If you look at how video games were sold 20 years ago, you can see how drastically different things are now compared to the past. It used to be simple; developers create a game for people to enjoy and sell it for an initial price that depreciates over time depending on how well the game is received. Critically acclaimed releases held their value longer than games that didn’t perform as well in the hands of reviewers. While price depreciation seems real today, developers and publishers have found a way around the problem over the course of the last 20 years. This solution comes in the form of downloadable content and microtransactions.

The change began gradually. Downloadable content was a method of providing more content to a game that had already been released. This was popular with gamers who were big fans of certain games where new content would be welcome to allow them to continue playing the games they knew and loved. These “expansion packs” came at a price, of course, but players were willing to pay more for them because they added new content to their favorite games for relatively little expense. They used to be priced around $30, which was reasonable given the amount of content they provided. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind had 2 expansion packs released after the release of the base game: Tribunal and Blood Moon. These added new characters, enemies, quests, items, and world spaces to the game that provided hours of new gameplay to play. The average price for an expansion like this would be around $20, which is very reasonable given the amount of content each expansion adds. Some developers and publishers still maintain this model. EA DICE’s Battlefield titles typically launch with 10 multiplayer maps at launch and then more maps come in the form of DLC expansion packs, each containing 4 additional maps and including new weapons, gadgets, and tasks. These are priced at $15 each or can be pre-purchased for $60. Once all the expansions are released, this means that in order to purchase the game in its entirety with all of its expansions, players must shell out $120, the equivalent to two full degrees. This may sound like a stretch, but for gamers who play a lot, it’s pretty reasonable. Due to this DLC model, games have become much more expensive over the years. Battlefield 2 contained 24 maps and cost $80 with all of its DLC. The upcoming Battlefield 1 release (confusing naming scheme, I know) will contain 26 maps with all of their DLC and costs $120 to access all of it. If you look at it from a price per map perspective, Battlefield 2 is about $3.33 per map, while Battlefield 1 is about $4.62. That’s almost 40% more expensive. Even when cost inflation is factored in, it’s still clear that the increase in DLC has caused the prices of full experiences to rise dramatically.

While downloadable content has its place within the industry, there is also downloadable content that can be perceived negatively. This is DLC that is implemented with the specific intent of making as much profit as possible from a title without regard to players. This DLC usually comes in the form of “Day One” DLC, or DLC that is developed before the game is even released. The “Day One” DLC is where a game launches and immediately has additional content that can be purchased. Mass Effect 3 did this. There was controversy when the game was first released, as content was found on the installation disc that the player could not access unless they paid a fee. This caused outrage, as many gamers believe that everything on the install disc they buy should be accessible, since that’s what they paid for. There is an argument that all DLC should be free; that all content developed for a game must be included in the $60 paid for the title at launch, and that all content developed for a game prior to release must be included with that game. This is where there is a gray area with DLC, because DLC map packs for games like Battlefield and Call of Duty are put into development long before the game is released, and yet these types of DLC content are perceived as beneficial. for both players. and developers.

There are also developers and publishers who have adopted a different method of monetization. Instead of releasing expansion packs for a large sum, they release smaller content packs in bulk for a lower price. These are known as “Microtransactions”. They could take the form of customization options or they could be packs of in-game currency. For example, in Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, you can purchase weapon skins that change the appearance of weapons in-game for $2. You can buy Grand Theft Auto V in game currency, which can then get new vehicles and weapons within the game. This in-game currency can be earned through normal play, but buying currency with real-life money speeds up the process and eliminates the “grinding” you would otherwise have to go through. Prices for this range from $3 to $20.

So which method is better? downloadable content? Microtransactions? Both? Neither? The truth is that both methods have their benefits. DLC content, such as expansions for RPGs and map packs for online shooters, can provide a reasonable amount of additional content for players who want more of their favorite games, yet this can divide a community into multiple parts. . Players who can’t afford expansions for their RPGs often feel like they’re missing out. This stems from my research where I asked 20 people who play video games frequently if they feel like they’re missing out when they don’t buy DLC expansions. 55% of them said they would feel like they were missing out. Players who purchase map packs for online shooters are ultimately unable to play content properly as server player counts begin to empty over time. There are solutions for this; the price of expansions for RPGs will eventually drop over time, meaning players could pay for content somewhere along the way, and map packs are sometimes offered for free once the number of Players starts to dwindle so much that it becomes financially beneficial to release the additional content for free. But then that introduces a whole new controversy, like is it fair to charge players money for something that will inevitably be free later on?

Microtransactions, while irritating when poorly implemented (when players can pay money to gain a competitive advantage in the game), when implemented non-intrusively, microtransactions can work wonders in a game. Take GTA V as an example. In-game money can be bought with real-life money, and this money can be used to buy more powerful vehicles, better properties, and more expensive in-game weaponry, but none of these give the player any competitive advantage in the game. . This constant stream of income from microtransactions allows developers to create more substantial content such as new races and vehicles. These can be entered into the game for free. Overwatch has a similar system where players can purchase Loot Boxes for a price. These give the player cosmetic items that have no effect on their performance in the game. The money generated from these microtransaction sales is then put towards the development of new maps and modes that are introduced to the game for free. So microtransactions aren’t all bad when implemented correctly.

The fact is that DLC and Micro-transactions are incredibly profitable. An EA earnings report for 2015 showed that $1.3 billion of their revenue came from DLC and microtransactions alone. This represented more than half of their total revenue for the entire year, so if these types of monetization simply disappeared, developers and publishers would earn much less. In turn, this could have an impact on the quality and quantity of games that ultimately get made. With less money, games need to be much smaller or much less ambitious to keep costs down. So maybe DLC and Micro-transactions aren’t as bad as some people make them out to be. As long as the way the DLC and microtransactions are non-intrusive and doesn’t exploit the player, more money for the developers can only be a good thing as it not only provides players with the content they want, but also moves players forward. to the industry as more money is poured into more ambitious projects, such as new game concepts and rendering engines.