One random afternoon during the summer of my junior year at Grayslake North, I was playing video games on my phone after football practice. I decided to play Clash Royale, which wasn’t as popular as it was in its prime. After not playing the game for a long time, I thought I wouldn’t be too far behind, especially since I didn’t need to unlock many new troops, but when I loaded into my first game, I was surprised to see the opponents’ troops were level 15, the highest level at the time. Every time you win a game, you earn trophies, which you use to advance to the next area or arena to unlock new troops. I was in arena 20 out of 28; it was extremely difficult to get that level without spending a decent amount of money. I was frustrated that I could barely scrape a few wins out of the countless games that I played. Eventually, I stopped playing and realized that microtransactions are ruining the gaming industry by allowing players to skip past the effort it takes to gain an item or give an unfair advantage to other players.
Microtransactions are payments people make in online games to gain an item in the game. Microtransactions have become a staple in modern gaming. Developers and publishers often claim that microtransactions are optional, cosmetic, or necessary to keep the games running. However, in many modern games, microtransactions don’t seem optional; they directly affect gameplay, progression, and fairness. “I don’t like microtransactions because they ruin games. Games like Clash Royale are ruined because of microtransactions. It’s basically you can either spend hours grinding for items and level up, or spend 100s of dollars and get it immediately,” said Ethan Roedl, a senior. Roedl had experienced the same problem. Some games have an overabundance of microtransactions, which can disrupt the balance between F2P (free-to-play) and P2W (pay-to-win) players. This overabundance of microtransactions is found in the majority of mobile games, with many ways to remove ads, purchase buffs, or even instantly complete the game. The shift has drastically changed gaming from one that pushes enjoyment into one that constantly pushes players toward purchasing advantages and limited content.
One of the most common arguments for microtransactions is that most of them are cosmetic only. Since supporters claim these purchases don’t affect gameplay, they don’t harm or majorly affect gameplay. However, the argument ignores something: how the cosmetic items are marketed and influential to player behavior. Items that are marked as cosmetic are often tied to limited- time events, exclusive bundles, or battle passes. These items gradually lead to the fear of missing out (FOMO), and players feel compelled to buy items not just because they want them but because the item or bundle may never be available again. Over time, it can make a game feel more like a store than a form of entertainment. In 2024, researchers found that mobile games alone generated billions of dollars in spending, with about $4.7 billion collected, which might not make complete sense. Users buy small bundles worth $5, $1, and $10 at first. It doesn’t seem that impactful, but that’s exactly how game developers reel users in and gain profit.
Microtransactions can negatively affect the overall pacing and satisfaction of a game. Many games are designed so that early progression feels fast and rewarding. However, as players move further, progression slows down, which allows companies to present a small microtransaction as a solution to the frustration the game created. According to the “Microtransactions Podcast” at GNHS, David Dweh exclaimed, “I was relatively new to Clash Royale as I only played for a couple of months. And I ended up getting hard stuck because I just couldn’t compete with these higher-level cards that all these other players had. I really couldn’t do anything because I wasn’t spending money on the game! ” This design choice can make players feel manipulated rather than challenged. Instead of overcoming obstacles through skill or dedication, players are nudged toward spending money to avoid boredom or frustration.
Additionally, the ACM research emphasizes that microtransactions affect player trust. When gamers are built around monetization rather than fair progression, players become more aware of manipulation. Nick Larish, a senior, clearly explains his frustrations: “Micro transactions are invasive, and destroy player trust in developers. It locks players into a specific progression system without their consent.” This loss in trust is significant for game survivability. Without player trust, video games will lose players, causing revenue to decrease. Most players would prioritize enjoyment over a game that relies on a paywall to progress.
Together, the data for the ACM article and the firsthand experiences of players show that microtransactions are far from harmless. They influence game design, disrupt balance, and pressure players into spending money to avoid frustration. Whether cosmetic or gameplay-related, microtransactions reshape games in ways that prioritize small bursts of happiness over skill, effort, and long-term enjoyment.
