Jump to content

Monetization overload: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Drakeula (talk | contribs)
Examples: Remove empty example headings. The more specific articles already have examples.
ClippyWantsToHelp (talk | contribs)
added "pay-walling" link in the summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Incomplete}}{{ToneWarning}}<!-- Recommended sources to read and soon integrate into the article:
{{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.


https://www.bringintim.com/corcorans-business-of-law/2015/07/over-monetization
==Why is it a problem?==
 
https://createifwriting.com/pitfalls-of-monetization/
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization
 
https://www.conradbastable.com/essays/monetization-amp-monopolies-how-the-internet-you-loved-died
 
>> FOR FINDING COUNTERPOINTS ONLY!
https://alexandremacmillan.com/2019/01/30/focus-on-monetization-not-retention/
 
>> NEEDS MIRROR! https://clockwork-labs.medium.com/our-thoughts-on-game-monetization-909976b5287d
 
https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/player-retention-should-be-prioritized-over-monetization/83717
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_monetization
 
https://thearrowheadonline.com/4812/opinion/over-monetization-ruins-gaming-industry/
 
>> MAY NOT BE RELEVANT! https://greattransition.org/publication/monetizing-nature-taking-precaution-on-a-slippery-slope
 
https://digiday.com/media/media-briefing-apple-news-ad-monetization-still-abysmal-for-some/
 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305120969877?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.7
 
https://medium.com/@GWBycer/what-is-dark-side-monetization-3b82347fe19f
 
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/726732-rustys-real-deal-baseball/69017277
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz9OXy86a0
 
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/when-good-monetization-meets-bad-ethics
 
>> USE AS POINT FOR MALICE! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752
 
https://forum.enlisted.net/en/t/this-game-has-one-of-the-worst-if-not-the-worst-cosmetic-monetization-system-ive-ever-seen-in-a-videogame/133831
 
https://economics.td.com/gbl-debt-monetization
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA
 
https://m.youtube.com/live/Ku6YJQrZ2cg?t=0s
 
https://www.threads.net/@kmarford/post/DA4DkBaPjVq
 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9768720/
 
>> USE AS EXAMPLE! https://x.com/gwillem/status/1805741224189739170 -->'''Monetization overload''', or '''over-monetization''', is when a company focuses on heavily monetizing a product or service, usually at the cost of consumer engagement or even functionality. Over-monetization may come in the form of [[advertising overload]], [[Predatory microtransactions|microtransactions]], unjustified [[Subscription service|subscriptions]], locking core features behind a paywall, etc. While its 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.
 
==Why it is a problem==


===Genericide===
===Genericide===
When a product, more specifically a [[Games as a service|live service game]], focuses extremely on monetization, it retroactively dulls the experience of the product, even going so far as to devalue the product itself. This especially can 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.  
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.  


Often when a game faces genericide through monetization, publishers are biased against development on core features and even bug fixes, instead opting for implementing more generic or otherwise unrelated products to sell on the in-game storefront. For example, the Call of Duty Squid Game promotion overtook the spotlight of development for the game,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Armughanuddin |first=Md |date=Published Jan 3, 2025 |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=Apr 3, 2025 |work=GameRant}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kain |first=Erik |date=Jan 06, 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=Apr 3, 2025 |work=Forbes}}</ref> rather than the development of the game's anticheat, 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}}</ref><!-- Placeholder so I don't lose source:
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:


https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops6/comments/1ht3ost/am_i_the_only_one_thinking_cod_squid_game_event/
https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops6/comments/1ht3ost/am_i_the_only_one_thinking_cod_squid_game_event/
Line 70: Line 23:


===Monetization Bias===
===Monetization Bias===
Often when a product is over-monetized, the development of said product often ends up being biased towards features that increases 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.  
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===
===Monetizing mundane features===
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".  
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".  


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.  
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.  


===Advertising Overload===
===Advertising Overload===
{{Main|Advertising overload}}
{{Main|Advertising overload}}
In an effort to make money from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products to generate revenue. This can become adverse if the company is hasty to integrate advertisements.  
To generate revenue from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products. This can become adverse if the company is hasty to incorporate advertisements.  
 
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Latest revision as of 18:39, 24 February 2026

⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete

This article needs additional work for its sourcing and verifiability to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Learn more ▼

Article Status Notice: Inappropriate Tone/Word Usage

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Specifically it uses wording throughout that is non-compliant with the Editorial guidelines of this wiki.

Learn more ▼

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, microtransactions, unjustified subscriptions, and locking core features behind a 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.

Why is it a problem?

[edit | edit source]

Genericide

[edit | edit source]

When a product, more specifically a 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.

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,[1][2] rather than the development of the game's anti-cheat, despite promises from Activision.[3]

Monetization Bias

[edit | edit source]

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

[edit | edit source]

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".

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.

Advertising Overload

[edit | edit source]
Main article: Advertising overload

To generate revenue from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products. This can become adverse if the company is hasty to incorporate advertisements.

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. Armughanuddin, Md (2025-01-03). "Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Confirms Bad News About Squid Game Crossover Event". GameRant. Archived from the original on 23 Oct 2025. Retrieved 3 Apr 2025.
  2. Kain, Erik (6 Jan 2025). "'Warzone' Is Completely Broken After 'Squid Game' Update". Forbes. Archived from the original on 18 Oct 2025. Retrieved 3 Apr 2025.
  3. Zhou, Andrew (Jan 3, 2025). "Fans Are Not Thrilled About The New Black Ops 6 Squid Game Event Due To The Premium Reward Track Price Tag". ScreenRant. Archived from the original on 21 Oct 2025. Retrieved Apr 3, 2025.