Putting it like that makes it sound that this is incidental, but the conditioning techniques baked into the design of these games are included for the sake of selling battle passes and virtual items. If they didn't have subscriptions and virtual currency, they would have been built entirely differently.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's because I am not speaking on the corporate point of view here, I am discussing the kids'. Every time I see this subject come up there seems to always be people who think that the move to subscriptions are due to a preference of access model upon the consumer, naively ruining their own capacity to own things, namely kids/young people, thinking it's just the modern, and thus better, more convenient, way to go.

Even the article's headline is written in a manner that suggests that kids prefer the subscription model it's self, not that they are choosing based on the game without thought to the access model.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I see what you mean. Far from me to want to blame the kids for it, but I don't think we can just overlook how corporations are deliberately funneling them towards these models through marketing and manipulative design. The kids' perspective is one of just being excited for things they want in these games, but this happens due to habitual conditioning of a neverending threadmill of virtual rewards and Fear of Missing Out. Not to mention semi-organic peer pressure among kids, over who has the fanciest or default cosmetics. Which wasn't deliberately created by the corporations, but they are definitely benefitting over it, and nobody is dissuading that from happening.

The kids are not at fault, but I don't think this is a "just let kids be kids" situation. They are being exploited.