this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
67 points (98.6% liked)
Games
16785 readers
847 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, that exemplary industry with no need for regulation: advertising.
Banning specific mechanics will never solve anything. It's all tiny variations on the same abuse. You recognize it's bad enough to become illegal, but think chasing existing forms that feel especially bad will make you any less manipulated. All that's going to accomplish is a focus on smoother needles for more efficient wallet siphons.
The existence of non-abusive games is utterly irrelevant to the problems of escalating and spreading abuse. When I point out this is infecting everything, objections that go 'well only nearly everything' are wildly missing the point. I don't fucking care if that's still a game that doesn't do this, when I condemn a multi-billion-dollar industry for practices you know include criminally abusive exploitation. All I am telling you is that "include" is insufficient.
"It makes money so it can't be wrong."
I never said this. I never said any of it is or should be illegal, except loot boxes (only illegal because they should be classified as "gambling" and regulated as such) and maybe minors playing F2P games supported by cosmetics (smells like child labor since showing off to F2P players is the main attraction).
I merely said I don't like it, not that it is or should be illegal. I don't have to make everything that I don't like illegal, only things that actually have victims, and someone choosing to buy something stupid doesn't make them a victim unless they were defrauded in how that thing was presented (i.e. false advertising). You're not a victim if something bad happens to you, you're only a victim if you didn't consent.
"Except loot boxes" is you-saying-that. You're even suggesting a partial ban on cosmetics, unbidden. Thanks? Nice to know you understand it's awful, and why it's awful. Not sure why you think it becomes okay when the targets are adults.
Consent means nothing if it's manufactured. Which these systems obviously do, through utterly shameless manipulation, in an environment made-up by the people taking your money. All appearance of value is contrived. The fact you get the worthless geegaw you were cajoled into believing is worth fifty actual dollars doesn't matter. The process is the problem.
That's a special case because it's gambling. That's not a comment about MTX in general or addictiveness, but that specific form because it's based on chance and there's no way to recoup your "investment." Anything that's purchased based on chance should have a secondary market to exchange things you don't want.
Adults are capable of consent, so they should be free to make their own decisions.
I disagree. People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent, and people should be absolutely free to oppose it. I hold that to be a fundamental freedom, because a restriction of that means you're letting someone else decide what's best for you. Nobody has that authority other than the individual themselves.
I make my own decision to avoid such nonsense, but I think it's unjust to forcibly restrict someone else from making a stupid choice, provided they are capable of consent. There are certainly limitations here (e.g. should be illegal to coerce someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol), but those all must reach some standard of foreknowledge.
If there's a law here, it should be refunds if the person was not of sound mind when they made the purchase, so perhaps a mandatory 36-hour window for returns if the user presents reasonable evidence that they were impaired (i.e. if the purchase was made at an irregular time, or the person can show evidence of being under the influence), and if the purchase was of an abnormal amount (i.e. spent hundreds instead of the usual <$10).
Jesus.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
'I want to choose not to get robbed blind' is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit... and figure the real problem is a lack of "undo." Nah dude. It's the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don't regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
Because they're not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That's a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you're getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it's not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you're getting exactly what was advertised and often there's a "try before you buy" setup (i.e. it'll show you what your character looks like with it on).
Well yeah, because they didn't get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you're not getting what was promised, it's a scam.
With MTX, you're getting exactly what was promised, so it's not a scam, it's just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises "a fifty-dollar value!" and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it's not obviously bullshit... you can remain satisfied.
It's still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. "Absolutely," no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That's how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don't technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don't already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they'd otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else 'regret for being misled' wouldn't be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could "lower" it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn't matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don't endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of "implied consent" (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can't really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking "buy" is very different from not shouting "no" (and potentially running from the house).
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they're all consenting adults and there's little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don't think that interaction should be illegal.
It's more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn't realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that's a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
It's not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models "we" feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
'I'm not condoning this... it should be my right!'
Why bother discussing anything if people don't listen to themselves?
We invented "the free market." It's a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once it's proven to work. Some options are not allowed to exist because they make everything terrible for everybody.
You are actively defending that bullshit, tooth and nail. Splitting hairs about ethics versus law. Pretending money isn't a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. What's the point explaining systemic exploitation to someone who thinks fire codes are tyranny?
People are getting tricked and robbed for billions of dollars, just trying to play some games, and every single discussion veers into batshit crazy nonsense. I shouldn't have to defend law, as a concept, to condemn an industry-swallowing problem with no justification besides greed, when even the cranks getting on my case agree that it's fucking garbage.
