Microtransactions: The Modern Age of Gaming

What’s best for companies, games, and players?

DoubleSama
Sep 7, 2018 · 14 min read

If you’ve played any game released in the past few years, you’ve likely come across a feature known as a microtransaction. So what exactly are microtransactions and why are they such a big deal?

Microtransactions are the newest way for, generally multiplayer, games to make money post-release. These transactions are typically $5 or less, hence the “micro,” and can be purchased an (often) unlimited number of times. The issues many players have with this system can be split into two main categories: pay-to-win (P2W) and lootboxes.

The two games I play the most are Halo 5: Guardians (3,000 hours) and Rainbow Six: Siege (2,000 hours), so I’ll mainly use these two games to demonstrate my points. In fact, the community response to the (fairly) recent announcement of the upcoming game, Halo: Infinite, is what prompted my writing of this post.

Pay-to-Win

Pay-to-win has been a long-feared end result of microtransactions, but this result has only rarely come to fruition. As the name implies, this is when players are able to pay for an advantage over their opponents. And, as you might expect, isn’t something players want to be available because it almost completely removes skill or effort from the equation.

While not a perfect example of pay-to-win, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is an example nonetheless. Throughout the course of this game, multiple DLC (downloadable content) weapons were made available for purchase. These weapons turned out to be superior to those which players could simply unlock by playing the game. What this means is that players who paid for these weapons had an advantage over those who didn’t.

Now, as far as microtransactions go, some players are worried pay-to-win will enter the current games they know and love. If someone is able to pay a small amount in order to increase their in-game performance, it becomes unfair to the rest of the players who simply purchased the game at retail price.

Luckily, this isn’t typically what microtransactions are used for. Instead, the only things players are often able to purchase are cosmetic items which don’t affect gameplay, or items other players can still unlock via just playing the game.

A game like Rainbow Six: Siege is a good example of this done correctly. A vast majority of the microtransactions in the game are for cosmetics only, meaning that there’s no real in-game benefit to having them. They can also technically be unlocked simply by playing the game. That said, there are still a small number of premium cosmetics which can only be purchased.

On the other hand, players are also able to purchase new, playable characters which have their own unique abilities and uses. While this is drifting towards the pay-to-win realm, due to the nature of the game, that isn’t the case. Some characters are better than others, but they each have strengths and weaknesses, making them all viable in specific situations.

In Rainbow Six: Siege, having one particular character doesn’t necessarily give a player an advantage over their opponents. Additionally, all of the characters can be unlocked simply by playing the game anyway.

While I haven’t ever spent money on cosmetics in Rainbow Six: Siege, I have bought the season passes which give me access to the newest characters as soon as they’re available. While this doesn’t necessarily give me an advantage over my opponents as I’ve explained, it could still be viewed that way simply because I have new content before other players.

Alpha Pack Storefront from Rainbow Six: Siege

Halo 5: Guardians almost succeeded in the same way as Rainbow Six: Siege, but made one small mistake. While many microtransactions in this game go towards cosmetics, there’s still an abundance of content acquired through lootboxes (which can be purchased via microtransactions) that could arguably give one player an advantage over another.

Now, this only affects one small portion of online play, and players can choose to avoid it entirely if they so choose, so in my opinion it isn’t that big of a deal. In fact, you can get all of the same stuff simply by regularly playing the game, and you don’t need to play all that often or be that good to do so either.

So why did people care so much about this feature in Halo 5: Guardians if it doesn’t really have much of an effect on gameplay? I mean, even if you do have a better weapon than someone else, the better player is still likely going to win, so it’s not as though new players can simply pay their way to the top.

In my opinion, it all comes down to players who play vs. players who don’t.

You see, those who play Halo 5: Guardians a lot, like I did, have an abundance of powerful items we can use in-game which, in some cases, can help us succeed. The players who don’t play that often, however, don’t have those items because they simply haven’t put in the time to unlock them.

The real issue here is that the players who play less see that the players who play more have more powerful stuff than them and assume it’s the items which are making those players win. They then extrapolate this thought process to convince themselves those players must have purchased better items through microtransactions.

However, as I hope you’re beginning to see, this simply isn’t the case. If the new players played the game more, they would have all the same stuff. But, what we really need to take away from this is the players who play the game more are simply better at it due to exposure. They know the mechanics and maps of the game, and so are better at it due to their knowledge, not their items.

If you spend 10x the amount of time doing something as someone else, it’s only to be expected that you would be better at it than them. It doesn’t mean that you’re paying to be better.

So, transitioning on to the next game in the Halo franchise, Halo: Infinite, some players are worried that this “pay-to-win” system will make a return, but their fears are essentially unfounded.



Lootboxes

While pay-to-win mechanics can certainly be in play at the same time as lootboxes, the two are not mutually inclusive. But just what are lootboxes? How could a box full of loot possibly be controversial?

A lootbox is a specific way to unlock items within a game and is often tied to microtransactions, although paying isn’t always the only way players can acquire them. Often, simply by playing the game players are given the opportunity to acquire lootboxes to open, although paying for them obviously takes less time.

