The Controversy Surrounding Diablo 4's Microtransactions: Exploring the Options

Microtransactions have firmly established themselves as a significant and accepted aspect of gaming for well over a decade. However, from time to time, gamers find themselves faced with situations that leave them deeply unsettled. The latest controversy in this realm erupted with the release of the mega-hit game, Diablo IV. Players took to the internet to voice their grievances about the exorbitant prices attached to the game’s cosmetic loot. While the gaming community grumbles about battle passes and $20 suits of armor, it’s increasingly apparent that nearly every major game is brimming with additional revenue streams these days, leaving players wondering if there’s a preferable alternative.

To be fair, players’ frustration is entirely justified. By all measures, Diablo IV offers an outstanding gaming experience, more than justifying its premium price tag of $70 with its intricate loot systems and addictive gameplay loop. However, the presence of an in-game shop, beckoning players to spend 2500 Platinum (equivalent to $20) on the “Triune Apostate” armor, serves as a stark reminder of the supplementary purchases that have become all but inescapable in today’s video game market. Want a fancier mount? While some can be earned through gameplay, a complete collection will set you back $8 apiece.

One player went so far as to calculate that acquiring all of the game’s current cosmetics would cost a staggering $357—a figure that somehow feels low when compared to current industry standards. This is before factoring in the introduction of the game’s battle pass model, which will determine just how much content Diablo IV will lock behind a recurring real-money payment. In 2006, Oblivion’s $2 Horse Armor DLC was an internet meme, a lighthearted jest at the expense of those willing to splurge on such trivialities. Today, Diablo’s skins command prices ten times higher, and many players reluctantly accept it as the new norm in AAA gaming. After all, what real recourse do players have?

In jest, one Diablo enthusiast recently quipped, “When do we stop calling them microtransactions? Maybe we should call them macrotransactions instead.” Back in 2006, $2 could buy a fancy cup of coffee or a few packs of chewing gum. Now, with $20, one could purchase a recent top-tier indie game at full price, or several outstanding indie titles during a sale. This issue is hardly unique to Diablo IV, as numerous recent major titles have featured premium prices for their cosmetics, as if testing the waters of the market’s tolerance. While fans have voiced concerns about the cost of cosmetics in games like Valorant for years—$292 for a fully upgraded set, anyone?—at least Valorant is a free-to-play game that doesn’t demand an initial $70 investment.

The landscape has changed dramatically over the years. In 2017, fans lambasted EA when they discovered that Star Wars Battlefront 2’s loot box system allowed players to gain substantial gameplay advantages by spending real money, essentially creating a pay-to-win scenario. This uproar led to EA temporarily disabling the game’s microtransactions, causing a significant drop in the company’s stock price in the short term.

This incident, while seemingly just another AAA gaming controversy at the time, has had a profound and lasting impact on the industry. It drew a clear line in the sand: in competitive console and PC games, developers must restrict monetization to cosmetic items only, or risk widespread backlash. While Call of Duty: Warzone briefly experimented with offering extra abilities through paid skins, this remains a rare exception. For most game companies, the compromise appears to be focusing on cosmetic items while continuously raising the prices of these items. Moreover, they employ the ingenious battle pass model to induce a fear of missing out (FOMO) and a sunk-cost mentality among their dedicated player base. (It’s worth noting that Halo Infinite’s non-timed battle pass attempted to avoid FOMO but has struggled to gain traction as an alternative.)

As unsettling as it may be at times, the battle pass model appears to be a more palatable alternative to the previously prevalent loot box system. Personally, I’ve never been one to spend money on skins in multiplayer games, but I distinctly remember shelling out $15 on loot boxes during the early days of the original Overwatch in a desperate bid to obtain a specific seasonal skin before the event’s end. The sinking feeling I experienced as I opened each box, hoping to find the desired skin without having to buy even more boxes, was unlike anything I had encountered in over a decade of online gaming. Truth be told, it played a significant role in my decision to uninstall Overwatch just a few weeks later.

Today, Overwatch has abandoned the loot box model in favor of a battle pass and an in-game store (complete with prices that players grumble about). This has become the industry norm, with players joking that it’s the primary distinction between Overwatch 1 and Overwatch 2—a jab that hits uncomfortably close to home. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that the microtransaction landscape we find ourselves in today is the result of compromise. One could argue that these microtransaction purchases made by affluent “whales,” who have disposable income to spare, help keep the base price of games artificially low for the rest of us. After all, even at $70, games remain relatively inexpensive compared to the past, once inflation is taken into account. This isn’t to say it’s an ideal situation, but as the late Mark Fisher once wrote, it’s challenging to envision a better alternative, given the ballooning budgets and frequent layoffs within the games industry. For those of us who opt not to purchase in-game cosmetics, at least we retain the freedom to close the shop tab—for now, at least.



Leave a reply