| > One, it's fresh - games had a fixed cost for about 25 years. Notice I didn't say it's new, because games had similar monetization tactics if you go back far enough to arcade tokens. Monetization schemes lay on a spectrum, but even arcade tokens lie on the tamer end in comparison to modern schemes. The biggest difference: the only Advantage most arcade tokens would give you is an extra life (i.e. a skilled player can get away with minimal pay). I am aware of 0 arcade games that give you extra speed, damage, or max HP just because you put in another coin while that is INCREDIBLY common with modern monetization schemes. > Once they get older and have a better grasp of time and money, they may decide spending $200/month on a game you enjoy daily from the toilet is on par with other hobbies they could have, and more convenient. Sure and I won't argue against continually spending money on games. I think its a really good thing that helps develop content and keeps the game alive (I think $60 for modern AAA games is absolutely ludicrous; it was $60 back in the 90s or 80s and it certainly hasn't kept up with inflation and dev-costs). > I think game monetization is over-scrutinized for a couple of reasons. My stance: * The stuff most people spend money on (i.e. in-app-purchases for lootbox/gambling opportunities) is bad for gaming because they encourage BS game designs that artificially restricts progress and incentivizes psycologically manipulative tactics * These BS game designs make the games worse (as a "pure" game) 99% of the time I basically haven't touched a modern AAA game in 5+ years because of this. In terms of gameplay, indie games have been way more interesting and diverse. And I give 0 shits about graphics. |