You don't use this. You don't want this. You don't benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people they're subjecting to this manipulative crap?
No, the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever. We add restrictions on top to make sure everyone is playing fair.
We should only restrict options that are unfair, such as fraudulent transactions, anticompetitive behavior (e.g. monopolies), etc. Convincing someone to buy your thing isn't unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
There's a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. I'm not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldn't be illegal.
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesn't pass code, not that the code shouldn't exist.
The vast majority of people won't buy something that doesn't pass code, especially if it comes with a bunch of restrictions, like increased liability for any injuries due to not being at code. Building codes have a ton of value, but they don't need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldn't buy a house that's not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isn't.
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I don't care for is restricting individual rights just because some people make stupid choices.
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model. I think their shallow and vain, but that doesn't mean I should take something they enjoy away because I don't it, or because some people can't handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I don't like it, I've seen plenty lives ruined by it, and the US felt strongly enough about it to pass a constitutional amendment banning it (and later reversed it).
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what y'all mean, when you fluff up "the free market." You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust they're making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. There's only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artist's story. More "tiger rock" than "deed to the Brooklyn Bridge," but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
"Manufacturing consent" is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if that's not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, I'll be more libertarian than you: why shouldn't we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. They're adults, right? It's their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isn't an option? It's an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldn't dictate the law. They clicked Buy and it's my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think that's wrong.
Do you read all this, or just type it?
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other people's decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons don't ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
"Just sell video games" is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
The "Wild West" was quite tame (pretty good read imo), and was a lot safer at least from a murder perspective than major cities at the time. Even today, rural areas have lower crime rates.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when there's a level of abstraction (i.e. you're not hurting your neighbor, but someone you don't know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isn't because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, it's the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. It's one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you can't operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what I'm selling.
There's no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly what's it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isn't "screw you, got mine," it's a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Both. There's a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something that's not certified, I just don't get the guarantees that come with certification.
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I don't need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesn't make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there weren't other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I don't see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. That's worse than the joke about principles. Yeah keep going on about the evils of systems and power, as you argue these corporations have every right to manipulate money out of people.
Says who?
"The free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever." It can't be a crime if there's no government. I didn't put a gun to anyone's head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and it's on them to evaluate whether I'm full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. That's exactly what you're doing, when you say that as a society "gets bigger," individuals need guarantees that they're not about to get fucked over.
No you would not, if your principles existed. You'd just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we don't say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we don't tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. I'm not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense we're getting with opposition to police. Do you think that's a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps it's just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So I'm going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I don't believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals don't need guarantees that they're not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that they'll get what they expect to get in the transaction. Whether they can get a better deal somewhere else is completely irrelevant.
Should and must are very different things. Should is about morality, must is about law.
Games shouldn't use MTX because that's a manipulative way to run a business. But provided they're not misrepresenting the product, I don't see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. I'll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and I'll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because that's restricts others' rights. Many people like evergreen games, and MTX is the main way to fund that.
We can discuss requirements for games to make and advertise options to set purchase limits, but I will never support a bill to ban that type of game, unless there's some kind of monopolistic behavior that's preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you don't support meaningful consumer protection laws. You don't support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise they're just fire suggestions. Fire... best practices. You can figure out which meaning of should I am using, as I tell you, there should be no fire-prone homes allowed!
People shouldn't have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, I'll retype that to appease your latest hair-splitting: people must not be forced to choose between acceptable options - and becoming a victim.
Anyone buying an unsafe house is a victim, no matter how ardently they insist it's fine. It's not. These laws are written in blood. Innocent strangers die when we let that shit happen. In large part because, hey guess what, markets only care about money. Optimize for money alone and you get places where no home is safe, but people still have to live, because it's where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that won't burn down, but buying one that might, is blaming those victims.
You know this. These are the laws we require, in large societies. You chafe at the comparison of your arguments to anarchist arguments, albeit possibly because you're unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And you'll glibly suggest "purchase limits."
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever you're selling is absolute? You insist this business model of selling soccer goals is in no way a scam, so who cares if someone blows every paycheck on it? If you want to say it's addiction, do we stop people from being alcoholics? Are you against substances that are almost unavoidably addictive, on a physiological level?
If this continues to spread, and becomes an effective monopoly - why do you suddenly care? Why is the point where it becomes a problem for you the point where it's too late?