The basic premise of the lootbox system is that players acquire a “lootbox” which includes one or more random items. The key word here being “random,” as in the players have little to no influence over what exactly they get from the lootbox.

The two examples of lootboxes I’ll be using are Alpha Packs from Rainbow Six: Siege and REQ Packs from Halo 5: Guardians. While each of these types of lootboxes have their pros and cons, only the REQ packs from Halo 5: Guardians seem to be an issue for players.

Alpha Packs in Rainbow Six: Siege purely contain cosmetic items such as weapon skins, weapon charms, and character skins, which have no effect on gameplay. There are also some premium items which can only be found through purchase with in-game or actual money.

An important thing to keep in mind about Alpha Packs is that they are currently not connected to any form of microtransaction. That said, Ubisoft does plan to make them purchasable in the future, and yet there still doesn’t seem to be any backlash about that possibility like there is in Halo 5: Guardians.

There are two main reasons for this disparity. The first is the perceived pay-to-win nature of Halo 5: Guardians’ REQ Packs, and the second is the precedent that was set regarding how to unlock cosmetic items by the previous games in the Halo franchise.

What we learned from the response to Alpha Packs in Rainbow Six: Siege is that lootboxes in and of themselves aren’t the issue. However, what we learned from the response to Halo 5: Guardians’ REQ Packs was the more interesting part.

You see, unlike in Rainbow Six: Siege where players can typically unlock exactly what they want outside of the lootbox system, in Halo 5: Guardians, the lootbox system is the only way to unlock items. The reason for this is likely due to monetary gain on the part of 343 Industries or their parent company, Microsoft, but it’s not actually as sinister as it sounds as I’ll get to in the next section.

The fact that the lootbox system is the only way for players to unlock cosmetics is the true culprit for why Halo 5: Guardians players hate the current system. Players often complain that it’s the “microtransactions” which are the issue, and bring up the perceived pay-to-win feature which as I’ve explained doesn’t really exist.

In previous Halo games, Halo 3 for example, players could unlock specific cosmetic items by completing specific tasks. This meant that if a player knew what they wanted, they could cut to the chase and get that cosmetic item without wasting any time.

However, when a lootbox system is the only system used for cosmetic unlocks, everything is left up to chance.

Now, here’s where we can compare and contrast the two forms of lootboxes I’ve been discussing in order to determine what the ideal scenario would be.

The Rainbow Six: Siege system is better because the lootbox system is essentially an additional way to unlock cosmetics that works alongside another system in which players can choose specific items to purchase or unlock via in-game currency. On the other hand, the Halo 5: Guardian system is better in regards to how it has separate tiers for its REQ Packs, Bronze, Silver, and Gold, each including items of various rarities.

REQ Pack Storefront in Halo 5: Guardians

Halo 5: Guardians’ REQ packs also don’t deal out duplicate permanent unlocks, unlike the Alpha Packs of Rainbow Six: Siege. If the Alpha Packs ever implement microtransactions, this is something which will need to be changed, since players won’t want to spend real money if there’s a chance they won’t unlock anything new.

Luckily, Rainbow Six: Siege has implemented paid Alpha Packs in the past and they didn’t contain duplicate cosmetics, so there’s already precedent.

So how does one create the ideal form of microtransactions which include lootboxes? Simply combine the two systems I’ve discussed.

Players like to be able to purchase exactly what they want without any hassle, so allow that to be an option the way Rainbow Six: Siege does. However, sometimes players don’t have a specific cosmetic they want in mind and just want to leave it up to chance. This is where Halo 5: Guardians’ system comes in.

By having separately tiered lootboxes to purchase (ex: Bronze, Silver, Gold), the game is making the act of purchasing one less of a gamble. If you only want to spend a small amount, you can purchase a lootbox with less rare items inside (Bronze), however, if you want the potential for rarer items, you can spend a little more for a higher tiered lootbox (Gold) without the fear of wasting money by unlocking the least rare items due to chance.

As a final note on the lootbox system in Halo 5: Guardians, some players still complain that they just want a specific cosmetic item, but can’t get it easily. All I have to say about that is that I have every single cosmetic item in the game (other than premium ones not included in lootboxes) and yet I’ve never spent a dime more on the game after the initial retail price.

These players spend so much time complaining when they could have the cosmetics they want if they just spent that time playing the game instead. It’s not like you can even see the cosmetics you’re using in Halo 5: Guardians 90% of the time.

A Necessary Good

Pay-to-win mechanics are very infrequent and so needn’t be feared, and lootboxes aren’t some evil entity trying to steal your money. So, with these two key points in mind, microtransactions aren’t a bad thing for players.

But what if I told you that microtransactions are actually a good thing?

That’s right, kiddos, microtransactions, when done correctly, are actually good for all parties involved, including the players. And, regardless of whether you feel this way or not, they were actually done correctly in both Rainbow Six: Siege and Halo 5: Guardians despite not being absolutely perfect.

