He's right. It's despicable. Trading card games, too. The thing with Valve is that, outside of this monetization of online games, they've unquestionably had an enormous positive impact on all sorts of things in this medium just by way of sheer market forces. They've done a lot of great open source work, and they've helped create a viable exit ramp from Windows. Despite claims of monopoly on PC, they've created more market competition than we could have ever hoped to see otherwise. A lot of what they do is informed by what they would want to pay for if they were the customers. That stuff can be true, and at the same time, they have directed their online games in a data-driven way toward whatever creates the best results, and that result is legalized (mostly, for now) gambling for children and other addiction-driven spending behavior via battle passes. The worst part is that if they ever arrived here by accident, they're not remorseful enough to stop, since it makes so much money.

Rejecting monetization strategies that look, function, and feel a lot like gambling doesn't mean players will always appreciate their alternatives, however. Hall said that even he is frustrated by the "Paradox model" of paid expansion and DLC packs his studio RocketWerkz chose for its survival game Icarus after moving away from a free-to-play scheme.

It's been years, and I still scoff at the criticism. The Paradox model is to ask a price for a good that they produced. If you don't feel it's worth it, you don't buy it. They don't obfuscate the details of what's in the expansion; they don't make things available for a limited time only; they ask what they feel is a fair price for a product. It's the only method of monetizing a video game that doesn't feel scummy to me. If Hall doesn't like monetizing Icarus that way, he needs to scope his projects down so they can put a bow on the last one and move on to the next one more quickly.