I never said that. I think fire codes are a fantastic idea, I just don't think a house not meeting code should make it unsellable.
And that's essentially what the current law is, at least in my area. New construction is required to meet code, older houses are not required to in order to sell. If you want to turn a house into a business, it needs to pass code (e.g. I had to buy and install a couple fire extinguishers when I registered my home business).
If I made a legal change here, it would be requiring an up-front disclosure of any building codes the seller is aware of violating so the buyer doesn't need to waste time and money with an inspection. I'm also a fan of requiring any legal contract to be understandable with an 8th grade education (i.e. no legalese) and reasonable in length and scope (i.e. a page of 12pt font should be fine for most cases). I want contracts to be something people are expected to read and understand, not where you hide all the gotchas on page 22 of small print.
No, but I'm okay with requiring them to be used under supervision, especially since a "bad trip" often presents a hazard to the public.
I see two options here:
The first just pushes it to the streets, and you'll end up having to police that, which means a ton of innocent people get screwed over. Look at how successful our "war in drugs" has been, it's an absolute clown show, and things are way better in places with looser restrictions (i.e. Portugal, The Netherlands, etc).
Controlling it means allowing pretty much all drugs, but with increasing requirements on supervision for use. Maybe some drugs just aren't allowed because there's no safe way to use it (e.g. fentanyl), but there should be an avenue the public can use to get legal access to most drugs. I think we should tax it as well to fund rehabilitation, but almost never outright ban it. Safer drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc) should be allowed over the counter, while others may require a supervised appointment (heroin, cocaine, psilocybin, etc).
That depends on the type of monopoly, I suppose, but suppressing alternatives is a big no for me. If the public decides MTX are the way to go and there's no force from game studios to make that dominant, that's a very different thing.
I really don't see that being the case. In almost every case, a "natural monopoly" is anything but, usually it's due to some entrenched business being able to craft laws such that competition is impractical. Look at places where cable is the only available from of Internet access, this isn't because competitors don't bother servicing an area, but because the local cable company has put so many legal barriers in place that competition isn't practical.
So if everything turns into MTX, there's probably illegal coercion going on behind the scenes because I know there's a market for non-MTX games. The more market share it gets, the more seriously we should look at regulation (e.g. How does this look for children? Is there a way to place caps? Is there a form of gambling here? Etc).
Just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it should be illegal, it may just need to more transparent about the bad bits. But if people want to smoke and drink, I'm fine as long as they understand the health risks of doing so and they don't bother others while doing it.
I am just so tired of dealing with your entire worldview.
We can't ban unethical business practices because that's dictating customers' morality, somehow.
Oh but it's not unethical because manipulating people is good actually.
Oh but it's not manipulation if it works.
Don't I know that consumer protection laws are like banning drugs? Which you're okay with if they're the wrong drugs?
I just do not give a shit what you want, anymore. Your principles are slippery and their justifications are ahistorical and it all leads to conclusions that should make you reconsider. I'm not convinced you know what cognitive dissonance feels like.
This entire business model is horrible in a way you ardently defend, whilst insisting you're not defending it. You have grand-sounding reasons for encouraging everything short of already-criminal fraud. You keep saying you're not encouraging it, but quite frankly, come the fuck on. All you've had to say against it is the wishy-washiest nitpicking at the boundaries of this metastasizing industry-wide problem that didn't exist a decade ago. And you seem serenely unbothered by how often your unprompted legislative suggestions do not square with the alleged rationale for otherwise naysaying the only solution that would actually work.
I do not intended to give you further attention on this subject. Quite frankly 'absolute freedom to manufacture consent' is where I should've pulled the chute, and it'll be my point of reference next time someone asks why I don't give a shit about libertarian arguments for this blatant exploitation.
You really like twisting my words...
I said manipulating people (as in, advertising a product using research about efficacy) is covered under free speech. That doesn't make it good, it just makes it protected. That right ends when you defraud someone though, because that's a contractual violation.
No, the only drugs that should be banned are those that present a significant risk to others. Something like Fentanyl has an incredibly high risk to the public because even a small amount can cause serious side effects, whereas something like marijuana has pretty much no risk.
There's a spectrum here, and the standard should be risk to the public, not whatever nonsense the DEA has come up with.
That also goes for business practices. If it's consensual, it should probably be allowed, even if it's predatory in nature (e.g. gambling). If it's coercive (e.g. ransomware attacks), it should be banned and prosecuted. There's a pretty clear distinction there.
