Calling victims stupid *is blaming victims.* Cigarette smokers aren't morons - they were given a chemical dependency by forces that didn't *lie,* exactly, but nonetheless fucking obviously tricked them into a chemical dependency. If your standard is "misrepresentation" then every smoker ever was duped by misrepresenting smoking as safe or cool or sexy or whateverthefuck lever got them to fork over their money to huff carcinogens. Every game that charges money inside the game is misrepresenting the value of whatever bullshit it's selling. Games make you value arbitrary bullshit! That's what makes them *games!* The entire fucking point is made-up rules for arbitrary rewards! Attaching a dollar value to that is inherently abusive. There is no ethical version of that exploitation of human shortcomings. > I don’t want to live in a nanny state where the government decides what’s good for me. Will this sandwich kill you? Who knows! Cherish the mystery. It's your god-given right to guzzle unpasteurized milk. Drink up, and good fucking luck.

> Cigarette smokers aren’t morons I never said they were. I said they know it's bad for them, yet they continue to smoke cigarettes despite safer options existing, like vapes, patches, and gums. Yet they continue with cigarettes because they prefer them. I'm not talking about how they got addicted, but what they choose to manage that addiction. They know their options, and with taxes, they choose one of the most expensive options. It's their right to make that choice for themselves. > misrepresenting the value of whatever bullshit it’s selling There's no objective measure of value for something like this. They present exactly what you're buying, and you get what's advertised, nothing more, nothing less. That's a clear cut, informed decision. That said, I do draw a line at psychological tricks, like artificial scarcity or other types of FOMO. That's manipulation and I would be fine with prosecuting that because the customer is being tricked. If something will remain in the game, it should always be available to get. Something like paying to respec a character is dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. > It’s your god-given right to guzzle unpasteurized milk. It absolutely is, provided I demonstrate that I understand the risks (e.g. sign a waiver with clear language), and the company does its best to keep things sanitary. The higher the risk, the higher the burden on the provider to keep things as sanitary as possible. I firmly believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm less m others and they are properly informed of the risks.

> I’m not talking about how they got addicted, but what they choose to manage that addiction. Because addressing systemic problems would require you to examine your trivial worldview. Why would all these people choose an expensive problem that slowly kills them? Oh well, must be their own choice. The morons. And you *are* calling them morons, by consistently saying it's a stupid decision. Why would rational people make irrational choices, by the millions? Shut up is why. Shut up and never ask questions, because only individual choices matter, and large scale individual choices can't have systemic implications. > There’s no objective measure of value for something like this. You're defending cancer sticks.

Well scratch that off of a game I will ever play

> And you are calling them morons, by consistently saying it’s a stupid decision. Saying a decision is stupid isn't the same as calling a person stupid, smart people do stupid things all the time. I'm saying something like "mouth feel" is a stupid reason to dramatically increase your risk of lung cancer, especially when vapes exist. People should be free to make stupid decisions. > Any sane definition of video games must conclude that they make you value objectively worthless arbitrary goals. That's unfair and you know it. [Video games can provide a lot of value](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-video-games-good-for-you). Yes there's trash out there, and that exists in every field. Look at people getting into CCGs like MtG, wine collecting (esp when [wine experts can't reliably tell "good" from "bad"](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/)), or any other form of hobby with a high price ceiling. > How the fuck do you split hairs about these specific things, versus your libertarian insistence that only overt lying could possibly be wrong? It's about power imbalance. Scarcity in MP games (e.g. cosmetics) is completely artificial because the game files continue to include those products so you can see others wear them, so the only reason to stop selling them is to inflate their price. Can you truly make an informed decision under time pressure? No. The only reason for the scarcity is manipulation, hence why it's wrong. That's why high pressure sales is successful, and also why I oppose it. I totally understand companies choosing to stop selling a product. I have my own views on how that should be handled (e.g. they give up any copyright protections), but if they're still maintaining a product and it costs them nothing to keep selling it (i.e. no ongoing licensing costs), they should keep it available for purchase. > There’s nothing sanitary about unsanitized goods. There's a huge difference between unpasteurized milk and unsanitary milk. When I say "sanitary," I mean things like washing/disinfecting utters before milking, quickly cooling the milk and keeping it cold though shipping, ensuring clean jugs, testing cows for disease, etc. I expect more stringent controls for unpasteurized milk than pasteurized because you don't have that pasteurization process to cover up your mistakes. Pasteurization alters the taste of the milk, to the point that I refuse to drink ultra-pasteurized milk (i.e. shelf-stable milk) and actually prefer powdered milk to it. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, but pasteurized whole milk is close enough, so that's what I buy. > driving too fast is dangerous Well yeah, it presents a risk to others, so it should be controlled. Your rights end where mine begin, and you driving too fast presents an unacceptable risk to my (and others') life. > botulism kills people It certainly does, and should obviously be avoided... That's why we have food safety standards and health inspections, to inform the public of any dangers and shut down dangerous operations. That said, if you want to take the risk, be my guest. I sometimes buy from unregulated street vendors, knowing full well the risks of doing so.

