Are In-Game Purchases Changing How Games Are Rated and Reviewed?

22 December 2024

The gaming industry has come a long way since the days of blowing into NES cartridges and swapping cheat codes on the playground. Games now have high-definition graphics, expansive worlds, and complex narratives. But one monumental shift in the industry deserves a closer look: in-game purchases. Whether it's buying skins, unlocking characters, or purchasing loot boxes, in-game purchases have rapidly become the norm.

But are these microtransactions influencing how games are rated and reviewed? Could that five-star review be overshadowed by pay-to-win mechanics or overpriced cosmetics? Let’s dive deep into the nexus of in-game purchases and the gaming review ecosystem.

The Rise of In-Game Purchases

Once upon a time, you paid once for a game. That was it. You saved up, bought the disc or cartridge, and got full access to everything the game had to offer. Easy-peasy, right? But as technology evolved and games increasingly transitioned online, developers saw an opportunity to monetize games beyond the initial purchase.

Today, we have free-to-play models, subscription services, and of course, microtransactions. These include:

- Cosmetic purchases (skins, outfits, emotes)
- Loot boxes with randomized items
- Battle passes with tiered rewards
- Pay-to-win items (we’ll get to why these are so controversial)

While these monetization strategies are a goldmine for gaming companies, they're significantly shaping player experiences—and in turn, how critics and players rate and review games.

How Reviews Have Traditionally Worked

Before microtransactions became a thing, reviews were all about gameplay, story, graphics, and performance. A game with groundbreaking mechanics or a riveting plot was almost guaranteed high praise. For instance, think about classics like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time or The Witcher 3. They didn’t need to sell you anything extra—they let their content speak for itself.

But now? Reviews aren’t just about a game’s artistic merit; they also dig into whether the experience feels like a cash grab. Players (and critics) are keeping an eagle eye on which games prioritize their wallets over skills or time investment.

Pay-to-Win: The Main Villain

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: pay-to-win mechanics. If you’ve never heard the term, here’s the gist. In some games, players can purchase items or upgrades that offer significant in-game advantages. Instead of grinding for hours to level up or farm resources, you can just throw money at the problem and get ahead. Voila!

But this model has sparked outrage in the gaming community. Remember Star Wars Battlefront II? When it launched, players were furious over the hefty grind required to unlock iconic characters—unless, of course, you forked over some cash. This led to massive public backlash, low review scores, and even a PR disaster for the publisher.

The problem is simple: Pay-to-win mechanics tilt the playing field. Players who can't afford to spend extra money feel left out or frustrated. And when reviewers mention pay-to-win, it's often accompanied by a noticeable drop in a game’s rating.

The Cosmetic Debate: Harmless or Greedy?

Not all in-game purchases are pay-to-win, though. Cosmetics—like different skins, costumes, or emotes—don’t affect gameplay, so they’ve become the "less evil" way to monetize games. But even these seemingly harmless purchases come with controversy.

Take Fortnite, for instance. The game’s dazzling array of skins and emotes keep players spending, even though none of them improve performance. Yet, some players argue that cosmetics should be included in the game you already paid for (if it’s not free-to-play). Critics also question whether the constant flow of purchasable items creates FOMO (fear of missing out), especially among younger audiences.

Suddenly, these cosmetic microtransactions don’t feel so innocent anymore.

Reviews Are Now Balancing Business and Fun

As in-game purchases have become more common, game reviews have adapted. Reviewers are no longer just dissecting the plot twists or graphics quality—they’re also examining whether a game feels predatory. Is the in-game economy designed to push players toward spending? Are there perks for those who pay versus those who don’t?

Some questions reviewers now ask themselves include:

- Is the base game fun without spending extra money?
- Do microtransactions disrupt the flow or balance of the game?
- Are in-game purchases fair and reasonably priced?

When these questions highlight negative practices, it’s inevitable that a game’s rating takes a hit. After all, no one likes feeling manipulated, especially gamers who invest their time and hard-earned cash.

Player Reviews vs. Critic Reviews

Here’s where things get even more interesting—there’s often a disconnect between player reviews and critic reviews. Critics might appreciate the artistry of a game while glossing over its microtransactions. Players, on the other hand, are brutally honest. Ever scrolled through the user reviews on Steam or Metacritic? It’s an unfiltered goldmine of feedback, especially when a game gets review-bombed.

Games with aggressive monetization models (cough, Diablo Immortal, cough) often face a barrage of low player ratings—even if critics give them a decent score. This disparity highlights just how much in-game purchases matter to everyday players.

Are Ratings Becoming Less Reliable?

With all the fuss over in-game purchases, you might be wondering: are game ratings even reliable anymore? Well, it’s complicated. On one hand, critics try to remain objective. On the other, players tend to review with their emotions—especially if they feel cheated.

This makes the gaming landscape tricky to navigate. A game might have polished graphics and an engaging story, but players will still tear it apart if the monetization feels shady. So how do you decide if a game is worth your time and money? Honestly, it’s all about reading between the lines. Compare critic reviews with player feedback, and focus on what matters most to you.

How Developers Are Responding

It’s not all bad news. Some developers are listening. Take CD Projekt Red and Cyberpunk 2077, for example. Despite a rocky launch, they patched bugs, provided free content updates, and avoided predatory microtransactions. Players noticed, and their goodwill helped mend the game’s reputation.

Other companies are experimenting with different models. For instance, some games integrate in-game purchases in more ethical ways, such as donating portions of proceeds to charity (Warframe does this). Others are sticking to strictly cosmetic items or avoiding paid content altogether for competitive modes (Apex Legends, anyone?).

It’s clear that developers are aware of the backlash—and some are taking steps to restore trust.

What Does the Future Hold?

Where do we go from here? One thing’s for sure: in-game purchases aren’t going anywhere. They’re too lucrative for developers to abandon. But we may see some shifts toward more player-friendly practices. Transparency, for one, is becoming increasingly important. Players want to know exactly what they’re paying for—no hidden odds, no sneaky paywalls.

Game reviews, too, will likely continue evolving. As in-game purchases remain a hot-button issue, reviewers will need to balance technical merit with fairness. At the end of the day, players just want to know one thing: Is the game worth it?

Final Thoughts: Are In-Game Purchases Changing the Landscape?

In short: absolutely. In-game purchases have transformed not just how we play, but how we evaluate games. What used to be a straightforward "buy once, play forever" model has morphed into a complex web of subscriptions, DLCs, and microtransactions that deeply affect ratings and reviews.

The good news? Players are more vocal than ever. And with critics paying close attention, developers are being held accountable. While it’s clear that in-game purchases aren’t going away anytime soon, the gaming community has the power to shape how they’re implemented.

So next time you’re browsing through reviews, take a closer look. Are those low ratings about bad gameplay—or a cash-grabbing economy? Your wallet—and your gaming experience—deserve to know.