Why Do Game Economies Fail?

Game economies can make or break a player’s experience. Whether it’s a finely tuned system that keeps players engaged or a frustrating grind that pushes them away, economic design is one of the trickiest aspects of game development. In this week’s Fateless Podcast, Brad hosts a discussion with Sham, Paul, and special guest Robert, the game economy designer for Godforge. Together, they break down why some game economies fail, how to balance grind and reward, and what makes a truly great in-game economy.

Paul kicks off the conversation with a bold question: “Do all game economies suck?” While some players might argue that most do, the team breaks down why this is a more complex issue than a simple “yes” or “no.”

Robert, who has 15+ years of experience in game economy design, points out that different economies cater to different types of players. There are casual, hardcore, and even ultra-hardcore economies that all appeal to different audiences. What seems like a bad economy to one player might actually be a well-balanced system for another.

Sham adds that some economies thrive when they’re player-driven, like in Path of Exile, where trading is central to progression. Others, like Diablo III’s ill-fated auction house, fall apart because they make obtaining items easier through real-money transactions than actual gameplay. This leads to a situation where the best way to progress isn’t playing the game—it’s just spending money. That’s a recipe for disaster.

One of the biggest challenges in game design is making sure the economy supports fun rather than restricts it. Robert explains that trading is especially dangerous for game economies because it removes control from the developers and hands it to players, often leading to exploits and inflation.

For example, in New World, gold-trading exploits spiraled out of control, making the in-game economy completely worthless and causing significant player drop-off. Similarly, Diablo III’s real-money auction house destroyed progression because it was easier to buy gear than to earn it.

Brad brings up Path of Exile 2, where players are currently frustrated with how difficult it is to trade items. The developers have intentionally made trading harder to prevent economic inflation, but this creates a delicate balance between keeping the game engaging and making trading feel rewarding.

So, what’s the right balance? Robert explains that when designing an economy, you don’t actually want to give players total freedom because it makes balancing progression impossible. The goal is to create a system that allows choice but keeps economic progression predictable.

Paul shifts the conversation toward an issue many players face: why do so many games feel overly punishing when it comes to resources? Instead of rewarding progress, some game economies seem designed to make the experience painful unless you pay to skip the grind.

He gives an example from Raid: Shadow Legends, where upgrading gear is so expensive that players feel afraid to spend resources because they know they’ll be completely broke afterward. This leads to anxiety rather than excitement, which is a major red flag for any economy.

Robert explains that many games have too many critical resources and not enough non-critical ones. Critical resources (like heroes and energy) are essential for progression, while non-critical resources (like convenience boosts) help smooth the experience. If a game sells too many critical resources, it forces developers to make the grind even worse to encourage purchases. This creates an unhealthy loop where grinding just feeds into another grind instead of feeling rewarding.

Trading is one of the most common questions players ask about Godforge. Could it be done in a way that doesn’t break the economy? The team debates possible solutions:

• Limited trades within a guild (like in Clash Royale)
• Restricting the number of trades per month
• Making certain high-value items untradeable to prevent market flooding

Robert is skeptical, noting that no game in the mobile RPG genre has successfully implemented trading without major problems. Still, he acknowledges that trading can be a huge factor in long-term engagement, as seen in games like RuneScape and Path of Exile.

Out of all the games discussed, only one stands out as having a truly balanced economy: EVE Online.

Paul explains that EVE Online is the gold standard for in-game economies because it functions just like a real-world market. The developers hired actual economists to oversee it, and players dictate item values through supply and demand rather than artificial systems. This makes EVE Online the only game where the economy feels truly alive and isn’t controlled by arbitrary developer decisions.

However, this model wouldn’t work in most games. In mobile RPGs, players expect structured progression, and allowing the economy to be fully player-driven could cause serious imbalances.

The team wants Godforge’s economy to feel fair, rewarding, and sustainable for the long term. Robert is looking at shifting away from heavy grind-based monetization (common in many Asian RPGs) and focusing more on non-critical resource sales. This means:

• Making grinding feel rewarding rather than punishing
• Ensuring players can make meaningful progress without paying
• Offering monetization options that feel like bonuses rather than requirements

The key takeaway? Game economies should encourage players to stay, not force them to pay.

To wrap up, the team shares their favorite game economies:

• Brad: Diablo III’s auction house (in concept, not execution)
• Paul: EVE Online’s fully player-driven market
• Sham: Star Wars Galaxies, with its deep player-run economy
• Robert: Clash Royale, for its elegant reward system

Finally, Robert answers a fun question: Which mythological character should be added to Godforge? His pick? Odysseus, for his cunning mind and legendary status in Greek mythology.