It's also no different than a RuneScape membership in the 2000s, or hell, Roblox Builder Club almost 20 years ago. Both of those brought me an immense amount of joy and connection to others that I would never otherwise had gotten to experience living in an isolating rural area.

Over half of us kids are really fucking dumb, so this tracks.

imo a subscription service is far more ethical than the current model. Its a very straightforward transaction. Now I have to convert real money to a fake currency (in set amounts of their choosing), purchase a pack of some kind, and gamble my way to a new pointless cosmetic item.

I mean I can understand it. What do kids have these days? Arcades died, malls died, "why won't kids play outside?" *the outside old people built* I mean.

No different than buying a game if they get the same amount of playtime.

The part where they buy a skin to show off.

So….. when was it that all of the children in America were polled again?

With the power of math you don’t have to. I’m a data analyst by trade so I take offence to this question every time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

Yeah… the _Entertainment Software Association_ polled kids. Doesn’t say what kids, or where. We have long since known that polling can easily give you the answers you want. Also, I’m not going to argue about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling

Neat! We still have no idea what kids were polled, and where they’re from. What we do know is that those that polled them has reason for a bias.

> YouGov and ESA conducted a 5-minute online survey in the U.S. from September 26-30, 2025 among 1,912 respondents ages 5-65 recruited from YouGov’s proprietary online panel. Data is weighted to be representative of the overall U.S. population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, education and census region. Respondents ages 5 to 17 were asked to complete the survey under the supervision of a parent.

The ESA represents the profitability of gaming. I wouldn’t believe a single thing they polled, regardless of who they used to do it. Polls are rarely unbiased, sooo….. We will have to agree to disagree

I think it's a little different. With new games comes novelty. Sticking with a single game and just buying cosmetics doesn't provide nearly as much novelty. I don't think this is a children only issue either. Its a trap adults fall into as well.

And why does this "novelty" matter if what they spent money on got them the same amount of fun?

Not sure why novelty is in quotes, it's a quantifiable measurement based on differences. Anyway, novelty has shown to have a wide range of mental benefits. [This](https://seattleanxiety.com/psychiatrist/2022/7/21/novelty) is a pretty good overview, and if you want to dig into specific papers they're listed as well. Even if you want to ignore any potential benefits of novelty, generally when you have a new experience for the first time, you will have more fun that you typically do. The downside is some new experiences may not be fun, but that's very low risk in the context of gaming.

Currencies often unlock completely new content and the fact that you might not like a new game could cancel out the potential to have a slightly better time. Ultimately, how you spend gaming money is up to you.

I would say the vast majority of micro transactions are cosmetic or time unlocking. Not adding much novelty. Also the context of this post is about gifting kids on Christmas, so no, not necessarily "up to you". I guess there's an argument to just give kids whatever they want, but I don't think think that leads to the best development outcomes. You can't force kids to do anything either, but there does exist a middle ground.