The video game industry has undergone a profound transformation over the past two decades. Instead of offering closed and independent experiences through one-time purchases, we have now complex and constantly growing sales systems that incorporate downloadable content, cosmetic upgrades, season passes and, most controversially, loot boxes and pay-to-win mechanics.
As video games evolve from isolated products to continuous services, developers and publishers are increasingly relying on new monetization models. However, these strategies have generated serious ethical doubts: Are these fair practices? Do they exploit vulnerable audiences, such as minors? What should be the response of the industry and the players themselves?
This article analyzes the main controversies regarding loot boxes, pay-to-win systems and the ethical dilemmas posed by the current monetization in video games.
Loot Boxes: Disguised bets?
Loot boxes are virtual chests with random rewards. Although they are sometimes obtained by just playing, many are acquired through virtual currency, which, in turn, is usually purchased with real money. The content varies from cosmetic items to improvements that directly impact the gameplay.
What makes them controversial is their similarity to betting: as in a slot machine, the player invests without knowing what they will get. The process of opening the box is designed to activate emotional responses, especially the release of dopamine, that encourage repeat purchases. When real money is involved, especially in games aimed at minors, the dividing line between playing and betting becomes dangerously blurred.
Governments of nations such as Belgium and the Netherlands have already qualified certain types of loot boxes as bets, banning them in popular titles such as FIFA or Overwatch. Others, for example the United Kingdom and Australia, are investigating its psychological impact. Despite the resistance of many studios, the pressure for greater transparency and regulation continues to grow.
Pay-to-win: Destroying fair competition
The term pay-to-win refers to a monetization model in which players who spend money get significant advantages over those who do not. In many games, users can acquire powerful equipment, speed up their progress, or even unlock exclusive modes, leading to uneven competition.
This model is especially harmful in multiplayer-competitive environments. Those players who cannot — or do not want to — spend money face a clear disadvantage, which generates frustration and deteriorates the quality of the experience in general. The reaction of the community has been resounding: titles such as Star Wars Battlefront II received severe criticism for incorporating a pay-to-win system. After widespread outrage and the temporary withdrawal of microtransactions, the game was adjusted to achieve a fairer balance.
Although purely cosmetic microtransactions are usually accepted by most players, pay-to-win systems are widely perceived as contrary to the fundamental principles of fair play and skill-based competition.
The psychology behind monetization
It is no coincidence that developers implement such monetization systems. These models are supported by extensive research on the psychology of the player. Techniques such as variable rewards, scarcity and fear of missing out (FOMO) are used to encourage impulse purchases.
This is particularly worrying when such tactics are applied in games aimed at minors. Younger players, who are more vulnerable to persuasive design, are usually less aware of the real financial implications of their in-game spending.
A practice known as “whaling” focuses on a small group of players who spend inordinate sums. These users, commonly referred to as “whales”, finance much of the development of free-to-play games, although their expenses are driven more by psychological pressure than by a true passion for the game.
Developers under pressure
It is essential to recognize that not all developers are directly responsible for these practices. Creating and maintaining a successful game in the current context is more expensive than ever. Continuous updates, server maintenance, community management and marketing campaigns require constant resources.
Monetization, in many cases, becomes an essential solution. The real challenge lies in finding models that generate revenue without compromising the player experience or ethical standards. Cosmetic purchases, clear season passes and optional expansions are examples of alternatives considered more ethical and transparent.
Some independent studies have taken a firm stance against exploitative practices, using their platforms to promote positive change. Its success proves that an ethical monetization is not only viable, but can also be profitable.
A future without loot boxes?
The video game industry is at a crossing point. Gamers are more informed than ever, and the debate about monetization has gained strength in the mainstream media. Class-action lawsuits, government investigations and judicial decisions are putting pressure on companies to rethink their strategies.
The growth of battle passes and monetization limited to cosmetic items shows that players are willing to pay for content that they really value, as long as it does not affect the balance of the game. Subscription models, such as Xbox Game Pass or cloud gaming services, could also transform the landscape, moving away from microtransactions completely.
At the same time, some developers are returning to more traditional models, offering full games at a fixed price and supplementing them with optional DLC that expands the experience without exploiting the player. These proposals demonstrate that it is possible to combine economic sustainability with a genuine respect for the user experience.
Conclusion
Loot boxes and pay-to-win mechanics have triggered an intense debate about how video games should be monetized. While these models can generate significant revenue, they often do so at the cost of fairness, transparency and players’ trust.
The future of monetization in video games will depend as much on the decisions of developers and publishers as on the pressure from players and regulators. By staying informed and demanding greater accountability, players can influence the creation of a more ethical and satisfying experience for everyone.
At IDC Games we believe that video games should be fun, fair and accessible. As the industry evolves, our expectations about what constitutes ethical design should evolve as well. It’s not just about generating revenue: it’s about creating better games for everyone.
Ethical monetization is not just a moral choice: it’s a smart strategy. Players increasingly value studios that respect their time and money. Games that prioritize fairness tend to build stronger communities and greater long-term loyalty. As monetization models evolve, the opportunity opens up to redefine success in video game development, not through manipulation, but through creativity, respect and an authentic connection with players. The power to demand that future lies in our hands.