Monetization overload: Difference between revisions

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>"~~}}

~~Editor's note: written on phone~~, ~~will need refs and details added later~~ when on ~~PC..~~.

Monetization overload, often also referred to as over-monetization, 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.

~~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~~.

==How it works==

This is an umbrella term for various practices that companies may follow explicitly for the goal of profit. Examples include:

~~==How it works==~~

* [[Advertising overload|Advertising Overload]]

~~{{Placeholder box~~|~~How the practice works.}}Simply put, this practice...~~

* [[Planned obsolescence|Planned Obsolescence]]/[[Self-destructive design|Self-Destructive Design]]

* [[Subscription service|Subscription Service]]/[[Software as a service|Software as a Service]]

==Why it is a problem==

=== Genericide ===

===Genericide===

~~Editor~~'s ~~note~~: ~~may delete section~~

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.

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:

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

~~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.~~

u/yosark

Am I the only one thinking Cod squid game event is lame?

Jan 3, 2025

accessed apr 3, 2025

r/blackops6 -->

=== Monetization Bias ===

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~~.

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.

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~~.

=== Monetizing mundane features ===

Line 25:

Line 37:

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.

=== 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.

~~{{Placeholder box|If the theme or common term is positive for the consumer this section can be omitted.~~

~~===Point 1===~~

~~===Point 2===~~

}}

==Examples==

{{~~Placeholder box|Some examples of {{PAGENAME}} include:~~

*

*}}

=== Gaming ===

===Gaming===

~~EN: To be worked on~~

====Mobile games====

==== ~~Mobile games~~ ====

====Microsoft - Halo Infinite's armor customization====

==== ~~Microsoft~~ - ~~Halo Infinite~~'s ~~armor customization~~ ====

====Activision - Call of Duty's battle pass overload====

==== ~~Activision~~ - ~~Call of Duty~~'s ~~battle pass overload~~ ====

==== Epic Games - Fortnite's genericide through paid cosmetics ====

==References==

@@ 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}}
-Editor's note: written on phone, will need refs and details added later when on PC...
+Monetization overload, often also referred to as over-monetization, 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.
-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.
+==How it works==
+This is an umbrella term for various practices that companies may follow explicitly for the goal of profit. Examples include:
-==How it works==
+* [[Advertising overload|Advertising Overload]]
-{{Placeholder box|How the practice works.}}Simply put, this practice...
+* [[Planned obsolescence|Planned Obsolescence]]/[[Self-destructive design|Self-Destructive Design]]
+* [[Subscription service|Subscription Service]]/[[Software as a service|Software as a Service]]
 ==Why it is a problem==
-=== Genericide ===
+===Genericide===
-Editor's note: may delete section
+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.
+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:
+https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops6/comments/1ht3ost/am_i_the_only_one_thinking_cod_squid_game_event/
-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.
+u/yosark
+ Am I the only one thinking Cod squid game event is lame?
+Jan 3, 2025
+accessed apr 3, 2025
+r/blackops6 -->
 === Monetization Bias ===
-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.
+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.
-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.
 === Monetizing mundane features ===
@@ Line 25: / Line 37: @@
 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.
+=== 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.
-{{Placeholder box|If the theme or common term is positive for the consumer this section can be omitted.
-===Point 1===
-===Point 2===
-}}
 ==Examples==
-{{Placeholder box|Some examples of {{PAGENAME}} include:
+{{Incomplete section}}
-*
-*
-*}}
-=== Gaming ===
+===Gaming===
-EN: To be worked on
+====Mobile games====
-==== Mobile games ====
+====Microsoft - Halo Infinite's armor customization====
-==== Microsoft - Halo Infinite's armor customization ====
+====Activision - Call of Duty's battle pass overload====
-==== Activision - Call of Duty's battle pass overload ====
+==== Epic Games - Fortnite's genericide through paid cosmetics ====
 ==References==