much must a player spend to have access to everything? Assuming that you are then presented with a fully functional game. I’m sure the answer to that question will emerge in the days to come.
Yet despite the egregious nature of such excessive monetisation being as plain as the nose on your face, a large percentage of gamers don’t appear to care. Mario Kart Tour was downloaded by 90 million unique users in its first week, which is six times more than Nintendo's second most popular game. It is too soon to ascertain sales data for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint as the game is currently in early access for those who pre-ordered and formally launches on Friday October 4th. But this is one of Ubisoft flagship franchises and I’m sure anticipated sales will feature heavily in their Q4 revenue targets. The bottom line is there is a lot of cognitive dissonance in the gaming community. People are happy to pay lip service to complaints of excessive monetisation yet end up doing the complete opposite and supporting the very thing that is the “problem”. Some gamers are enabling and validating the questionable practises of certain publishers and in doing so contribute to video games being held hostage by untrammelled greed.
Video games are a commercial undertaking and no one thinks that game developers and publishers shouldn’t be able to make a profit. But like any other consumer industry, video games needs to be a balanced and realistic quid pro quo. Payment should provide you with a fully functional game. Paid additional content should be an adjunct and not integral to the proceedings. If there must be microtransaction then make them cosmetic, although this also comes with its own set of problems, depending on the games core demographics. But the whole concept of “pay to start” is questionable in so far as you have not really been sold an entire product that is fit for purpose. Logicly, there will come a point when companies such as Ubisoft will go too far and finally the majority of gamers will simply say “no”. The film industry has had several tent pole movies woefully underperform leading to a re-calibration of business practises. Will we eventually see a record number of triple A games fall flat on their face? It’s not impossible. But the biggest question is when?