February 23, 2025

Gaming isn't immune to enshittification

Problems of imbalance in value: When companies get greedy and skew more toward business-value-first instead of customer-value-first, quality declines or crashes outright. This is enshittification. Cory Doctorow coined the term to encapsulate this problem of overextending into maximizing shareholder value and revenue at the expense of everything else, especially at the expense of customer experience. Despite the focus on shareholder value, private companies are not immune. It's simply greed and misalignment (or complete tossing out) of principles at the core. Not running a business. Getting rich. Not serving customers. Growth at all costs.

While Cory Doctorow primarily discussed online products and services regarding enshittification, I believe problems of misaligned principles and imbalanced value propositions are common everywhere, including video games and tabletop gaming. Shrinkflation, another example of corporate greed in line with enshittification, is reducing the amount of product consumers get versus what's charged, increasing the price while simultaneously reducing the content. This is related to my problem with influencers and content creators: When their income is tied to constant engagement rather than quality, it’s easy to misrepresent and mislead followers, creating a cycle of low-value offerings propped up by artificial hype.

Business leaders want the quickest payout they can get for themselves or shareholders, adopting the "growth at all cost" mentality that throws long-term sustainability or customer value out the window. The "lucky ones" in this camp get an exit and a big payday, leaving the rest of the business and those it serves (us) to suffer. I believe these problems are systemic, pointing to broader societal issues around wealth inequality, but that's not what I'll be talking about.

Let's talk about Ubisoft

Years ago, Ubisoft quickly became my favourite gaming studio after playing the first three Assassin's Creed games back-to-back. While I had never played any of their pre-2000s games, I got sucked into many of their past, present, and future releases after that. My girlfriend at the time (who later became my wife, go us) fell in love with Rayman Origins and the Rabbids party games. I started to explore some of their other titles, like I Am Alive, Far Cry 3, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Child of Light, and Valiant Hearts: The Great War. I felt like this studio was highly creative, trying new things with existing IP and pumping out quality work.

What's "quality" for a game?

Gamers will have both objective and subjective measures of a quality game. Sometimes, being really good in one area can completely outweigh another. For example, extremely satisfying gameplay may outweigh a lack of story, but that can be subjective. One thing most folks can agree on—a more objective measure—is "what was promised vs. what was delivered."

Let's briefly touch on the subjective areas first.

For me, the biggest thing I'm looking for when it comes to judging the quality of a game is if it feels like fun or if it feels like work. And if it feels like work, am I working for me, or am I working for something/someone else? What I mean is, am I putting in the effort to gain something rewarding, or am I just being duped into playing because an executive hopes I'll get sucked into a micro-transaction or see some more ads?

Secondary things I'm thinking of when judging the quality of a game include:

  • Cohesive/Immersive Experience
  • Memorability/Lasting Impression
  • Story & Writing
  • Promise vs What Was Delivered
  • Polish & Bugs
  • Gameplay Loops & Mechanics

Notice that I didn’t include graphics or sound outright. Those are more about preference than quality. However, if one area of the game is vastly more polished than another, that’s a problem. Or if a game demo showcased something revolutionary but the final product was stripped-down (looking at you, Dying Light 2), that’s a significant quality failure.

Ubisoft's decline

Ubisoft’s decline into enshittification began soon after the golden era I described.

  • Repetitive gameplay formulas:
    The once-innovative mechanics spread across franchises, resulting in derivative and uninspired experiences.
    E.g. climb or clear a tower to reveal part of a map.
  • Walled garden ecosystems:
    Designed to keep you in their marketing funnel, pushing ads, promotions, and engagement tricks.
    E.g. The Ubisoft Launcher
  • Microtransactions & in-game purchases:
    Introduced slowly, then increasingly shoved in your face.
    E.g. Buying in-game currency, loot boxes, and aesthetic upgrades
  • Excessive grinding:
    No longer rewarding skill, but instead keeping you in the game to maximize your exposure to monetization opportunities.
    E.g. Taking 1-3 hours to make your way through an encounter or farm some resource only to have a stat go up 1 or 2 points. And, worse, having the next area scale with you anyway.
  • Pay-to-skip mechanics:
    When the grind becomes a deliberate pain point, with companies like Ubisoft offering real-money solutions to bypass their own intentionally frustrating mechanics.
    E.g. Ubisoft sold a permanent boost for Assassin’s Creed Origins, doubling your XP earned, to speed up its deliberately laborious grind. What the absolute hell.
  • Declining storytelling:
    Overarching narratives fade into irrelevance. Games become increasingly formulaic, with lifeless characters and weak dialogue.
    E.g. Assassin’s Creed’s leaving Desmond's modern-day storyline by the wayside.

Update: If you focused on the subjective aspects of that list, thinking something along the lines of "but I like aesthetic upgrades" or "I didn't care for such and such story anyway" then you are completely missing the point. This is about money– Real-world money–, commitment, and quality.

