Spectre: Divide Price Cut Highlights Predatory Gaming Industry Practices
Image Credit: Mountaintop Studios
The release of Spectre: Divide was meant to be a landmark moment for the FPS genre, with high expectations surrounding one of it’s developers, Shroud, a popular streamer. Instead, it became yet another example of the increasingly predatory monetization practices plaguing the gaming industry. With skin prices hitting as high as $90 at launch, Spectre: Divide drew instant ire from players, adding yet fuel to an ongoing debate (if you can even call it that) about the ethics of microtransactions and in-game purchases, and how out of hand it has gotten.
While Spectre: Divide eventually reduced its skin prices in response to player backlash, the initial attempt to charge such exorbitant fees reflects a larger trend seen in numerous recent titles. The gaming industry has, over the past decade, shifted towards microtransactions as a cornerstone of its business model rather than producing quality games that simply sell themselves. What once started as a way to offer optional cosmetic items has spiraled into increasingly aggressive tactics, exploiting players of all ages including young children.
Games like Call of Duty: Warzone and NBA 2K are infamous for their high-priced microtransactions. In Warzone, operator bundles can cost upwards of $20 per set, and entire collections of skins and cosmetics can easily amount to hundreds of dollars over time. NBA 2K, on the other hand, has pushed even further, embedding microtransactions in nearly every aspect of the game, from virtual currency packs to upgrades for player characters. These practices target players’ desire for cosmetic customization, charging high fees for items that offer no gameplay advantages but are seen as status symbols within the community, and often encourage gambling habits early on in the life of a gamer (see loot boxes and other RNG-based microtransaction practices).
Image Credit: Activision-Blizzard
Similarly, Diablo Immortal, Blizzard’s mobile RPG, drew widespread criticism for its egregious pay-to-win mechanics. The game reportedly required players to spend over $100,000 to fully upgrade a character, and other games like RuneScape 3 have also had players dish out tens of thousands of dollars to max the stats of their accounts. The outrage over Diablo Immortal was a kick in the face, reminding us of how far some companies are willing to go to extract value from their player base, using microtransactions as a primary revenue driver.
Spectre: Divide found itself peddling highly-priced cosmetics right off the bat, with the decision to offer $90 skins. These kinds of prices are indicative of a model that prioritizes profits over player satisfaction, banking on a small percentage of “whales” (players who spend significant amounts on microtransactions) to support the game's financial success. However, this approach alienates a broader audience and creates a perception that games are designed more for financial exploitation rather than for the enjoyment of actually playing the game.
Some might say that the rapid reduction in skin prices after Spectre: Divide’s launch offers a glimmer of hope, showing that player voices still matter, but I am inclined to disagree. The only reason it was quickly changed is due to backlash forcing the developers to reassess their approach, cutting skin costs to more reasonable levels. This reactive response really shows the uncomfortable truth that many games are launched with predatory pricing immediately in mind from the start of development, only to be backpedaled when, or even if, enough players push back.
Image Credit: Mountaintop Studios
This pattern has become all too common in today’s gaming industry, where microtransactions are often layered onto broken or incomplete games, adding insult to injury. For example, Star Wars Battlefront II had major issues almost completely tanking the game after its loot box system created an uproar for essentially locking core gameplay content behind paywalls. It took a massive public relations disaster and intervention from Disney before EA adjusted the game’s microtransaction model. Thankfully, however, Star Wars Battlefront 2 was able to turn things around (and is admittedly one of my favorite games to this day).
In Spectre: Divide’s case, the matchmaking system being broken at launch only added to the frustration. It’s one thing to offer expensive skins when a game is polished and running smoothly; it’s another to do so when players are already struggling with blatant game-related issues. This combination of high prices and broken systems makes it feel players are paying for a game that hasn’t even earned their investment yet.
The gaming industry’s reliance on microtransactions isn’t inherently bad—cosmetics can help sustain a game’s lifespan and fund continued development. However, when these transactions cross into predatory territory (happening more and more often) with outrageous prices and broken gameplay, it erodes player trust, gameplay integrity, and overall enjoyment. Games like Spectre: Divide have an opportunity to learn from yet another case of community backlash over horrible monetization practices, but the real question is whether the industry will evolve past these practices, or if this is simply the latest sad chapter in an increasingly extractive model of game development.
