Activision Blizzard
Activision Blizzard
Call of Duty'outside-in Battle Pass study, across 4 games and 5 experience layers
Activision Blizzard
Call of Duty'outside-in Battle Pass study, across 4 games and 5 experience layers
00
Company
Activision Blizzard
Collaborators
Live Operations Team (Brent Arenst, Jason Leigh, User Research Team)
Timeline
Summer 2025, 3 months
Industry
Video Game, Interactive Entertainment
Role
UI/UX Design Intern
Responsibilities
Competitive analysis · Strategic research · Synthesis & framework-building · Stakeholder alignment
Context
What is a battle pass?
What is a battle pass?
A Battle Pass is a seasonal reward system used in live-service games. As players play, they earn progress that unlocks rewards like character skins, weapons, and in-game currency, across a track that resets each season.
A Battle Pass is a seasonal reward system used in live-service games. As players play, they earn progress that unlocks rewards like character skins, weapons, and in-game currency, across a track that resets each season.
Most games offer a free tier and a paid tier, which makes the Battle Pass both a way to keep players coming back and one of a game's biggest sources of revenue. Because so much engagement and spending flows through it, how clearly players can read and navigate the pass has a direct impact on whether they keep playing.
Most games offer a free tier and a paid tier, which makes the Battle Pass both a way to keep players coming back and one of a game's biggest sources of revenue. Because so much engagement and spending flows through it, how clearly players can read and navigate the pass has a direct impact on whether they keep playing.
Overview
Context
Benchmarking four live-service Battle Passes to give Call of Duty a clear, prioritized path to a better progression experience.
Benchmarking four live-service Battle Passes to give Call of Duty a clear, prioritized path to a better progression experience.
The Battle Pass is one of the most-visited surfaces in Call of Duty, and it carries a tricky balance. It has to drive revenue while still feeling fair to players, two goals that often work against each other. Like most live-service teams, the studio regularly reviews player insights and analytics. My contribution was to bring a dedicated UX-focused breakdown of the experience itself through an outside-in lens. I looked into how players read, navigate, and emotionally interpret progression systems across competing games.
The Battle Pass is one of the most-visited surfaces in Call of Duty, and it carries a tricky balance. It has to drive revenue while still feeling fair to players, two goals that often work against each other. Like most live-service teams, the studio regularly reviews player insights and analytics. My contribution was to bring a dedicated UX-focused breakdown of the experience itself through an outside-in lens. I looked into how players read, navigate, and emotionally interpret progression systems across competing games.
Over about 6 weeks, I purchased and played 4 live-service Battle Passes, mapped their player flows, and built a structured comparison across progression clarity, reward visibility, challenge integration, and claim flows. The result distilled hundreds of screens into a focused strategic read, and several friction points I flagged UX conversations underway internally around clarity, progression readability, and reward communication.
Over about 6 weeks, I purchased and played 4 live-service Battle Passes, mapped their player flows, and built a structured comparison across progression clarity, reward visibility, challenge integration, and claim flows. The result distilled hundreds of screens into a focused strategic read, and several friction points I flagged UX conversations underway internally around clarity, progression readability, and reward communication.
Problem
Battle Passes have become increasingly complex, often at the expense of player clarity
Battle Passes have become increasingly complex, often at the expense of player clarity
Call of Duty's pass sits on the restrained end of the monetization spectrum which is a genuine strength for fairness. But "fair" doesn't automatically mean "clear," and the team had no structured answer to a simple question.
Call of Duty's pass sits on the restrained end of the monetization spectrum which is a genuine strength for fairness. But "fair" doesn't automatically mean "clear," and the team had no structured answer to a simple question.
|
|
|
0NaN
A framework before a critique
Problem
I decided what "good" looked like before I judged anyone.
Battle Passes have become increasingly complex, often at the expense of player clarity
To make the findings comparable and credible, I defined the evaluation up front and applied it identically to every game, including ours.
Call of Duty's pass sits on the restrained end of the monetization spectrum which is a genuine strength for fairness. But "fair" doesn't automatically mean "clear," and the team had no structured answer to a simple question.
