Credit card companies (Visa, Discover, MasterCard, AMEX) make their money through transaction fees. They make their money when you spend money using the card, _regardless_ of any debts involved. The banks that issue cards are a different matter. They _also_ make some money when you use the card (some of which goes towards those credit card rewards you get, which is how they can do stuff like offer % back) but mostly they make money by letting you spend _just_ enough money so as to be perpetually in debt. Your bank wants you to carry a balance. They want you to be paying them tens of percentage points of interest each year. The credit limit they give you isn't the amount they want you to spend in one purchase, it's calculated to be the maximum amount you can afford the running payments on, which will do nothing to touch the principal. Sure, you can discharge the debt if you go bankrupt, but consider as well that your bank has a couple of other advantages. First, they get to see all your spending. They know _how_ you're spending your money, where, when. They also usually get to see your other information. They know how much money comes into your balance accounts each month, they know how much your rent/mortgage costs, they know how much money is coming in from Venmo when you borrow from family to cover debts you can't pay, how much money you spend on food delivery apps, how much of an emergency fund you keep. They know how much money you're spending on things that you don't have to be, which is money you could be giving _them_ instead, if it becomes a running balance. And at 25% interest, they only need this scheme to work for 4 years before they make as much money as they'd lose if you default on your entire balance. Plus, when you _do_ have money in the bank, they get to use that money for other things while it's with them. If you have a $100,000 credit limit, odds are pretty good you have an account with them holding a few tens of thousands of dollars. They get to use most of that until you ask for it back.

Nothing inside a video game should cost real money. Ban the entire business model.

Why not just not play them if you don't like them? I think that hunting games are not fun at all, but I can very easily address that by just not playing them, which avoids starting a fight with people who *do* like them. If I decided "I need to tell people to play games as I see best" and impose a ban, I'd be going out and starting a fight with people that just doesn't need to happen.

Bu-si-ness mo-del. Not: genre. Not: content. Not: players. We are talking about corporations committing systemic abuse for profit. Abuse that's gouging so hard, you might need FINANCING... to play a VIDEO GAME. How big a hint do you need that something has gone wrong?

it's gambling for children is why. While I can choose to not buy the MTX inside a game, children and some young adults are more vulnerable to psychologically manipulative dark patterns that have been designed to mimic addiction as closely as possible.

We are under constant attack from lobbying, foreign money, corruption and failing allied states looking to hurt us. Other countries should be championing these causes also.

Just one more game bro and you will be happy, get this dopamine hit using our new buy now suck my dick later solution.

And they’re planning to destroy your games after a set amount of years where one can no longer even look at the mtx one may mistakenly bought.

Absolutely there are plenty of bad actors trying to convince Europeans to get rid of their democracy because things aren’t perfect.

Fuck them kids. Children aren't why these bastards are offering *financing* for this industry-swallowing abuse.

They're making everything like that now

The Christians have shady front groups they use to pressure credit.card companies Into bowing down to their agenda