The video game industry is booming. According to Statista, more than three billion people played video games worldwide in 2024. As per PwC’s Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2022-26, the gaming industry is tipped to maintain its recent rapid growth, and could be worth $321 billion by 2026. A big slice of that — $82 billion in 2024 — came from in-game purchases such as cosmetic “skins”, virtual currency, map packs, and more. In the UK, a recent Censuswide poll revealed that gamers, on average, spend £540 a year on in-game purchases (£22 a month) and subscriptions (£23 a month).

One of the most debated forms of in-game spending is the pay-to-win add-on, a digital item that gives players a clear advantage in player-versus-player games. A special weapon in Call of Duty: Warzone, a premium camouflage in Escape from Tarkov, or unique cards in Hearthstone can tilt the odds decisively in favor of paying players. For the buyer, these items boost the chance of winning; for everyone else, they create a frustrating disadvantage. One gamer described their game experience bluntly: “It was absurd and halfway to unplayable if you didn’t drain your wallet.”

The developer’s dilemma

At first glance, offering P2W add-ons seems like easy money. They cost little to produce and appeal directly to players’ powerful motivations: the desire to win and the dread of losing. Yet our research shows that the business case is more nuanced.

Unlike traditional add-ons (like hotel WiFi or an extended warranty), the value of P2W items is shaped by network effects. Their appeal grows when few players own them, because they confer an advantage over many others. But as adoption of P2W items spreads, their edge diminishes.

Players who do not spend on P2W may abandon the game entirely as they face a daunting competitive disadvantage against the large number of P2W owners. The fewer non-buyers remain, the smaller is the pool of players against whom P2W will bring an advantage, further eroding the add-on’s value. This negative network effect created by the P2W add-ons calls for a careful assessment of market conditions before introducing them. We find that ironically, when a large share of players is willing to buy, introducing P2W can reduce profits, leaving developers better off without it.

The psychology of competition makes this balance even trickier. Players who are highly motivated by winning make the add-on more lucrative: the thrill of victory increases their willingness to pay. But the story is different with loss sensitivity. If defeats sting only mildly, add-ons hold little attraction. If they sting too much, non-buyers disengage altogether. Developers can influence these sensitivities through design choices — making victories more rewarding while keeping defeats painful but not unbearable.

Design and pricing

One might assume that the stronger the add-on, the better for profits. Yet our findings suggest otherwise. Making the add-on too powerful discourages non-buyers from playing at all, shrinking the competitive field and eroding the add-on’s value. In highly competitive genres, developers may actually benefit from deliberately limiting the power of pay-to-win items, ensuring the game remains engaging for all.

The introduction of P2W items forces developers to lower the base game price to keep P2W-non-buyers in the fold, compensating their disadvantage against P2W-buyers. In some cases, this means shifting to a freemium model, or even — in theory — setting a negative price, paying players to participate because their presence sustains the market for add-ons. And while lower prices might seem to discourage investment in quality, the opposite can happen: when losses feel especially painful for non-buyers, developers are pushed to raise quality to keep them engaged.

Perhaps most surprising is what this means for players themselves. P2W is often accused of undermining fairness and reducing enjoyment. Yet under the right conditions, our analysis shows it can actually increase player surplus. By broadening the player base and motivating higher investment in quality, the system can leave players better off than in a world without P2W.

Keeping the pond healthy

Players are often categorised into "whales" (big spenders), "dolphins" (moderate spenders) and "minnows" (low or non-spenders). For developers, pay-to-win add-ons are a tempting way to extract more profits from the less price-sensitive whales and dolphins. Yet their very success depends on the participation of the more price-sensitive minnows. These players may never spend much, but their presence ensures that competitive advantages remain meaningful for others. If minnows abandon the game, the pond dries up — and the value of P2W erodes with it.

The lesson is clear: introducing P2W is not simply about monetizing the biggest spenders. It is about keeping the entire ecosystem in balance. Developers who want sustainable profits must design their games so that whales, dolphins, and minnows can all swim in the same pond — even if not on equal terms.