I absolutely agree. I just disagree about it needing to be banned. I'm also disgusted with the tobacco industry (and they've done some truly predatory advertising in the past before the crackdowns), but I'll defend everyone's right to buy cigarettes.
This type of business practice is very old. Yeah, video game MTX are new, but selling FOMO isn't. In the past it was subscriptions to all kinds of things, collectibles, "as seen on TV" nonsense, etc.
The main shift is moving that to digital products and reducing the barrier to payment, but the business model itself is quite old. Basically the pattern is:
That's basically a MTX, just with a physical product instead of digital.
Then thanks for the discussion, and I hope you have a fantastic day. But if you want to continue, I'll probably respond.
Your words keep being 'well no, but actually yes.' Almost verbatim re: drugs. "No, the only--" if there's an "only" then that's "the wrong drugs," ya doof.
This bullshit isn't "mediocre." It's a scam. I do not respect the framework you push to deny that it's a scam. What you consider above-board is fucking horrifying.
The shittiest possible physical product is infinitely more real than charging actual money to increment a variable inside a video game on your computer. Even if people don't think they've been tricked into that - they have. It's nonsense. It is neither a good nor a service. It needs to be stopped, and no half measures will suffice.
The alternatives are still super duper capitalist, so you can relax.
No, you're being overly reductive. For example:
That strongly implies that argumentation here is subjective. It's not, it's based on objective measures, such as harm to non-users. The current law is objective, but stupid (based on usefulness in medicine).
Your arguments are overly reductive.
You do precisely that's with your argument re: MTX (MTX is bad so it should be banned). Your strongest argument is, "it's addictive." Should we ban everything that's addictive? (e.g. food, sex, work) Or only things with a financial consequence? (e.g. stock trading, extreme sports) Or only things without a physical good attached? (e.g. digital books, digital video games) Or things with a manipulative aspect? (any form of advertising, time-based exclusivity, etc)
What exactly is the objective measure you're basing the ban on? Why doesn't that apply to other, similar things? It sounds like your argument is, "I don't like it and I (or a friend) have made poor choices, so it shouldn't be allowed." Yeah, banning it will probably help some people, but that's very much "the ends justify the means" logic, and therefore invalid.
I don't care if it's capitalist, socialist, etc, I care about use of force. You need a very good reason to prevent me from doing something, as in, it would violate someone else's rights or would likely cause someone else to violate another's rights.
The economic system isn't important to me, individual rights are. I actually don't like capitalism much, but it has so far done a decent job of preserving self-determination. I also believe a lot of people will make stupid choices, so I also believe in a social safety net (something like UBI, addiction recovery programs, etc) so people who have screwed up have a way out. But I'm opposed to the government making choices for me.
'My normative opinion is objective' really underlines the problem.
As does calling an argument reductive before reducing it to 'it is bad.'
And then focusing on the word "addictive" when the actual argument is, this entire business model is fucking nonsense that sells literally worthless things for real money, in a way that is fundamentally unethical specifically because tricking people into valuing arbitrary garbage is what games are for. That's what makes them games! I've only mentioned addiction as an example of the manipulation used to gouge people as hard as possible in spite of their better judgement. It is a how. The problem is why.
If that sounds like 'well I just don't like it,' fuck off.
I did that intentionally to show how ridiculous reductive logic is.
It's obviously not worthless to the people who buy it, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. Value is almost entirely subjective, and frequently based on what others think.
That's the same for MTX. People often buy MTX to show off, and that has value to them. It's the digital equivalent of wearing designer jeans or carrying a designer wallet.
You've just described the entire field of advertising.
And there are good parts to MTX as well, it's the free market solution to "take from the rich and give to the poor" since it makes games available for free and largely funded by wealthier people. A handful of people feeling superior to others funds development of a game available for free to everyone else.
I still don't like it because I think the end product is worse than charging everyone for admission, but there's an solid argument there that the net effect for the majority is more games available for free (most people don't buy MTX).
'My hypocrisy was a clever ruse except when I meant it, and this mostly-subjective thing is objectively--' yeah okay I think we're done. Even circling right back to where you came in: advertising, that totally ethical field with nothing to condemn or curtail. What you want is awful and why you want it is awful and dealing with how you choose to write it is draining.
... I am dumber for having suffered this conversation. This is a wallet siphon you think is targeted at children, and-- no.
I'm out.