First, let’s take a look at the party which is most associated with profiting from microtransactions, the game companies. It’s no secret that microtransactions are in modern games as a way for the studios behind them to gain a (hopefully) steady stream of revenue post-launch, but that doesn’t mean greed is what’s driving them.

While this isn’t always the case, you may notice that many online multiplayer games which include microtransactions today also include free DLC. So how exactly do those companies finance the DLC they’re giving away for free? That’s right, the microtransactions.

So in reality, game companies aren’t using microtransactions out of greed, they’re using them to give the players free DLC, which is both good for the players as well as the longevity of the game, and yet players hate them for it. To take a line from The Dark Knight, game companies which use microtransactions to give players free DLC are the “heroes we need, but not the ones we deserve right now.”

This free aspect of free DLC is the most obvious and unsurprising benefit. Surprisingly, however, there are still some players who apparently think getting something for free instead of paying for it is bad. Unfortunately, nothing I say can persuade them otherwise, so we’ll skip over them.



But how else do microtransactions help players? Besides the whole “free” part, free DLC is also good for players because it increases the longevity of the game.

While the players I mentioned above believe DLC should be paid for, this is actually a major problem for the longevity of a game. By making players pay for DLC, the player base is being split up into players who have the DLC and players who don’t.

Now, to the uninitiated, this may not seem like that big of a deal, but I’ve seen games die much faster than they should have due to this exact phenomenon. If you split your player base into haves and have-nots, that means they’re only able to match with/against players in their same category.

This means longer search times for everyone, and longer search times means players are more likely to give up on a game. When players give up on a game, it means there are even less players to match with/against and so search times take even longer. It’s a self-destructive cycle which eventually ends in a game being considered dead.

However, if the DLC is free and automatically downloaded for all players when they next open the game, everyone who owns the game is still able to match with/against each other, and so the population of the game stays steady for a longer period of time.

Here’s an extremely simplified example for you.

A game only has two players total. These players always match with each other, and so are always able to quickly get into matches. However, paid DLC is introduced one day and one of the players doesn’t purchase it either because they don’t want to, or can’t. Now the two players can’t match with each other because one is missing content, and so they can never play the game again because there’s nobody to match against.

That’s an extreme example since I started with only two players, but the same concept applies to any situation when you split up the player population. It even applies if you have too many playlists in a game for players to choose between. Too many options spread the players thin and so the same outcome occurs.

Less and less players these days are willing to pay for DLC simply because they’re so used to getting everything for free. And, as I’ve mentioned already, that just makes games lose population faster than ever before.

So, as you can see, free DLC is actually extremely important for the longevity of an online multiplayer game, and if the DLC is free, there needs to be some way to finance it. But, this is where the true genius of microtransactions come in. You don’t have to spend a dime.

That’s right, your free DLC is being financed by other players who choose to put money into the game through microtransactions. Believe it or not, some players would rather just pay to get what they want faster than playing for it, so these are the ones who are financing the free DLC.

Wanting to completely remove microtransactions from a game is, to them, like forcing microtransactions to unlock items for those of us who don’t want to spend money. It’s the other side of the same coin, so who are you to say microtransactions should be removed completely? Some players like the convenience (as long as it isn’t pay-to-win as I’ve mentioned).

Players are quick to blame game companies for being greedy, but the truth is, only the players who want to pay for things are going to. The people who complain have likely never spent any money on microtransactions, so how are they really affected by them? They aren’t.

The Microrevolution

Like it or not, microtransactions are here to stay. The number of new games each year which still use the old method of paid DLC seems to be declining in favor of the microtransaction method due to all of the benefits I’ve outlined.

You may believe that you can hold out long enough for the microtransaction “fad” to pass, but the simple fact is that it isn’t a fad, it’s a revolution. And, more than just a mere revolution which will be stomped out, it’s a successful revolution. The tide has already turned and microtransactions are indeed the new model for post-release profit.

The final bastions of the old model aren’t game companies anymore, they’re the minority of players who don’t like to see change. But change is necessary for any industry to thrive. If you really enjoy the games you play, don’t you want to see them stick around for the next decade or longer? If they cling to the old, paid DLC model, chances are they won’t be able to compete in the near future.

So, what I’ve really been trying to say over these couple thousand words is that microtransactions aren’t something we as gamers should fear. They aren’t something created to harm us or the games we love, far from it, they’re something created to save the games we love.

They’re the modern age of gaming.


I wrote this post over the course of a week, mostly on my phone while working, so I hope it was at least somewhat cohesive.

If you have any questions or comments, I’m open to answering them. Additionally, I’m sure there are parts of my arguments which could have been fleshed out and explained more. But, at some point you have to stop writing, decide that your argument is “good enough” to get your point across, and hand it over to your editor (Brandi Heckman).

This isn’t the typical kind of content I write, but if you enjoyed reading this and anime is something else you’re interested in, I write daily content for my website, DoubleSama.com. You can also follow me on Twitter for updates whenever I post new content either on my own site or on Medium.

DoubleSama

Written by

The home of DoubleSama.com’s non-anime content.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade