My parents refused to enable me to get into the glorified gambling of trading card games and frankly I was better off for this. I’ve seen people waking up realizing they had spent hundreds to thousands on cardboard designed to be replaced and deeply regretting it. That is while having cardboard to regret buying. Imagine what happens to these kids if the game they spent all their gift cards on closes down and takes it all down the drain.
Meanwhile there were gifts like games and D&D books that let me have fun for a long time as complete packages without needing additional expenditures to enjoy.
There are things kids can like and dislike, and we should keep that in mind. But as adults we should also take some responsibility for cutting through the bulshit of manipulative marketing. They aim these things at children because children only see their immediate excitement and wonder, but not the sleazy business behind it.
Meanwhile there were gifts like games and D&D books that let me have fun for a long time as complete packages without needing additional expenditures to enjoy.
I see that kid-you never got into the world of gaming accessories.
When I bought dice sets there was never the risk of missing out on the Ultra Rare d4 and being unable to use Magic Missile because of that. I might not have always gotten everything I wanted, but I got what I needed and I didn’t need to pay a subscrption to continue playing.
I wouldn’t say its that bad. Various forms of collectibles/cards have been around for a long time. Asking for gametime for a game like WoW isn’t exactly a new phenomenon.
I think it’s just that there are a few specific examples that stand out. Some aspects of Roblox can be pretty concerning.
But if a kid just wants some money for a skin for Fornite, or to buy a specific world setup for Minecraft, I don’t necessarily see that as some scary new thing.
While I hate slippery slopes, this is an historic trend. They squeeze in little ones that don’t seem so bad. I accept no games with these predatory or greedy models and I’d argue that kids shouldn’t be subjected to them.
Just dropping a gift recommendation for younger kids with a Nintendo Switch. Kirby and the Forgotten Land. A few years old at this point, but my two younger kids still play the heck out of it. It’s wholesome, and doesn’t have any in game purchases or online subscription.
Well. This isn't going to end well. I mean there's a tiny chance they'll be bought by someone who knows well enough to be hands off, but more likely they'll be run into the ground and then have their staff slashed as a cost-cutting measure. Hopefully things turn out all right for the people working at these sites.
For sure there are alternatives, but I doubt there’s a lot of overlap between kids who want books and kids who want some e-currency. Probably not much overlap with gift givers either.
gestures at the outside I am not surprised. Outside is a McDonald/Starbucks laden hellscape. There are a dwindling number of places for kids to get enrichment outside their own homes. People in general spend increasingly long times in front of screens for various activities. Gaming is an activity that they can do alone or with their friends that doesn’t require them to pay for things to enjoy them. Some of them don’t even recognize that there is a real world cost for things like vbucks and so on.
Toy stores are few and far between. We don’t watch media that has significant commercials anymore. What did we expect?
The death of the third place has been happening in a thousand ways for a while now. Fewer and fewer places you can just be without paying to do so. Even now we see one of the last ones, libraries, targeted more and more by certain groups.
Thank you. I knew there was a name for this phenomenon but didn’t know what it was. I’m also pissed about the libraries. I don’t understand why people want to get rid of them.
It never in any way implies that it's transferable or applies to other games.
Right, but the lawsuit is over the fact that it never says otherwise either. Pay to win is neither here nor there. It could be just for cosmetics, and the suit still stands. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played any of the games this is in reference to. Pay to win just doesn't seem to be a part of this at all.
I agree with this opinion: prices should not have changed, but a proof of national identification and restricting it to one account might have been sufficient to avoid VPN access.
The problem I see is that some people were taking advantage of the low prices with a VPN and an Argentinian/Turkish account, and assigning their parent account as a family member to share games. I think limiting their regions would’ve been more effective than just hiking up the prices.
gamesindustry.biz
Najstarsze