Well not worthless, unless you are so anti-microtransaction you lose your shit over cosmetics you pay for. Your enjoyment of the game changes zero from that.
Here's one thing you are missing. The abundance and aggressivness of MtX in the areas of industry interested in that is going to be balanced only by the customer base's tolerance and patience for this (unless we introduce new laws to do that, and that is a controversial idea that you don't seem sympathetic to). As such, just as pushing more MtX is within r ational interest of the publishers (=more income for them), it is equally rational for gamers to spread rage, resentment and hatred for MtX, particularly the more aggressive kinds (=publishers more scared of losing customers, =less MtX pushing in games). Ultimately, these two forces are balancing each other, wherever the balance is going to end up. Why would gamers not push for their own interest, which is to make the threat of MtX backlash look as severe and likely as possible?
I don't. There's just too many similarities between the growing exclusivity practices of online platforms, and the old practice of movie studios owning their own theaters, and holding exclusivity rights on which theaters would show their films. I would not be surprised if we eventually see a modern day equivalent of the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948.
It doesn't; each of those two storefronts having their own exclusive content that you cannot get anywhere else though does. It's the exclusivity deals that are the problem, not the Epic Games Store in and of itself.
Consoles are different; because hardware differences mean that a game has to be designed for each console, whereas since Steam and Epic are both on the computer, any exclusivity is completely arbitrary.
No; because exclusive brands are not equivalent to exclusive products. Let's say Walmart has it's own exclusive brand of shampoo; you can still get other shampoos elsewhere that serve the same function. Entertainment products are different though. Most people just want their hair clean, and don't care what the product is as long as it accomplishes that end; but nobody wants to just play a game, and don't care what that game is.
Except that said outrage leads to bureaucrats actually banning it and that's retarded. I want them as far away from game development as possible.
You have not been around women enough. Just try and hand them a shampoo they don't like or use normally, they tend not to be too happy.
It still requires more effort on their part to port it, than it would to not do so. Whereas on the computer, it actually takes effort to make something exclusive to a particular video game digital distribution service platform.
Actually both Steam and Epic do have downsides; it's called DRM. This is why I only ever buy games on GOG, because I refuse to ever buy a game that has DRM. There's also the user-friendliness and features of the service to consider, and by those metrics, Steam beats out Epic by a landslide.
Brand loyalty is a marketing gimmick; it has nothing to do with the product itself. As for soap not being totally interchangeable, sometimes that's the case, but there is nothing actually stopping some company from making soap that is completely identical to one someone else makes; they just cannot slap the same label on it, and that's what generic brands do ultimately.
First of all, Steam does have competition; many of its games can also be found on GOG, for example. Secondly, it's anti-competitive because in making those exclusive deals, they are directly attacking Steam's ability to compete. Look at The Outer Worlds for example; if you want to play that game on your computer, you have to buy it from either the Epic Games Store, or the Microsoft Store. This means that the actually quality of those platforms are irrelevant; they don't have to compete with Steam or GOG, they just have to make sure that you can only get the games you want from them.
Not everyone is as anti-regulation as you are. Laissez-faire capitalism leads to exploited consumers, and I cannot support that.
None of the dozen or so women in my immediate and extended family I know are like that. They all buy the cheapest thing that works.
I haven't seen good evidence of exploitation here. I think the real issue is people valuing pixels and colors on a screen too much and that's a personal failing on their own behalf.
Every woman I have been intimately familiar with has been like that. People do get real particular about things like this, and a single FPS game is in no way shape or form comparable to something like shampoo. Shampoo edges on a necessity. A video game is an absolute luxury and one game being sold exculsively is not close to a massive product type sold exclusively.
Agreed.
At this point, I don't know what would count as evidence of exploitation, by your ludicrous standards.
The general trend is part of the explanation for the 'pink tax'.
Because I trust the government even less than them.
Why are the standards ludicrous? Generally, I just don't see wholly voluntary transactions with complete and absolute luxury vegetative entertainment goods as exploitative.
Only if aimed specifically to the bureaucrats. Maybye. We all know the bureaucrats would much rather regulate and tax it than ban it outright, and that in turn is more of a function of the sheer size of the money flow that may be taxed rather than how available excuses are, if they need some, you know they will find some.
They often can't. A dozen people dying because they bought shitty chinese liquid marijuana vape cartridges is enough to get clamoring to ban nicotine vapes in the US, and have banned and are banning in a number of municipalities states. I think microtransactions are nothing more than a good way to part dumb people from their money. It's a pure luxury good that the majority of the time does nothing but change the colors and patterns of guns and characters. The rest of the time it's on free to play games so its literally the only way they can make money for a free product. There's much less selling you a sixty dollar game and then adding microtransactions actually necessary in any way shape or form to really play or get content other than DLC which is perfectly fine. You have no entitlement to a pure luxury product or people's labor or to determine how they sell and structure a fucking game. Its the height of greed, sloth, and selfishness to think otherwise.
Talk is talk, will they actually do it? I'd guess they will "gratiously compromise"on taxes and regulation. Meaning more money and power for them. Banning gives them neither. Just a bunch of votes from the people who wanted it. Maybye. In few years they will forget about it, and the bureaucrats will be stuck with a big, fat nothing.
So are ponzi schemes, gambling, club priced alcohol (or alcohol in general if you push it), nicotine, and emails from nigerian princes. See the pattern there?
Cosmetic ones, yes. But cosmetics are the proverbial camel's nose. Have you watched the video? Pure cosmetics aren't a dominating part of the MtX income for the big earners. There are 4 types of MtX, and the trick to getting rich on MtX is to offer most or all of them.
It's a wide statement, but as we see in few recent big news scandals, like Battlefront, that is slowly ceasing to be true. The corporate execs are still learning the things hinted at in the video i've linked.
Yup. In a way. And that, in turn, means the MtX pushers have met their match. It's an awesome way to see it. It's a pitched battle of greed, laziness and selfishness of the sides involved.