Monday Tip-Off: Should Reviews Be Harsher on Microtransactions?
We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on whether reviews of NBA 2K should be harsher on microtransactions.
Many years ago, I used to post bulletins about other sites’ reviews of the latest game. It’s something our founders did, and I followed their example as it certainly seemed like the logical thing to do. With the preview season at an end and a new game now available, sharing those reviews reported on its general reception, and provided our community with an assortment of professional opinions as they considered picking it up. In recent years, I’ve stopped doing that. Beyond the lack of any reciprocation as far as sending other sites traffic, I’ve been unimpressed by so many reviews.
When it came to NBA Live reviews during the eighth generation, it felt like several publications were more interested in being snarky and delighting in its shortcomings, rather than being informative and constructively critical. As for NBA 2K, while there has been more to praise, it’s also felt as though some reviewers are far too gentle and forgiving. It’s not surprising in an era of content creators and access journalism, but it’s dismaying to see major issues being glossed over. In particular, it bugs me when microtransactions are basically met with a resigned shrug, or ignored altogether. Still, it’s fair to wonder if there’s any point in reviews being harsher on microtransactions.
After all, at this point microtransactions are here to stay; well, assuming that more countries don’t ban them as some European nations already have, anyway. I hate to say that we’ve lost the war on microtransactions and greedy downloadable content, but realistically, we have. Pre-order bonuses and add-ons that were once readily-available or unlockable extra content, Season/Battle Passes, and in-game currency that can be purchased with real money in order to speed up progress – or actually allow a game to be enjoyable – have all been normalised. Indeed, too many gamers don’t just accept this as a grim reality, but even staunchly defend these anti-consumer practices.
None of this is news, and that’s the issue here. We know the situation, but people are either in favour of it, or just feel too defeated to object any further. To argue against microtransactions these days is to yell into the wind. You’ll end up sounding like a broken record, even to those who completely agree with you. As for publications and big content creators, once again the threat of losing access is an effective deterrent to harsh criticism of microtransactions in reviews, assuming that they’re mentioned at all. If nothing else, how much of your review can you dedicate to an issue that people are already aware of, one they either don’t care about or already agree with you on?
To put it another way, if reviews were harsher on the microtransactions in NBA 2K, would it make a difference? As far as removing them, definitely not! As I said, the methods of squeezing every last cent out of gamers have been normalised to the point of being defended and even celebrated as a status symbol. It’s why we have people smugly claiming that anyone who dislikes microtransactions is “broke“; as if pumping hundreds and even thousands of dollars into a game with two years of online support is an achievement to be proud of. To that end, calling out microtransactions in reviews is noble, but won’t change anything beyond jeopardising your access moving forward.
With that being said, it’s not as though all reviews of NBA 2K games are ignoring the elephant in the room. Reading some reviews of NBA 2K26, I was pleasantly surprised to see that microtransactions are being mentioned and even criticised. Well, the issue is acknowledged, anyway. When it comes to the cost of MyTEAM packs, upgrades in MyCAREER, and the pressure to buy VC thanks to a lengthy grind and a competitive scene influenced by those willing to spend and spend big, some reviews feel more like they’re offering a friendly heads-up rather than truly being critical. Even the reviews that are a bit harsher on microtransactions don’t seem to factor them into their score.
It rings rather hollow to identify microtransactions as a major drawback that impacts enjoyment by forcing gamers to choose between paying or mindlessly grinding, only to award a game a high score and recommend it. Again, I understand the desire not to beat a dead horse, as well as the ability to find ways to enjoy games without spending money. I also understand being diplomatic in your critique, though again a number of NBA 2K26 reviews have acknowledged the microtransactions in some way. It does feel like lip service, though; an obligatory mention to maintain credibility and avoid sounding like a complete shill, while deftly avoiding burning any bridges with 2K.
Look, it’s better than nothing, but it’s still doing a disservice to consumers. You see, it’s not just about harshly rebuking Take-Two for implementing greedy practices to please the suits and shareholders. They’re not going to be shamed into goodwill, and microtransactions are a ubiquitous issue in gaming besides, so I’m not holding any reviews responsible for failing to shut down the practice! However, it’s important to really dive into how microtransactions and grindy alternatives to paying impact the design of modes and the quality of the experience on offer. Reviews should discuss costs, the rate of progression, and the overall viability of going No Money Spent.
