Can we get a single article thats anti-ubisoft that also doesnt vaguely reference the source material out of context? Is there really nothing of substance to write about? Where are the real journalists writing about any of this?

I mean they're not technically wrong, if it wasn't fun for people, people wouldn't be buying them. Considering the context and all, I guess it makes sense. There's too many whales enabling them. We get the games we voted with our wallets. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

I remember when we had cheat codes for single player games... I miss just cheating my way to the last level to have fun.

>if it wasn’t fun for people, people wouldn’t be buying them I am not a psychology major or anything, but isnt it that microtransactions are designed in such a way that they hook players in not by being fun but by being a literal gambling? Or in case no lootboxes, FOMO? Like LoL once done with many skins stating "It is a one time possible to purchase, never comes back like ever!!!1!11" to later sell them once again. Back in a day you either customize game yourself by downloading mods and models, or you earn your fancy skins by being good at the game. Today it is just a purchase. There is no fun in cosmetics beside bragging about them. There might be fun in pay to win, but not for those who doesn't pay. Neither it is healthy fun.

I mean I get what you mean and I do agree that it plays a factor but your example here only makes a lot of sense for multiplayer games. CoD is a really good example of this in my opinion. The skins there are ridiculous and the amount of effort they spend to show it off is absurd for a full priced triple A game. On the other hand, most of Ubisoft's games are singleplayer so this FOMO effect doesn't really apply for those games. I also don't think we can deny the agency of the player too if they do choose to make these purchases. If someone does do their research and justifies the micro transactions after looking at it rationally, is it fair to say that they've been completely manipulated? I've personally given money to EA for Titanfall 2's prime titan skins because I felt that it was a good value and wanted to support it. So I think there are somewhat more ethical micro transactions.

Have you ever watched someone play Candy Crush? It's full-on manipulative. "Oh, soo close! You almost managed to beat this level! Don't let this chance escape! Just pay 5 gems and you can continue!" There are certainly different kinds of players and some are more or less easily manipulated. But somebody who manages to stay rational wouldn't play Candy Crush eitherway. If you tell them beforehand that they have to pay €200 to play this stupid minigame they'd ask you what you are smoking. But with microtransactions it's quite easy to draw money out of somebody's pockets. People like that have as much agency over their microtransaction spending as a smoker has over their next cigarette or a gambling addict has over playing the next bet. The mechanics of microtransactions are often close to identical to the mechanics of gambling.

You're using an extreme example which is fine and I agree that what Candy Crush is doing is clearly trying to exploit people. However, I do believe there's a stark difference between that and the examples we were discussing.

Tbh, I don't think that Candy Crush is an extreme example. On mobile this is more the norm than an outlier. And even on PC, there are far worse examples, like games that allow you to resell lootbox content, which is literal gambling. It's a scratch card with extra steps.