Yes I fully agree games should have options to allow those with jobs and busy lives to skip progression (outside of any competitive sphere) but they shouldn’t have to pay for it?!
I totally agree with that. If the game is not free, this should be considered an accessibility feature.
If the game is free, developers need to find ways to get money from the game. People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint :)
“People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint”
Isn’t a very ethical take.
That’s essentially going “as long as they have an income, even if they are below the poverty line they are ripe for predatory and manipulative marketing in the pursuit of profit.”
How very capitalist.
Personally I believe free to play games and their systems of “generating income” are nothing but hyper-capitalist conditioning and bait and switch by companies gouging out more money from consumers. Free to play wouldn’t have materialised if there wasn’t insane potential for returns (otherwise no company would take the risk) so by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income? That seems very cynical.
I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By “people with income”, I wanted to say “people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities”.
Concerning the “insane potential for returns”, I’m sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.
by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income
That’s the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That’s when we can start talking about exploitation. I’m ok with salaries. I’m not ok with exploitation.
But who defines what’s an acceptable and available amount of income to spend on recreation vs maintaining your standard of living and who defines what arbritary level of income is ripe for manipulation?
If you wanna grift capitalists then you have all my support but regardless of someone’s income, if they are working class then that’s just preying on the people if you use manipulation and addictive game mechanics to accomplish it.
There’s isn’t any informed choice or agency when the consumption is psychologically manipulated out of a consumer.
I get where you are coming from but free-to-play isn’t just the adorable indie studio everyone’s rooting for, it’s fortnite, app games, software that essentially relies on whales to lose out for you to win.
Exploitation in this sense doesn’t just account for wage and labour exploitation but the exploitation of people’s agency and decision making through predatory marketing and psychology.
I don’t get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.
Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this?
You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right?
Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?
I didn’t downvote, but the main point for me isn’t that “pay to skip” is necessarily worse than a non-free-to-play game, it’s that these massive companies try to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, especially when they include gambling (e.g. loot boxes – don’t know if this particular game does, but I know it’s in several other Blizzard games). Unless they’ve changed their policy since I last played it, Path of Exile (another Diablo-like game) has an example of a much less exploitative system.
Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a “pay to skip”/“pay to fast” system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That’s bad.
On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content…
My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.
Of course, free-to-play models have both pros and cons. Especially for mobile games and games by large companies, there tends to be active encouragement for micro-transactions (often gambling) and they’re often targeted at children; on the other hand, if it’s a single-player game, the people who manage to disregard the pay-to-skip elements can play it for free without a significantly diminished experience.
I totally agree with that. If the game is not free, this should be considered an accessibility feature.
If the game is free, developers need to find ways to get money from the game. People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint :)
“People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint”
Isn’t a very ethical take.
That’s essentially going “as long as they have an income, even if they are below the poverty line they are ripe for predatory and manipulative marketing in the pursuit of profit.”
How very capitalist.
Personally I believe free to play games and their systems of “generating income” are nothing but hyper-capitalist conditioning and bait and switch by companies gouging out more money from consumers. Free to play wouldn’t have materialised if there wasn’t insane potential for returns (otherwise no company would take the risk) so by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income? That seems very cynical.
I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By “people with income”, I wanted to say “people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities”.
Concerning the “insane potential for returns”, I’m sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.
That’s the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That’s when we can start talking about exploitation. I’m ok with salaries. I’m not ok with exploitation.
But who defines what’s an acceptable and available amount of income to spend on recreation vs maintaining your standard of living and who defines what arbritary level of income is ripe for manipulation?
If you wanna grift capitalists then you have all my support but regardless of someone’s income, if they are working class then that’s just preying on the people if you use manipulation and addictive game mechanics to accomplish it.
There’s isn’t any informed choice or agency when the consumption is psychologically manipulated out of a consumer.
I get where you are coming from but free-to-play isn’t just the adorable indie studio everyone’s rooting for, it’s fortnite, app games, software that essentially relies on whales to lose out for you to win.
Exploitation in this sense doesn’t just account for wage and labour exploitation but the exploitation of people’s agency and decision making through predatory marketing and psychology.
Those are good arguments. I need to take some time and think on them. Thank you.
You’re welcome. I don’t mean to come across so snotty if I have.
I don’t get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.
Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this? You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right? Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?
I didn’t downvote, but the main point for me isn’t that “pay to skip” is necessarily worse than a non-free-to-play game, it’s that these massive companies try to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, especially when they include gambling (e.g. loot boxes – don’t know if this particular game does, but I know it’s in several other Blizzard games). Unless they’ve changed their policy since I last played it, Path of Exile (another Diablo-like game) has an example of a much less exploitative system.
Thank you for your answer.
Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a “pay to skip”/“pay to fast” system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That’s bad.
On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content…
My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.
Of course, free-to-play models have both pros and cons. Especially for mobile games and games by large companies, there tends to be active encouragement for micro-transactions (often gambling) and they’re often targeted at children; on the other hand, if it’s a single-player game, the people who manage to disregard the pay-to-skip elements can play it for free without a significantly diminished experience.