Monetization overload: Difference between revisions
Major grammar edits to improve tone. |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Incomplete}}{{ToneWarning}}<!-- | {{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 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?== | ==Why is it a problem?== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 8: | ||
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. | 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 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= | 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}}</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}}</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}}</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/ | ||