Are Battle Passes and Microtransactions Ruining Games?

[Totally]

Almost every big game now has some form of battle pass, skins, or paid extras.

Some people don't mind as long as it's optional. Others feel like it changes how games are designed.

Instead of focusing on gameplay, it sometimes feels like everything is built around keeping players spending.

Do you think this is just the new normal, or is it making games worse?

[QuantumDay]

As long as it's cosmetic only I don't really care

[VB]

Too much gambling like fuelling addiction

[codeberg]

Definitely affects how games are designed now

[Quanta]

Feels like everything is built around monetisation first

[One-One-Five]

Almost every big game now has some form of battle pass, skins, or paid extras. Some people don't mind as long as it's optional. Others feel

That is pretty much it. Story of my life that.

Appreciate it

[MiniElliot]

As long as it's cosmetic only I don't really care.

Yeah can't really argue with that. The price matters more than it used to, I am much more selective about what I buy full price.

Let me know what you think

[MayanHan]

A lot depends on who is making the claim and what they are trying to sell. It is worth looking at who benefits from a particular framing before accepting it.

That is my read on it anyway

[Demi-Q]

Definitely affects how games are designed now.

The stats do not back that up. Cannot wait for the game to settle it

[VidiTechnica]

Couldn't agree more. Proper useful that

[Quanta]

Worth checking that assumption before committing to it. The key is not to change too many things at once or you will not know what actually fixed it.

Should sort it if the basics are fine.

Some of the best games I have played were ones I started with no expectations

[DotEXE]

Almost every big game now has some form of battle pass, skins, or paid extras. Some people don't mind as long as it's optional. Other

That reading works but it loses something in the reduction. Happy to keep discussing this

[PlanetOftheApes]

Same here. Ha, fair enough.

[TommyB_20]

I would push back on that hard. We will know soon enough

[SGHolly]

That is interesting, I had read something that seemed to contradict it. Cheers for the explanation.

[Zero-Point]

That matches what the more reliable sources are saying. I try to find two or three different sources before forming a proper view on something like this.

Worth keeping an eye on

[Neil57]

Yeah that sounds about right. Let me know what you think.

Atmosphere carries a game further than mechanics in my experience.

[Zach91]

That is the part most people skip over. What I find interesting is what it chooses not to include as much as what it does.

I find these conversations more useful than reading reviews

[Northernah]

Cheers for that. Cheers.

The first hour tells you whether a game is going to hold you or not.

[WhatUQuant]

Same here. Ha, fair enough.

Feels like the right read on it. I will update this thread if anything significant changes

[SwiftQuarry]

I might be missing something but that feels off to me. It is the kind of thing where the more you dig the more complicated it gets.

That is genuinely useful

[Forge45]

Yeah that sounds about right. Let me know what you think. Atmosphere carries a game further than mechanics in my experience.

That works until it does not. Worth ruling out the simple stuff before going further.

Start there and see if it makes a difference.

Atmosphere carries a game further than mechanics in my experience

[Shane_8]

I think microtransactions became an issue when they started creeping into full price games. If I'm paying full price upfront, I don't want to feel like I'm being nudged to spend more every time I open a menu.

Free to play games I can tolerate it more because at least I know what I'm getting into

[Outlaw]

Hot take: battle passes aren't the problem, it's how aggressively some games implement them. When the game feels like a storefront first and a game second, that's where it goes wrong.

I've played games where the system was actually pretty fair and didn't bother me at all

[Marcus95]

I miss the old days when you just unlocked stuff by playing and that was it. No seasonal timers, no FOMO, just play the game and get rewarded.

That said, I get why companies moved this direction. It clearly makes them more money and keeps players coming back

[BigDog92]

Honestly I think people mix up cosmetic monetization with pay to win too often. A battle pass that just gives skins doesn't really affect gameplay in my opinion.

But I do agree that when every menu is pushing you toward a store, it does break immersion a bit

[KnotKnull]

I don't think battle passes are automatically ruining games, but they definitely change how games feel over time. Everything starts to feel like it's on a schedule instead of just being there to enjoy.

The problem is when progression systems get designed around retention instead of fun, that's when it gets frustrating

[Transformer Curtis]

Battle passes are a weird one because the idea itself is not terrible. A game getting regular updates and giving players something extra to work towards can be a good thing.

The problem starts when the entire design begins bending around the pass. Suddenly you are not playing because you want to, you are playing because there is a timer counting down and a virtual hat you will never wear is about to disappear. The digital hamster wheel has arrived.

[Yasmin5]

Some games have handled microtransactions pretty well. Fortnite is probably the obvious example because the base game is free and the cosmetics are mostly just cosmetics.

Where it gets annoying is when a full priced game launches and immediately has a shop full of £20 skins. That is where players start thinking, "Wait, was my £70 purchase just the starter pack?"

[Gareth_11]

The biggest issue for me is not paying for optional stuff. People have bought cosmetic items for years. The problem is when the game feels like it was designed around the store instead of the other way around.

A great game should make you want to play first. It should not feel like a second job where your manager is a progress bar with a cartoon sword waiting at the end.

[Brandon87]

Battle passes are basically the gaming version of a loyalty card now. Except instead of buying nine coffees and getting one free, you are collecting XP so your character can wear a slightly different jacket.