Live service games are not only balanced around tedium, they are designed around tedium. Without it people wouldn't buy boosters etc. Adapting the meta faster than people can catch up and letting people pay to keep up simply switches the game from balance by tedium to straight up pay to win. Or pay to play optionally, at least, which live service games heavily push you towards doing.

Guess I will stick to warframe, No Man's Sky and BG3.

You can always be mad at 2 or more things at once, and how the gaming industry sucks out money from the consumer to pay their executives should be one of these. In all the industries you mentioned, "voting with your wallet" is a thing that's universally accepted as effective but at times hard to do. In gaming, it couldn't be easier, you can literally safe money by buying anything cheaper from the indie sphere, not buy anything at all and play games you already own, or wait 2 weeks and get a 2nd hand copy, or the unnamed 4th thing. And the impact is more than just having a worse game to enjoy. As much as we like to laugh at people for their bad financial decisions, some people just cannot think rational about these things, and every game that includes them is simply not safe for them. Casino's are heavily regulated for a reason, it is perversive brain stimulation with decades of research behind it, and we invited it into our consoles and computers for kids to enjoy. And more and more people just expect games to be predatory, and it warps how they think of the effort put into games. Being a functional, complete game without any in game purchases used to be the minimum. But if you expect the anyone to have your mental fortitude, that no kid will wander into this menu and that everyone has an unalterable image of the industry, feel free to support this. Genshin Impact lies at the end of this road. You do not have to support these decisions. You can be a Monster Hunter and Capcom fan, and not buy into the hype. Vote with your wallet.

counterpoint: i actually think it's the fat more prevalent mentality of "blaming foolish consumers" that ruins it for the rest of us. Expecting consumers to **ever** do differently at scale is a dead-end fantasy we all need to stop having. **Only** market regulation stops manipulative market practices. Doing anything less then "advocating for laws to stop this shit" izza giant waste of brain cells, yet i see threads of people making that useless case every time something like this happens. **Change will not come from consumers voting with their wallets,** FULL STOP** If you're thinking it will, *Never think this again* Furthermore, anyone advocating for consumer action or blaming consumers is doing the companies fucking us a huge favor and as these bad actors can continue griftin' as long as it is legal to do so

Anyone who disagrees with that fact also thinks it's okay to go to the casino just for the bar at the back.

That's what you want to fix? Companies trying new monetization strats?

Off-topic, anyone remember the early days of rockpapershotgun? God*damn* i miss the stylings of the og writers. Now it's just another game site but I'll never forget some of their early pieces

The author mentioned Horse armor's probs why commenters are bringing it up

I imported my beta character and for some reason the voice bugged out and is completely fucked up. Not sure if I want to use the edit voucher just to fix my stupid robot voice

Just recently start Skyrim again, with a laundry list of mods, of course.

> letting people pay to keep up That's what I'm specifically giving an alternative to. If you're trying to discourage keeping up with the meta, you make it take long enough to adapt to the meta that you can patch out the meta.

I don't believe in voting with your wallet, I believe in organizing. Individuals can never stand against an organization. A large group of individuals doing what they think is right but not working together can't win against even a much smaller organized force. In fact I think that your idea is little more than propaganda to keep the masses weakened in the face of power that is intentionally organized *against us*. But I don't play monster hunter to engage in political theory, I do it because it is a highly technical game with a steep learning curve. For whatever reason, a major stress reliever for me is to perform difficult actions with my hands. That's all I want. We are all treat brained little piggies in our own way, it shouldn't be controversial. I don't play genshin impact but if you do, whatever. Like I said, I work full time, I have a life full of family and friends, and I volunteer my time and energy to make my community better. If I wanna spend $70 on one of the like 3 game series that I *really* like, I shouldn't have to justify that to other gamers ffs. The problem with the gaming industry is a problem with *capitalism*, its called **the tendency for the rate of profit to fall**. Enshitification has been a proven phenomenon about for like 150 years. Voting with your dollars is pointless when it is the dollars themselves which are the problem.

When it comes to video games, idgaf if someone wants to give a game dev thousands of their own dollars because they want to pay an idiot tax. It's a free market, and we're all free to just ***not play the fucking game.*** Actually that's the default so just doing nothing is plenty. I get what you're saying but we're not talking about groceries here, we're talking about something that could literally cease to exist and aside from some folks maybe being out of work nobody would even notice or care. I do agree though that strong regulation is much better than expecting consumers to stop consuming something as long as it's a necessary thing or something with quite inelastic demand (ie: medicine).

The commenter you replied to was basically just informing people not to buy. You made a great showing that you were going to buy anyway and you don't care. That is something you need to justify, not the buying itself. No one would even know if you didn't go out of your way to tell everyone. And yes, what you do is good, but takes time to amount to anything. In the mean time, it is perfectly acceptable to also pursue methods that work in the short term. We aren't just individuals on a forum, we are public opinion. As flawed as it is, that's still better than the apathy you promote in your first comment.

It's almost like there's this loud vocal minority that companies keep ignoring because they keep making money doing what they're doing. Like if it wasn't profitable and predictable I'm pretty sure publishers would stop what they're doing.