I broke each Battle Pass into five experience layers
The breakdown
I learned the systems by living in them.
I learned the systems by living in them.
I benchmarked Call of Duty against Fortnite, Marvel Rivals, and Apex Legends. These four passes genuinely had different philosophies: token-and-page, XP-and-page, multi-currency, and linear star-based.
I benchmarked Call of Duty against Fortnite, Marvel Rivals, and Apex Legends. These four passes genuinely had different philosophies: token-and-page, XP-and-page, multi-currency, and linear star-based.
To make the comparison legible at a glance, I built a matrix that plotted each game on two axes that actually matter to the player experience: how aggressive the monetization felt, and how clear and intuitive the system was.
To make the comparison legible at a glance, I built a matrix that plotted each game on two axes that actually matter to the player experience: how aggressive the monetization felt, and how clear and intuitive the system was.
0NaN
What I found
Low-pressure pricing builds trust but hides value
Low-pressure pricing builds trust but hides value
Call of Duty's monetization is the most subtle of the four, which is why it feels fair. But that same subtlety made progress tracking feel opaque and the value of upgrades hard to read. The aggressive models (Marvel Rivals and Apex) had the opposite problem where there is clearer value, at the cost of players feeling pushed to spend.
Call of Duty's monetization is the most subtle of the four, which is why it feels fair. But that same subtlety made progress tracking feel opaque and the value of upgrades hard to read. The aggressive models (Marvel Rivals and Apex) had the opposite problem where there is clearer value, at the cost of players feeling pushed to spend.
From findings to recommendations
I borrowed the proven mechanics that improved clarity and motivation while protecting the fairness Call of Duty’s pass was already known for.
I borrowed the proven mechanics that improved clarity and motivation while protecting the fairness Call of Duty’s pass was already known for.
I translated each pattern into a prioritized set of recommendations, organized by the same five layers and paired with specific takeaways for what we could adopt from each competitor and what to avoid.
The specific recommendations and proposed directions are withheld here for confidentiality. I'm glad to walk through the thinking and prioritization in an interview.
I translated each pattern into a prioritized set of recommendations, organized by the same five layers and paired with specific takeaways for what we could adopt from each competitor and what to avoid.
The specific recommendations and proposed directions are withheld here for confidentiality. I'm glad to walk through the thinking and prioritization in an interview.
Reflection
I learned who I was actually designing for
The biggest lesson was that the user isn't always who you're designing for. I started out building wireframes the way a product designer would. But the real audience was busy studio stakeholders who needed the core insight and a clear question, not a usability study. Once I led with the point of view instead of the process, the work landed.
Reflection
I learned who I was actually designing for
The biggest lesson was that the user isn't always who you're designing for. I started out building wireframes the way a product designer would. But the real audience was busy studio stakeholders who needed the core insight and a clear question, not a usability study. Once I led with the point of view instead of the process, the work landed.
Reflection
I learned who I was actually designing for
The biggest lesson was that the user isn't always who you're designing for. I started out building wireframes the way a product designer would. But the real audience was busy studio stakeholders who needed the core insight and a clear question, not a usability study. Once I led with the point of view instead of the process, the work landed.
Reflection
I learned who I was actually designing for
The biggest lesson was that the user isn't always who you're designing for. I started out building wireframes the way a product designer would. But the real audience was busy studio stakeholders who needed the core insight and a clear question, not a usability study. Once I led with the point of view instead of the process, the work landed.
Reflection
I learned who I was actually designing for
The biggest lesson was that the user isn't always who you're designing for. I started out building wireframes the way a product designer would. But the real audience was busy studio stakeholders who needed the core insight and a clear question, not a usability study. Once I led with the point of view instead of the process, the work landed.
Company
Actvision Blizzard
Collaborators
Live Operations Team (Brent Arnst, Jason Leigh, User Research Team)
Timeline
Summer 2025, 3 months
Industry
Video Game, Interactive Entertainment
Role
UI/UX Design Intern
Responsibilities
Competitive analysis · Strategic research · Synthesis & framework building · Stakeholder alignment