[lispisok]

>These ban cycles and 'enforced ignorance' to the problem nets them more profit than it would otherwise; disenchanted players play less, reducing infrastructure costs -- and banned players buy another 2 dollar copy of the game -- but it kills user experience outside of single player entirely.

Game devs vehemently deny this but there are games out there with perverse incentives for the game devs regarding cheaters. Escape From Tarkov is another game that is losing many players to the cheater issue while the devs drag their feet addressing the problem, or any problem in that game really. Why would they? Once the devs have legitimate players' money, them playing the game is just costing them money by paying for servers. Banning enough cheaters just frequently enough to buy another copy is how they get recurring revenue. As much as I hate the subscription model taking over everything I think if it was used in games like Tarkov it would be a much better game because it would align incentives to keep players engaged. On the other hand that would probably come with a bunch of dark patterns.

I have a personal conspiracy that Tarkov kept making the early game for new players harder and more insufferable while making the game more easy after you have grinded long enough, (for people like streamers who basically are the advertising) was a decision to get people excited to buy the game watching streamers with their far better experience, then shortly quit by making their experience insufferable.