China is no stranger to implementing laws to protect children from gaming addiction. In 2021, China introduced a law thatrestricts gaming time to be limited to three hours per weekfor people under the age of 18. In December 2023, anotherlaw was proposed to remove gaming practices incentivizing daily login rewards. However, this newly proposed law has caused stocks to drop for major companies like Tencent (16%) and NetEase (25%) — which may be the primary reasonthe government has eased upon the recently proposed direction.
In early 2024, Reuters revealed that theChinese government removed an officialsupporting this recent proposition. Feng Shixin, the head of publishing for the Communist Party’s Publicity Department, was removed from office (at the time of writing, this news has not been made public yet) — potentially hinting that this is China’s way of making amends to its gaming giants.
However, it reeks of desperation when China (potentially) retreats from its gaming addiction stance — showing everyone that it cares more about these larger companies' financial impact and reputation. So, really, if the proposed law to limit login rewards came through (or some form of it), it could even lead to an uglier future. No company will swallow a loss without finding new ways to exploit other channels (such as countries other than China where the law wouldn’t apply), and none of those moves will likely benefit the players.
Even if only part of China’s proposed law goes through, it could lead to awkward decisions with game publishing. For example, just because a daily limit is removed in China doesn’t mean the rest of the world won’t be monetized to the hilt. These large corporations depend onin-game transactions to keep the games afloatand their subsidiaries running — and any sane company will want to avoid taking any form of loss.
Creating two versions of the same game is (an unfortunate) solution. You can remove daily challenges and progression in a Chinese version and still include it globally. But, of course, maintaining two versions of the same game could backfire. Players may not be happy learning they receive more restrictions with similar (underwhelming) rewards just because they live in a certain region.
Losing player retention could spell trouble for some of the smaller Chinese-operated companies, as that leads to money loss. So maintaining two versions of the same game, when one is purely operated to rake in more cash from the player than the other, could turn people off from playing your game while raising prices on development.
Gacha games operate on a “give-and-take” model; most people playing gacha games expect extra rewards for playing every day — which is why players expect more from anniversaries and similar events. Anniversaries include deals, exclusive rewards, and vanity badges to give back to the community while adding extra (limited-time) avenues to earn extra cash.
And not all games include HoYoverse’s community, which has endless patience when ananniversary brings underwhelming rewards. So, if a different version of a game exists just to exploit its audience and their money, it will likely push people away — nobody wants to be leeched when they can see other players aren’t.
Battle passes probably wouldn’t exist if China’s gaming law went through
Mostgacha titlesand free-to-play games offer something known as a battle passe. Battle passes incentivize daily and weekly login activities to earn points. If you accumulate enough points, you may obtain rewards. With the new law, a battle pass would have to change from the ground up, and it could even mean considering a weekly login system similar to the one found in Honkai: Star Rail.
And it remains to be seen how much a battle pass would truly tank if it changed to a weekly structure. Heck, up to this point, nobody has tested to see if splitting two versions of a battle pass (one for China and another for global) is viable. Clearly, battle passes are here to stay, having become a huge staple in almost all F2P titles. So, companies would have to create two battle pass versions or raise the price of cosmetics to make up for the loss of revenue in China, again, results that wouldn’t be good for the players.
The unfortunate truth is that the global market could be exploited if China forces further limitations on gaming .Publishers decide their pricing and monetization. So, a company may publish its own game or outsource it to an experienced publisher. NetEase, for example, has been thefifth-largest publisher in the worldsince November 2023. It’s also the same company responsible forDiablo Immortal, a game known for its immanent greed. So, if these companies were to operate on a loss in China, it’s highly likely they would push up prices elsewhere.
Microtransactions have become the norm, but improved payment models are still welcome
Thanks to bigger companies finding global success withlive service games, microtransactions are more accepted in the mainstream than ever. But even if the mention ofplaying gacha gamesand other F2P titles no longer causes upturned noses, it doesn’t mean we can’t ask for improvements. For instance, introducing flexibility with a monetization model can lead to more players feeling happy and less stressed with their leisure time (making those games feel less like a job), i.e., not pressing players to log in every day but instead using a more relaxed weekly check-in model as a substitute. Seeing a game improve its systems over time leads to keeping players around, which in turn also marshals a healthier community, and a happier community will spread the word about your game, ensuring more sales.
But unfortunately, it will take far more than an outcry to pressure publishers to change their ways. This is why countries like China are stepping in; the market is failing to self-regulate. But at this point, the only true way to fight the system is to stop downloading predatory titles on ourgaming phonesin the first place.