If your MyPLAYER or MyTEAM squad can level up at a fair and satisfying rate, through a journey that doesn’t punish you for not buying oodles of VC, that’s great; that’s what we want! Conversely, a brutal grind that forces gamers into mindless, repetitive tasks that may or may not have anything to do with basketball is a sign of a game that’s intentionally been designed to be less fun if you don’t spend. Seeing as how video games are meant to be fun, it’s important to know either way! That’s why reviews should discuss the impact of microtransactions, and be appropriately harsh if they do detract from the enjoyment, rather than simply being a “convenient shortcut”.
In all fairness, some of the NBA 2K26 reviews that I’ve read didn’t exactly mince their words when it came to microtransactions. They mentioned dollar amounts, while acknowledging VC as “pricey” and problematic for all of the usual reasons. I’ll admit that I was surprised to see some reviewers be so candid here, and heartened that they transparently listed it as one of the game’s cons. Of course, there was one review that barely mentioned it in passing, even going so far as to assert that it’s possible to “stay competitive without dropping too much VC”. Other reviews were harsher, but to my earlier point, they nevertheless downplayed the issue when awarding their scores.
And look, I get it. I understand the need to play the game and be measured in your criticism so as not to ruffle feathers and lose access. I can also absolutely relate to enjoying the gameplay and other modes that aren’t impacted by microtransactions, and thus being able to enthusiastically recommend a title despite those concerns. I don’t want to discount the rest of those reviews and the factors that understandably contributed to favourable scores, or suggest that they aren’t entitled to their opinion. At the same time however, it does feel like reviews are holding back when they’re soft on microtransactions, or gloss over the criticism when rendering their final verdict.
Therefore, I absolutely would like to see reviews being harsher on microtransactions. I’d have great respect for any reviewer willing to say “this game would be an 8 or 9, but the way it forces you to choose between a joyless grind or spending above and beyond the original price lowers it to a 5”. Mind you, when TheSixthAxis gave NBA 2K18 a score of 3/10 owing to the prevalence of microtransactions, the score ended up being temporarily removed after 2K asked them to reconsider it. Removing it was a questionable decision, and though it was restored, I don’t buy the claim that there was no pressure from 2K. That kind of request will always carry an implied threat!
To that point, it’s not entirely fair of me to sit back and demand that publications and content creators abandon all semblance of diplomacy and take that stand. They’re the ones who have to risk their access and indeed their livelihood, so it’s easy for me to ask that they put it on the line. Furthermore, my respect and admiration wouldn’t pay their bills! All the same, I’d undoubtedly admire anyone with clout and an audience that has the guts to hit 2K (or any greedy Triple-A studio) where it hurts: right in the Metacritic score. Beyond any positive changes it might have on the games, it also sends a strong message that reviewers won’t be bullied into providing promotion.
It’s also important to note that between microtransactions, seasonal content, and major patches, NBA 2K has become a more difficult game to conclusively review. Games can end up being significantly better or worse after they’ve been out for a few months. Reviewers are rating games before the community has had a chance to discover and exploit the meta, push for major changes, and impact the competitive balance through microtransactions. History should suggest that these will be factors and concerns, but there’s no way that a pre-release or launch week review can comment on a situation that’s yet to play out. Of course, that’s proof that there’s value in follow-up reviews.
I understand the reluctance to be harsh on microtransactions in reviews of NBA 2K. From potential blacklisting to beating a dead horse in a Sisyphean battle, there are reasons why reviewers won’t delve too deeply into a well-known and long-standing issue. With all due respect though, controversial practices shouldn’t be immune to criticism just because they’re commonplace, and gamers deserve to be better informed of the far-reaching effects of a title’s recurrent revenue mechanics. You don’t have to be snarkily antagonistic about it – save that for those of us with no bridges to burn – but take off the kid gloves of lip service when discussing a game’s greedy practices.
The post Monday Tip-Off: Should Reviews Be Harsher on Microtransactions? appeared first on NLSC.