From battle royales to , and others, the battle pass is prevalent in modern online games. Battle passes are optional, but some feel they're unjᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚustly punished for not buying into the concept. Is it time for the battle pass trend to die?
Rise of the Battle Pass
The concept of a battle pass came about in 2013, when Dota 2 Thꦑe first iteration cost $10, and like modern battle passes, it gave players exclusive in-game items, including cosmetics, a new courier, and a heads-up displܫay.
However, it was Epic Games' that popularized the battle pass business model. It enabled aꦺ game that was essentially free-to-play to become one of the m🍰ost profitable titles in recent years. Seeing their success, many developers followed Epic Games' example and introduced battle passes in their own games.
Battle passes are optio🌃nal, allowing people to play the game at no cost to themselves if they choose. Yet, players without a battle pass feel like they'🅠re undervalued members of the player base.
Battle Passes and Conspicuous Consumption
Those who play a game like Fortnite for free have access to all its features and mechanics, but unlike their battle pass-holding peers, free players receive few, if any, cosmetic rewards. Free players may feel undervalued because they're unable to keep up with battle pass-holders in terms of appearance. In other words, free player𒆙s are unabl🥀e to participate in conspicuous consumption, and thus may become socially stigmatized.
Conspicuous consumption is the concept of purchasing luxury goods or services for the primary purpose of demonstrating economic powe♌r. It's the same concept that drives people to buy luxury brands over more affordable options of similar quality. In video games, conspicuous consumption is the reason people pay f💛or an exclusive skin instead of settling for the default.
When conspicuous consumption is introduced to any social environment, those who can afford exclusive or luxury items are generally perc🐟eived as "better" than those who can't. That's wღhy free players may feel battle passes unfairly reward the more economically flexible.
Battle Passes Won't Die (Yet)
Although a game may be offered as free-to-play, the people behind the scenes still need to get paid. In order to compensate developers for their time while making a game widely accessible, there has to be some way to profꦺit. Therefore, battle passes give players the option to support a game's creators whi༺le allowing those who can't or won't pay to continue enjoying the game.
Some may argue tᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚhis widens economic disparity between players, but the game likely wouldn't exist without a battle pass system. An alternative way to profit from an otherwise "free" online game typically involves the loot box system, which invites the controversy of encouraging gambling amongst minors. Otherwise, most games will offer a subscription service, charge a price for the base game that exceeds what it would cost for most battle passes, or both.
Battle passes may make economic disparity more visible amongst players, but they also happen to be one of the mos𒉰t viable and least controversial ways for developers to make money off a "free" game. Until someone comes up with something that doesn't gouge the customer or shortchange the developers, battle passes are here to stay.