Some people enjoy that extra progression, and fair enough. For others it turns relaxing games into another daily obligation, which is a strange direction for a hobby.

[WildManCena23]

There is a difference between a healthy live service model and one that constantly asks for money. Games like No Man's Sky showed that updates can keep a community alive without turning every menu into a shopping centre.

When developers focus on making the actual game better, players usually respond positively. Funny how that works.

[Sarah87]

The funny thing is that cosmetic items used to be bonus content. Now some games treat them like the main event. The gameplay is almost the thing you do while browsing the shop.

That said, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a dancing robot skin, so there is a balance. The real question is whether the monetisation affects the experience for people who ignore it.

[EdgeNodeCoder]

A lot depends on the game. A free multiplayer title needs some way to pay the bills, and cosmetics are probably better than pay-to-win mechanics.

The red flag is when a game starts feeling like a casino with a shooting section attached. Random loot boxes, constant sales and artificial urgency can really change the atmosphere.

[Sentry39]

The battle pass system has also changed how people interact with games. Instead of remembering a fun weekend playing with friends, people remember whether they completed tier 87 before the deadline.

Not every change is bad though. Some players like having goals and rewards. The problem is when the reward structure becomes the reason to play instead of a nice extra.

[Mike80]

Microtransactions are like salt. A little can be fine, but some games grab the entire shaker and empty it over everything.

A good example is when developers add funny optional costumes or emotes. That feels harmless. A bad example is locking basic features behind premium currency or making progression painfully slow unless you pay.

[Rebecca86]

The industry probably will not move away from battle passes completely because they make a lot of money. Players have shown they will buy them, especially in games they spend hundreds of hours in.

The hope is that companies realise people are happier spending money when they feel respected. Nobody likes feeling like they are being squeezed.

[HeartbreakKidCurtis18]

Some people blame players as much as publishers, but it is a bit more complicated. If nobody bought these things, companies would change direction quickly.

At the same time, it is hard to blame someone for buying a skin they enjoy when games are designed to encourage exactly that behaviour. The whole system is built to tempt people.

[Matt75]

Older games had expansion packs, which were not perfect but usually felt like a proper chunk of content. Now some games sell a tiny cosmetic bundle and act like it is a major event.

There is something funny about paying £15 for a digital outfit while the character is still standing in the same unfinished environment from launch. Priorities get a little strange.

[Leo34]

I do not think microtransactions have ruined gaming completely, but they have definitely changed expectations. Developers now think about keeping players engaged forever instead of making a complete experience and moving on.

Some live service games benefit from that approach, but not every game needs to become an endless platform. Sometimes finishing a game and saying "that was great" is enough.

[James78]

Battle passes work best when they respect your time. If someone can play casually and still unlock things, it feels like a bonus.

When missing three days means you can never finish the pass without paying, it stops being fun. Nobody wants their hobby to start sounding like homework.

[Tracey99]

The funny part is that some of the most popular cosmetics are completely ridiculous. People will spend money on a silly dance or funny costume because it makes them laugh.

That is probably the healthier side of microtransactions. Paying for joy is very different from paying to avoid frustration.

[LunarDrift Aoife]

There are still plenty of games doing things right. Deep Rock Galactic is a good example where cosmetics and community features feel much less pushy.

The difference is trust. Players are more willing to spend when they feel the developers are making a game they care about, not just extracting every possible penny.

[VoidKnight]

The ideal future is probably somewhere in the middle. Developers need revenue, players want fair treatment, and nobody wants every game to become a shopping app with graphics.

A good game earns your money. A bad one tries to wear you down until you accidentally click buy. That is the difference.

[ReacherLynx]

Personally, I do not mind a shop existing. It is the constant pressure that bothers me. Every menu does not need a reminder that there is a premium currency waiting.

It reminds me of walking through a shop where every shelf has someone saying "special offer today only". Eventually you just want to leave.

[Pat85]

There is also a nostalgia factor here. People remember old games fondly because you bought them and got the whole thing.

Of course, old games also had plenty of problems, bugs and terrible launches. It was not some magical golden age where every developer was a saint.

[ProperMadLad]

The biggest change is psychological. Games used to ask "how can we entertain players?" and some now ask "how can we keep players logging in?"

Those goals overlap sometimes, but they are not the same thing. A player staying because they are having fun is very different from staying because they fear missing a reward.

[NinaVrina]

The best monetisation model is the boring one that nobody notices. Give people a good game, add optional extras, and do not constantly remind them there is a store button.

Sadly, subtle design does not usually produce the same revenue as flashing discounts and limited time offers. The giant glowing purchase button wins again.

[Rabbit21]

Some battle passes actually give players more value than traditional DLC if they play regularly. Getting months of updates and cosmetics for a reasonable price can work.

The issue is when every game copies the same model regardless of whether it fits. Not every genre needs seasons, ranks and a reward track.

[Grim Tracey]

One thing people forget is that games cost more to make now. Bigger teams, longer development times and ongoing support are expensive.

That does not excuse every aggressive tactic, but there is a reason publishers keep looking for extra income. The challenge is finding a model that players do not hate.