I didnt make an emotional appeal, you drew the lines of the argument, stated where the line is and what is acceptable before that line. There is no point in getting into the weeds with you, because you will dismiss everything I would bring up as anti consumer.
I was arguing against your philosophical approach to the argument and calling it nonsense.
That has nothing to do with what is considered anti consumer.
Because it isnt, all your talking points are sophistry, outside of giving us the legal definition(golf clap).
And literally everything you’ve argued is an emotional appeal.
You feel that these practices are wrong. Your feeling does not make their business practices wrong.
Literally that is the fact you keep dancing around. That’s why I bring up legal because there are clear cut things that constitute anti-consumer acts and they aren’t things decided by you or me but by laws, regulations and precedence. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
Sorry I forgot to add the moral to that.
That was a miss type on my part.
You specifically are arguing moral which is the philosophical argument, the others (as I’ve been putting you all in the same group to make it easier to respond to all at once) have been arguing feelings.
Morally, it really doesn’t matter but since you ask. The answer is still no because I believe in personal responsibility and people being held to account for their own actions, another topic entirely.
So while you believe their practices are morally wrong, it isn’t factually wrong which again, is actually all that really matters in this argument.
I’ve said before these practices are shady but just because something is shady does it a) make it wrong or b) make it anti-consumer.
Ultimately as nothing is being denied to the consumer, they are in fact not anti-consumer.
While I don’t agree with time gating or grind, the practice is long established in mmos and is how to sustain longevity in the genre, so I understand the need for it.
More money goes into mmo games than most and the loss of revenue if players simply complete everything in the first month is not a smart business decision.
It isnt “legally wrong”. anti consumer isnt a “factual” term and the law changes all the time. Philosophy is what determines how the law is applied not the other way around.
So you are “buyer beware” pretty much, ancap… Ok, makes more sense why you think like you do. I very much disagree with it, but at least now I can understand why you have a need to defend their practices.
Again, I’m not defending any practices.
Merely clarifying why they are not legally wrong.
There’s a huge difference.
I understand on these forums simply countering any argument firmly puts you in the opposite camp, but I’m not defending anything.
Personally, I hate their practices, but not them specifically, the gaming industry as a whole, another conversation though.
While buyer beware is a simplistic way of putting it, it isn’t far off the mark.
I’m more putting the agency on the consumer to actually be responsible for their own choices and not pawn off that responsibility to someone else.
Classic was/is a flightless game and was sold as such in both instances. Live on the other hand had flight at max level for gold for nearly or just over 10 years, had it removed because it was better for the companies bottom line in a few different ways. It lengthens the amount of time it takes to go through necessary content increasing the time per month metric and it allows them to put less work into the size and design of the zones, saving money while being able to deliver favorable monthly numbers to shareholders.
People also wanted to play the old talent system, and play classes that weren’t pruned into oblivion. There again we have a situation which benefits the company more than the players; bake more and more power into gear less and less into individual specs. Saves on design, forces more time in game.
It isn’t anti consumer by my definition; you’re trying to shoe horn it in because you don’t understand why people like classic, and the fundamental differences between that game and BFA.
Ya, well I think their gameplay loops tie directly in their cash shops and it is why they wont change, which is why I think it is anti consumer. It is intentional and I think they have very smart people keeping certain policies in place, because even with less users they can make up for it in other means. Short term outlook imo, but that is what I think they are doing and I think it is obvious.
You can disagree and thats fine, but by my definition outside of the legal one, I think that’s anti consumer, because a lot of people dont even know they are being manipulated.
The gameplay loops have nothing to do with the shops though as nothing (AFAIK) in the shop has any impact on said loop.
Correct me if I’m wrong but things sold in shop are only accessible through the shop?
And the same goes for things in game?
As in, you can’t skip the grind to buy what you need from the shop?
If this is correct, your position is faulty as there is no gain for the consumer to go to the shop if something they want is part of said gameplay loop.
Taking advantage by continuing to provide a product for them?
By continuing to deliver more and more content for them?
By spending millions to enlarge the game world for them?
By investing in a dead product (Classic) so they can enjoy it?
Interesting.
Keeping people playing a game or using your product is not anti-consumer.
But again, yours is the emotional argument, not the factual one.
Them doing something you do not like or agree with DOES NOT make what they are doing anti-consumer.
I’ve seen so many of these half-baked arguments from YouTube personalities, if I wanted to argue with them I would. But they’re just as factually wrong as you are.
Shadowlands is being sold as a game that has pathfinder. How is that anti-consumer? Pathfinder is the norm now. People should be buying expansions with the expectation that pathfinder will be there.
So, Classic WoW is the second most anti-consumer “expansion”.
Then you say Classic isn’t anti-consumer? Those two quotes seem to disagree with eachother. So, you’ll have to forgive my confusion.
Because you are wrong lol.
Fault them for the bad they do sure, but don’t label it something that it isn’t. Literally the only reason why I even responded to your original post lol.
If a lot of corporations are following a very similar system, chances are very high what you correlate as disconnected to the gameplay loop, is in fact, not. You are assigning value on need from the game, but that isnt really the case on the whole otherwise the loop wouldnt catch so many people using cash shops.
To be frank, I think people who have your viewpoint are incredibly myopic on the gameplay loop. The simple fact of how these companies have adjusted their cash shops should tell you this much.
I would agree with games like ESO or SWTOR, but WoW specifically, has a cash shop that essentially has zero effect on the game whatsoever as it is purely cosmetic and those things are exclusive to the shop.