Consumer Rights Wiki

Monetization overload: Difference between revisions

VisualWikitext
Wip
 
ClippyWantsToHelp (talk | contribs)
confirmed
291 edits
added "pay-walling" link in the summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Placeholder box|Add a 2-3 sentence introduction starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a practice in which businesses ... Per Wikipedia: ...<ref name=":1">ref goes here</ref>"}}
{{Incomplete}}{{ToneWarning}}
<!-- check talk page for resources needed for the article -->
'''Monetization overload''', or '''over-monetization''', occurs when a company prioritizes heavily monetizing a product or service, often at the expense of consumer engagement or even the product's functionality. Over-monetization may manifest in various forms, including [[advertising overload]], [[Predatory microtransactions|microtransactions]], unjustified [[Subscription service|subscriptions]], and locking core features behind a [[Pay-walling|paywall]] among others. While it's understood that products and services require compensation in some form, even when they're "free", the degradation of quality, limits of functionality, and loss of consumer engagement are often symptoms of excessive monetization of the product or service.


Editor's note: written on phone, will need refs and details added later when on PC...
==Why is it a problem?==


Monetization overload happens when a company puts too many features within their product behind a paywall, or focuses too much development on a product's monetization over the functionality of the product.  
===Genericide===
When a product, more specifically a [[Games as a service|live service game]], focuses excessively on monetization, it retroactively dulls the experience of the product, even going so far as to devalue the product itself. This can especially damage the core purpose of the product, since an event entirely unrelated to it could effectively block consumers from the full functionality of their product.  


==How it works==
Often, when a game faces genericization through monetization, publishers are biased against development on core features and even bug fixes, instead opting to implement more generic or unrelated products to sell on the in-game storefront. For example, the Call of Duty Squid Game promotion overshadowed the spotlight on the game's development,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Armughanuddin |first=Md |date=2025-01-03 |title=Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Confirms Bad News About Squid Game Crossover Event |url=https://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-6-squid-game-crossover-premium-battle-pass/ |access-date=3 Apr 2025 |work=GameRant |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251023082807/https://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-6-squid-game-crossover-premium-battle-pass/ |archive-date=23 Oct 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kain |first=Erik |date=6 Jan 2025 |title=‘Warzone’ Is Completely Broken After ‘Squid Game’ Update |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2025/01/06/warzone-is-completely-broken-after-squid-game-update/ |access-date=3 Apr 2025 |work=Forbes |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251018140206/https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2025/01/06/warzone-is-completely-broken-after-squid-game-update/ |archive-date=18 Oct 2025}}</ref> rather than the development of the game's anti-cheat, despite promises from [[Activision]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zhou |first=Andrew |date=Jan 3, 2025 |title=Fans Are Not Thrilled About The New Black Ops 6 Squid Game Event Due To The Premium Reward Track Price Tag |url=https://screenrant.com/black-ops-6-squid-game-price-premium/ |access-date=Apr 3, 2025 |work=ScreenRant |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021170256/https://screenrant.com/black-ops-6-squid-game-price-premium/ |archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref><!-- Placeholder so I don't lose source:
{{Placeholder box|How the practice works.}}Simply put, this practice...


==Why it is a problem==
https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops6/comments/1ht3ost/am_i_the_only_one_thinking_cod_squid_game_event/


=== Genericide ===
u/yosark
Editor's note: may delete section


When a product, more specifically a live service game, focuses extremely on monetization, the identity of the product is diminished or drowned out. It often undercuts the value of the entire product, especially for consumers who invested in the product early on. Rather than attempting to introduce features that relate to the core of the game, the publisher would rather see the product's identity be excluded for advertising promotions, such as how call of duty unnecessarily was driven into focusing on features seen from Squid Game to help advertise the show rather than maintain the core military shooter experience.
Am I the only one thinking Cod squid game event is lame?


=== Monetization Bias ===
Jan 3, 2025
Often when a product's monetization achieves a point of overload, the development of said product often ends up having new development for it favor actions and features that are paywalled.


This bias may also favor neglecting the responsibility of resolving defects in the product, such as patching bugs in software, maintaining anticheat in competitive games, moderating communities, and more.
accessed apr 3, 2025


=== Monetizing mundane features ===
r/blackops6 -->
Some product features that may have been normal and free to access for consumers could also be monetized in absurd ways. Free to play (F2P) titles could see experience progression be slowed down to encourage purchasing "experience boosts".


This can be further applied with mundane monetization, where products could have barely different variants being sold at the same time. This is especially seen with cosmetics for games, where even a simple reshade could be sold.  
===Monetization Bias===
Often, when a product is over-monetized, the development of that product tends to be biased towards features that increase transactions from consumers or advertising promotions from other companies. This kind of bias also does not favor developing features and fixes that do not directly incur revenue for the publisher, including but not limited to patching bugs, tweaking balance, repairing product defects, and moderating communities.  


===Monetizing mundane features===
Some product features that were once normal and free to access for consumers could also be monetized in absurd ways. Free-to-play (F2P) titles could see experience progression slowed down to encourage purchasing "experience boosts".


{{Placeholder box|If the theme or common term is positive for the consumer this section can be omitted.
This can be further applied to mundane monetization, where products may have barely different variants being sold simultaneously. This is especially evident with cosmetics for games, where even a simple reskin or shader could be sold.  


===Point 1===
===Advertising Overload===
 
{{Main|Advertising overload}}
===Point 2===
To generate revenue from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products. This can become adverse if the company is hasty to incorporate advertisements.
}}
==Examples==
{{Placeholder box|Some examples of {{PAGENAME}} include:
 
*
*
*}}
 
=== Gaming ===
EN: To be worked on
 
==== Mobile games ====
 
==== Microsoft - Halo Infinite's armor customization ====
 
==== Activision - Call of Duty's battle pass overload ====


==References==
==References==
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Monetization_overload"