Controversy Clocking Episode 6: The rise of the “in-game economy"

How do games make their money? Both designers and publishers are constantly asking that question. In the current generation of gaming it’s often questionable; I’ve noticed a trend emerging which focuses on making profits even after a player has already bought the game. You could almost consider this episode a follow-up to “The Microtransaction Infestation”; an evolution of practices has taken place in the industry over the past few years. Games can’t be games anymore; they have to be money-making platforms with the potential to make millions months or even years after their initial release.

The phrase “gambling simulator” has been tossed around a fair bit recently and it’s often used to refer to any kind of loot system placed within games that also relies on microtransactions. Often there’s a kind of in-game currency which can earned by playing or by paying real money such as dollars and shark cards in GTA Online, Uncharted Points in Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End or Requisition Points in Halo 5. At best, these currencies are an optional purchase which can easily be earned without spending a penny. At worst they’re made mandatory by progression systems made purposefully slow to bait consumers into putting down money. The system is commonly broken down into a two-step process; first you play the game, which is often multiplayer focused, earning a particular currency for every match. Then you spend that currency in an integrated game store on crates or other collections which are opened to reveal randomly generated items which are then used in gameplay or customisation.

Random is the key word here and the entry of RNG has further fuelled change, slotting itself in with microtransactions and other unethical business practices. Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike: Global Offensive have both changed from straightforward competitive shooters to loot based affairs comprised of crates requiring paid keys to open. I have over 50 supply crates just sitting around in my virtual backpack in Team Fortress 2; for £1.69 per key it would cost at least £84.50 to open most of them which is simply outrageous. In most cases there is no way to earn these kinds of keys by playing the game and on top of that, any software or server programs which can change cosmetics manually have been eliminated and quietly swept under the rug. I think one of the biggest problems with randomly generated loot is that it doesn’t take into account items that you have already unlocked; while playing Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer mode, unlocking new characters and other items was often a pain for me because again, the loot drops were completely random. It’s another component designed to instil that psychological aspect of gambling; you may get a junk item or something you already own, but then there’s always that chance of snagging that rare weapon or item that no one else can claim to possess. It’s a roll of the dice every time.

In turn, gamers themselves have become more and more drawn to the idea of unlocking loot and having the rarest items and cosmetics. Crowbcat, a YouTube channel which covers specific issues and events produced a very revealing video where Counter Strike players go hysterical; practically losing their minds over getting a rare texture for their weapon or character. It’s incredibly ironic how modern online gaming often boils down to throwing away a few pounds or dollars on a meaningless piece of code. It’s that adrenaline rush that’s carefully crafted through loot systems and the same thing exists in gambling; when you first experience that euphoria, you only want more and that compels people to put down more and more cash for these often unnecessary items. Destiny was especially guilty of this; with an immensely unbalanced loot system that preyed on player’s frustration, putting them through a grind time and time again only to reward them with so little for their efforts. Players want their reward and they're willing to play on and put down funds to make that happen.

The underlying impact of all these in-game currencies, RNG loot systems and optional purchases is a major shift in game development priorities. Why would Rockstar want to make quality single player expansions for GTA 5 when their online multiplayer currency system has made half a billion dollars in the last three years? Much like with microtransactions, these systems aren’t going anywhere because people keep paying for them. Why should Valve come out with Half Life 3 when Steam and its gargantuan content markets are making billions every year? It seems that the creation of new, interesting content has begun to play second fiddle to these in-game economies, not only because they cut back on development costs but they can also be designed to entice unwitting gamers.

I miss the days when simply paying full price for a game was enough, but with production costs always escalating, the amount generated from initials sales is no longer acceptable or viable according to publishers and their stakeholders. The AAA sector is almost dead-set on placing some kind of “in-game economy” to squeeze just a few more pennies out of its customers. Much like with microtransactions the only way these systems will become less exploitative is if people stop paying money into them.

(All images used for the purposes of review and criticism)