Monetization overload

⚠️This article has been marked as incomplete. Sourcing or verifiability needs additional work.

A moderator needs to check the page before this notice can be removed. Visit the noticeboard or the #appeals channel in either Zulip or Discord to request removal.

More info ▼

Articles must provide verifiable, credible evidence for their claims and avoid relying on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources. You can help by replacing weak citations with reputable reporting, corporate communications, receipts, repair logs, or independent investigative coverage that demonstrates the systemic relevance required by the Mission statement and Moderator Guidelines.

❗This article uses tone or wording inconsistent with the editorial guidelines.

A moderator needs to check the page before this notice can be removed. Visit the noticeboard or the #appeals channel in either Zulip or Discord to request removal.

More info ▼

The wiki's voice should remain neutral and avoid loaded language or unnecessary offence. Direct attacks on individuals or companies are not permitted; malice may only be attributed through quotation and citation, never in the wiki's voice. In theme articles argumentation is allowed but should be clear, formal, and never inflammatory.

Monetization overload, or over-monetization, occurs when a company prioritizes heavy monetization of 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?

Genericide

When a product, more specifically a live service game, focuses excessively on monetization, it dulls the experience, even devaluing the product itself. This can especially undermine the product's core purpose, since an event unrelated to it could effectively block consumers from accessing the full functionality of their product.

Often, when a game faces genericization through monetization, publishers prioritize monetization over 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, rather than on its anti-cheat development, despite promises from Activision.

Monetization Bias

Often, when a product is over-monetized, its development tends to be biased towards features that increase consumer transactions or advertising promotions from other companies. This kind of bias also does not favor developing features or fixes that do not directly generate 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 standard and free 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 also be applied to mundane monetization, where products may have only slightly different variants sold simultaneously. This is especially evident in cosmetic items for games, where even a simple reskin or shader could be sold.

Advertising Overload

Main article: Advertising overload

To generate revenue from consumers, companies may integrate advertisements into their products. This can be detrimental if the company is hasty in incorporating advertisements.