Are Microtransactions Predatory?

Small, sometimes repeatable payments have infiltrated the gaming industry in particular.  Called microtransactions, they have made appearances in everything from free mobile games like Dead by Daylight Mobile or Diablo Immortal to mainstream home console releases like Diablo IV.  As they remain an ordinary, potentiall intrusive part of gaming, they also allow for unprecedented money generation opportunities.  Some people might feel pressured to spend more money than they normally would if a title had a fixed price, but microtransactions cannot force anyone to buy them, and they are neutral on their own like so many other things.  This does not mean that asinine greed is not often behind their implementation all the same.

One can indeed play through some free-to-play games without every making a single payment to accelerate the process, obtain new skins, and so on.  That it takes more time and, for some, great self-control does not make it impossible, just less convenient.  The microtransactions usually either pertain to aesthetic or ability changes for characters (some perhaps being available for a limited time) or to bypassing an energy system, a mechanic where, especially in mobile games, you can only play--or just attempt--a certain number of levels before having to wait for the energy to fill back up.  Payment will replenish the energy or secure better weapons or equipment to make the most of each individual level.  Sometimes, money can buy several different in-game currencies that are in turn spent on these things.

Although they can be harmless, off to the side, and associated with genuinely free but strong games, microtransactions can still certainly be an extreme expression of avarice in the entertainment industry.  They can still supplement the otherwise nonexistent revenue generated by a quality free-to-play game, sometimes called "freemium" for its free access that comes with premium additions at a price, but they can also be placed out of sheer greed.  An executive who prioritizes receiving gratuitous amounts of money would of course not only be fine with needless microtransactions or with pressuring people to pay them, but also with adding them to a software in every digital crevice they expect to get away with.  In a sense, because enough consumers caved in, gaming has come to be dominated by more and more microtransactions.

It is not that microtransactions are inherently driven by greed or that there is no such thing as a legitimate microtransaction side to a free-to-play game.  With gaming, much more explicitly greed-fueled practices include locking online multiplayer behind a paywall through services like Nintendo Switch Online or Xbox Live.  You have already paid for the games, except in the case of the "freemium" types, and past consoles like the 3DS, Wii, and PS3 did not require paid subscriptions to access online multiplayer, so it was not even always an industry norm.  There is also the possibility of intentionally withholding core content to be released as DLC for an additional charge.  Furthermore, there is the habit of some companies releasing games that are far from technically finished or polished in order to vacuum up as many preorders as they can.

Microtransactions themselves are not predatory and are only perceived as inherently oppressive or the result of greed by people who have assumed they must be heinous on their own, or by those who have terrible self-control.  No, weakness with resolve or financial impulse control is not the moral responsibility of anyone but the individual consumer, though if greed is immoral, it is of course nonetheless immoral for companies to hope that consumers will squander money or be content to pay for more than they would have under a different business model.  The corporate decision-makers and the consumers can still err in their own ways, with microtransactions, as is true of many things, being a neutral thing that can be introduced with terrible motivations.