Will ALL Games Soon Have a Battle Pass, Skins, and Microtransactions?

Malena Rose Features

Vol 27 Issue 18

In recent years, games like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Genshin Impact have proven that games can stay alive for years—as long as they’re well taken care of. Regular updates, events, and new content keep players engaged, always giving them something new to discover.

But what does this trend toward live-service games mean for the future? Will it lead to games never really being “finished”? Will even story-driven games soon have microtransactions and battle passes? Today, we’ll take a closer look at the pros and cons of Games as a Service—are they the future, or do they signal the decline of unique, creative story games?

What Are Games as a Service?

Before diving deeper, let’s clarify what Games as a Service (GaaS) actually means.

There are many different business models in gaming. The most well-known is the premium game model: you buy a game once at a fixed price and get access to everything it has to offer—story, characters, worlds, the whole package. Classics like Zelda: Breath of the Wild, GTA V, Elden Ring, and Horizon Zero Dawn follow this model.

Another well-known model—and the one at the center of this discussion—is free-to-play. As the name suggests, these games are free to play. Many modern multiplayer shooters use this model. Some of the first successful free-to-play games were League of Legends, other MOBAs and MMOs, and of course, Fortnite Battle Royale.

Free-to-play games don’t make money through upfront purchases but through in-game transactions. The base game is free, but players can buy extras like skins, new characters, or season passes. These small, real-money transactions generate revenue without forcing players to buy the game itself. Games as a Service are titles that continue to receive content updates for years. These don’t have to be free-to-play—MMOs like World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XIV also follow this model but require subscriptions and paid expansions. For this discussion, though, we’ll focus on the free-to-play trend.

How Fortnite Changed Everything

One of the biggest pioneers of modern free-to-play games was Fortnite. Since its launch in 2017, it has dominated the market with regular content updates, new skins, game modes, and collaborations with literally everything: Marvel, DC, Stranger Things, freaking… Air Jordan, and even musicians like Marshmello, Ariana Grande, and Billie Eilish. Seriously—you name it, they’ve done it.

After Fortnite’s massive success, many existing games followed suit. Rocket League, Overwatch, Destiny, and even The Sims 4 all switched to free-to-play. Games that once cost $40–50 suddenly became free, and yet, publishers started earning more than ever before. Sounds like a win-win… OR DOES IT?

The Dark Side of Free-to-Play

Despite free-to-play games dominating the market for over a decade, many gamers remain skeptical. Critics argue they can easily become pay-to-win or charge ridiculous amounts for in-game content. Weapon skins, sprays, and customization bundles costing over $100 have become normal, and many players see this as exploitative.

While players get free seasonal updates, many feel pressured into buying skins or extra content because the game feels incomplete without them. Social pressure also plays a huge role—being a “no-skin” in Fortnite is the gaming equivalent of being the unpopular kid at school. It’s not just about personal taste; it’s about belonging, prestige, and community recognition.

As absurd as it may seem, enough players are willing to pay these prices… so can we really blame the developers?

Is a $70 Premium Game Really Better Than a $20 Battle Pass?

Is it okay to pay $70 for a premium game that gives you 60 hours of content—but not okay to spend $20 on a skin in a game you’ve been playing for years for free?

Every story has two sides. Developers also need to make money to keep live-service games like Valorant and Apex Legends running.

The Industry Shift Toward Live-Service Games

Looking at recent trends, it’s clear that more and more developers are embracing the live-service model. Rockstar proved with GTA V and Red Dead Online just how much money can be made through constant updates and online content. GTA Online is perhaps the best example of how to blend live service with a premium game—you pay once for the game but get an incredible single-player experience alongside an ever-evolving online world.

But what does this mean for traditional single-player games?

The reality is that live-service games, with their continuous monetization and long-term player retention, are hard to compete with.

Single-player games—where you pay once and get the full experience—almost feel like one-and-done titles compared to the massive live-service machines. From a business perspective, there’s less incentive for developers to create complete, standalone experiences when they can make so much more from microtransactions and battle passes.

It’s no surprise that many developers are now asking themselves: Why create a premium single-player game when we could earn far more with live service and free-to-play?

Are Free-to-Play Games Killing Creativity?

A common argument against free-to-play is that it leads to less creative and unique games. But is that really true?

Technically, developers of live-service games have more motivation to create a great experience—they need to keep players engaged for years. In contrast, premium games only need to look good in trailers and marketing campaigns to get you to buy them. Whether the game is actually good doesn’t matter much—because you already paid.

I know what many of you are thinking: Fortnite, Valorant, or League of Legends could never match the quality of Red Dead Redemption, The Last of Us, or Baldur’s Gate 3.

And that’s fine—live-service games offer a different kind of experience. They’re more dynamic, replayable, and constantly evolving, while premium games aim to deliver a one-time epic journey.

The Future of Gaming: A Balance Between Two Worlds?

Live-service games like Fortnite, Apex, Valorant, and Genshin Impact foster long-term relationships with players. They thrive on constant evolution—new maps, new characters, new events, and competitive play. A steady stream of content keeps players coming back.

On the other hand, premium games like Red Dead Redemption and The Last of Us offer deeply emotional stories and immersive worlds, but once you finish them, the experience is over (unless you buy DLCs).

Both models have their place in the industry. The question is: Will the rise of live-service games eventually make premium single-player experiences obsolete?

Malena Rose
Follow me
Latest posts by Malena Rose (see all)