Perhaps Ubisoft’s most egregious enshittification move has been removing access to content customers already paid for. Online services shutting down? Okay, maybe. But when single-player elements disappear because of DRM, that's just theft.

The pattern is clear: introduce a quality experience, gradually degrade it, and milk every last cent from customers before they get fed up and leave.

It's no wonder that my friends, my wife, and I have all stopped playing Ubisoft games as of late. Of course, these are only a few examples that speak to the quality of Ubisoft's games and not the numerous allegations the company has faced otherwise.

The interesting thing that happens to some companies that enshittify too much for too long is that people start to catch on to their grift. They realize they're getting the same experience repackaged but now with more micro-transaction bloat. People are noticing Ubisoft and are beginning to vote with their dollars. Of course, this is how we can most effectively push back on corporate greed: not give them our money until they change. Stop pre-ordering, do not support micro-transactions, do not buy low-value DLC, and quite literally stop buying their games for a time.

Enshittification in tabletop gaming

So, we've defined how enshittification works in video games: revenue-first increases while actual fun and innovation decrease. How does this manifest in tabletop gaming?

Wizards of the Coast (WotC) and parent company Hasbro are the most obvious examples.

  • The Open Gaming License (OGL) fiasco – WotC attempted to revoke the long-standing OGL, which would have crushed indie creators and funneled more money into WotC’s hands. Public outrage forced them to backpedal, but the intent was clear: restrict creativity and extract more value.
  • Repackaging old content with minimal effortTales from the Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh were republished collections of older material. While generally well-adapted, they contained errors, strange jumps in difficulty between included adventures, inconsistencies in the material, and lazy adaptations that showed a clear lack of care.
  • D&D Beyond acquisition & subscription model – WotC saw an opportunity to lock players into recurring revenue streams. Instead of a one-time purchase, they could now charge monthly fees for access to content that used to be freely available in physical form.
  • Aggressive monetization mindset – WotC’s CEO publicly described Dungeons & Dragons as a “criminally under-monetized” property. That should tell you everything.

Gaming groups like mine were interested in playing books like Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Tales from the Yawning Portal, although we were leery because they're essentially a repackaging of older material– would they be adequately rewritten and adapted? In most cases, yes, they were; however, eventually, I (as the DM) would discover several typos, mismatches between old and new systems, incorrect references to old page numbers and items that didn't match the new material, and other quality issues. They repackaged these old products, and quality dropped, but they made more money.

Around the same time my group was starting a new game, WotC acquired DnDBeyond, a website that helped players digitally manage character sheets, game rules, and more for a fee. Subscription revenue is the cream of the crop for enshittifiers: if they can get you to give them money monthly and sell you additional products, ooh, baby.

It's no wonder as our 3-year Dungeons & Dragons campaign comes to an end we are looking to play numerous other games.

How tabletop gaming could become worse

If we wanted to enshittify tabletop gaming using the same playbook as Ubisoft, here’s what we’d do (How many of these sound like the current state of WotC to you?):

  1. Reduce innovation – Establish a formula, pumping out new material with minimal effort while keeping price tags high.
  2. Shrinkflation for supplements – Increase the price of books while cutting down on actual content (or breaking it into multiple overpriced expansions).
  3. Repackage existing creations – Instead of creating new experiences, release slight variations of old material. (See: yet another Forgotten Realms adventure).
  4. Push digital subscriptions – Make physical books less convenient while incentivizing digital platforms with subscription fees. Dndbeyond: "Sorry, you can't access that. It's part of the 2024 update, and we will make it frustrating to find anything Legacy."
  5. Add microtransactions & FOMO mechanics – Imagine rolling a d20, but if you really want that nat 20, there’s an “inspiration boost” for just $0.99! We're already seeing aesthetically beautiful digital dice and character sheets for a premium price.

We haven’t reached full enshittification yet, but the warning signs are there.

How we fight back

The only way to push back against corporate greed is to vote with your wallet.

  • Stop pre-ordering:
    Companies rely on hype to lock in sales before you realize the product is a disappointment.
  • Avoid microtransactions:
    If companies see recurring revenue from in-game purchases, they’ll never stop pushing them. Do you really need those pretty digital dice?
  • Reject low-value DLC & rehashed content:
    Demand quality before giving them your money. Don't be a dummy like me buying repackaged old content.
  • Support independent creators:
    Whether in video games or tabletop, the best innovation often comes from smaller studios and designers.
  • Try another game and studio:
    D&D may have introduced you to tabletop gaming, but you have no idea what you're missing by never branching out. They want your wallet's loyalty, but you don't owe it to them.

Ubisoft, WotC, and many other companies will enshittify their products and services as much as they think they can get away with. The question is: will we let them?

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram