The Seven Deadly Sins Origin Monetization Breakdown: How Aggressive Is It Compared To Other Netmarble Games?

The Seven Deadly Sins: Origin uses a multi‑layered, live‑service monetization very similar to Grand Cross, gacha banners, subs, passes, and cosmetic/upgrade packs, with early impressions putting it in the “aggressive but playable” range for a Netmarble title. It leans harder than average on long‑term ARPU and cross‑platform engagement, but not obviously worse than Netmarble’s recent flagship RPGs.​

What Origin is trying to monetize

Analyst write‑ups and interviews make clear that Origin is designed as a long‑tail revenue pillar, not a one‑off premium game.

• IP‑driven gacha core
  • Origin extends the Grand Cross formula with a gacha system that lets you collect characters from both The Seven Deadly Sins and Four Knights of the Apocalypse, plus future expansions.​
  • Character gacha is the primary recurring revenue stream, backed by in‑app purchases and live events.​
• Subscriptions and live‑service layers
  • The monetization “blends in‑app purchases, subscriptions, and live‑service content,” mirroring Netmarble’s broader strategy of stacking battle passes, monthlies, and event bundles on top of gacha.​
  • Cross‑play (mobile, PC, console) is called out as a way to drive social monetization, pushing co‑op and multiplayer as engagement loops that support spending.​
• Advertising and rewarded video
  • Netmarble has a history of adding rewarded video ads to boost retention and monetize non‑spenders, tripling retention in previous titles that adopted this model.​

In short, Origin is built from the ground up as a modern F2P live service, not a “gentle” gacha side project.

How it compares to Grand Cross

Grand Cross is the closest benchmark, and community opinions show a clear pattern: generous at launch, more aggressive later.

• Early generosity vs later squeeze
  • Players note Netmarble’s “common tactic” where games feel very F2P‑friendly for the first 3–6 months, then start adding more pay‑to‑win components and tighter monetization.​
  • Grand Cross veterans complain that over time it became harder for F2P (and even 100€‑per‑month spenders) to keep up with frequent limited releases and new systems.​
• Still considered relatively F2P‑friendly
  • At the same time, some content creators argue Grand Cross remains “one of the most F2P‑friendly gachas,” citing plentiful gem income and the ability to clear most content without heavy dupes.​​
  • F2P account showcases demonstrate strong rosters built from long‑term gem farming and targeted summoning.​
• Origin’s positioning
  • Origin is explicitly described as a sequel leveraging Grand Cross’ success, suggesting Netmarble will reuse that curve: generous gem income and banner cadence early, then increasing monetization via new systems, limited units, and high‑value bundles.​

Relative to Grand Cross, Origin looks like a refined version: similar gacha, more platforms, more social hooks, and likely a similar drift from comfortable to pressured over time.

How it compares to other Netmarble gachas

Netmarble’s portfolio shows a consistent pattern of strong monetization that often draws criticism.

• Reputation for “Greedmarble” design
  • Community threads and creator videos regularly criticize Netmarble for super‑spender‑friendly systems, monetizing progression materials, and layering pricey bundles onto new content.​​
  • Examples include:
    • Monetizing new relic/gear systems shortly after release.​
    • Tight drop rates or grindy events that push players toward buying material packs.​​
• F2P vs spender experience
  • Discussions around titles like Solo Leveling: Arise note that Netmarble can “seem generous” with pulls while making materials and progression the real bottleneck, heavily favoring spenders who buy those packs.​
  • Players summarize the company ethos as: “if you give us 50,000$ we will give you 5$ as an achievement,” highlighting a perception of aggressive monetization even among whales.​

Within that ecosystem, Origin is not an outlier in aggressiveness, it uses the same playbook of strong IP, banner churn, monetized materials, and layered packs, but it also pairs that with substantial content and F2P viability for disciplined players.​​

Overall aggressiveness rating

Putting the evidence together, Origin’s monetization sits roughly at:

• Launch phase
  • Likely similar to early Grand Cross: generous gem/ticket income, approachable banner cadence, and relatively F2P‑friendly progression if you plan around pity.​​
  • Monetization still feels present (subs, passes, pre‑order packs), but not suffocating.​
• Mature phase
  • History suggests Netmarble will gradually increase pressure via:
    • More frequent limited/festival banners and collabs.​
    • New monetized systems (relic‑like gear, artifacts, cosmetics with stats, etc.).​
    • High‑value but expensive packs aimed at whales and dolphins.​​
  • This is in line with the “very F2P at first, then P2W components appear” pattern players warn about.​
• Compared to Netmarble’s wider catalog
  • Origin appears average‑to‑high in aggressiveness by Netmarble standards: more layers than older games due to cross‑platform and social focus, but not obviously worse than other modern Netmarble RPGs that mix generous pulls with monetized materials and passes.​

For a practical takeaway: The Seven Deadly Sins: Origin is playable and competitive for careful F2P/dolphins, especially early, but anyone expecting a mild or minimalist monetization model will likely see it as aggressive, very much in line with Netmarble’s reputation rather than a departure from it.