>I can't help but think that both instances are motivated by selfishness and resistance to change. I don't think its the people that don't want to spend $2000

>I can't help but think that both instances are motivated by selfishness and resistance to change. I don't think its the people that don't want to spend $2000 or spend the equivalent of 2 years of a full-time job to play a videogame on even ground are the ones that are selfish. I don't think it should necessarily be regulated, because they can just buy and play a different game, but EA are definitely the ones being assholes here. Free markets are healthy when businesses and customers, for the most part, act in good faith with one another. The way its supposed to work is a company attempts to build a great product/service that people want, sets a price that makes them profitable, and then customers buy it, therefore rewarding them for their actions. Companies that put an extensive amount of money and effort into researching and implementing psychological tricks to maximize the amount of money they can physically extract from a person are no longer in the business of making/selling good products and/or services. They are in the business of exploiting people. For the most part they are legally entitled to be shitty entities that exist to exploit people, but when a company makes that decision and stops acting in good faith, society has every right to punish them by organizing boycotts and informing other private citizens. Honestly, even by just adjusting for inflation, videogames should cost somewhat more than $60 in 2017. However, microtransactions aren't about trying to keep the doors open and remain profitable, they are about establishing a license to print money without having to provide much value in return.