3 ms·

I am a fan of the _idea_ of only charging for cosmetics customizations instead of hiding actual game content behind paywalls, but the way that Valve and others

I am a fan of the _idea_ of only charging for cosmetics customizations instead of hiding actual game content behind paywalls, but the way that Valve and others have implemented it in practice is highly predatory, because nearly everything desirable is hidden behind an opaque wall of RNG instead of just put up for direct purchase for a known price. This is how you end up with gambling addicts blowing thousands of dollars for a virtual in-game skin, and it has enabled a vast network of grey-markets gambling operations to fuel those addictions [1]. It can be difficult for normal people (who mostly just enjoy the gameplay and maybe once in a while splurge on a few dozen bucks to make our virtual avatars look nicer) to emphasize with people who have real gambling problems, but that doesn't make it any more ethical to exploit them so blatantly. Hiding these gambling platforms behind the veneer of innocent-looking games also exposes gambling to a younger audience that's much more susceptible to predatory tactics often used by gambling platforms to build up their addiction. There are pretty good reasons why gampling is a regulated industry, and online games that employ these kinds of systems are way overdue for some oversight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling

mirashii 9y ago
I disagree with nothing you've said, but I do believe it's orthogonal to my main point: monetization via microtransactions doesn't need to inherently influence gameplay in any serious negative way, such as by introducing arbitrary grind or pay to win components. That said, I do wish the implementation was a bit better. It's an attempt at price discrimination which seems to work well, but the gambling aspect is definitely problematic and long in need of either a regulatory look or a pushback from the community. So far, the community seems to push back only when things become egregious.

mirashii 9y ago

I disagree with nothing you've said, but I do believe it's orthogonal to my main point: monetization via microtransactions doesn't need to inherently influence gameplay in any serious negative way, such as by introducing arbitrary grind or pay to win components. That said, I do wish the implementation was a bit better. It's an attempt at price discrimination which seems to work well, but the gambling aspect is definitely problematic and long in need of either a regulatory look or a pushback from the community. So far, the community seems to push back only when things become egregious.