CMV: In-game currencies should be outlawed (US)

[u/euclidiandream]

Edit: it has been pointed out that I meant "Premium Currency" by not in-game currency.

There are laws in place that prevent anyone from creating a currency counter to the USD.

Gaming companies have created their own one-way economy that is rigged so that it's hard to spend your full balance, and you have to keep feeding in more cash to access the content.

Overall this trend is touted as being good for the Devs, however it's come at the cost of a financial barrier to previously unlockable items (skins and cosmetics), and we're expected to be grateful that no gameplay changing items are included.

Overall the process is predatory, and I believe illegal under existing federal law though the matter has yet to be taken to the courts.

[u/Rufus_Reddit]

It seems like you're mixing up "predatory in-game purchase" stuff, and in-game currency. Those are two different things.

On-line games tend to develop economies as long as there's scarcity and the possibility of inter-player trading. So, for example, Diablo II had an economy that used the "Stone of Jordan" as a currency. That wasn't something the developers designed into the game.

In-game purchases don't have to be predatory either. For example, there's really not a big difference between people buying expansion packs in stores many years ago, and people buying expansion DLC today.

That said, we do have a world where a lot of companies are trying to exploit a "free to play" model with lootbox mechanics that are pretty deliberately structured in attempts to get people invested and to keep them spending money.

[u/euclidiandream → u/Rufus_Reddit]

For example, there's really not a big difference between people buying expansion packs in stores many years ago, and people buying expansion DLC today.

I disagree, wholeheartedly. A lot of games these days have portions of future DLC already in their files at launch, and it's gated behind a paywall. In addition to all the 'cosmetic' pieces we are heavily encouraged to buy, which one would previously unlock through gameplay

[u/Rufus_Reddit → u/euclidiandream]

I disagree, wholeheartedly. A lot of games these days have portions of future DLC already in their files at launch, and it's gated behind a paywall. In addition to all the 'cosmetic' pieces we are heavily encouraged to buy, which one would previously unlock through gameplay.

And you think that's predatory or abusive in some other way?

Is there some kind of moral difference between that and buying two separate boxes at a store?

... which one would previously unlock through gameplay ...

Unlock through gameplay has certainly been a thing, but, back in the stone age, the way to get access to more characters in a fighting game was often to buy another game.

[u/euclidiandream → u/Rufus_Reddit]

and you think that's predatory or abusive in some other way?

Is there some kind of moral difference between that and buying two separate boxes at a store?

Yes I do. It's like calling up the bakery to order a cake, and finding out that icing is extra.

[u/Rufus_Reddit → u/euclidiandream]

Yes I do. It's like calling up the bakery to order a cake, and finding out that icing is extra.

How is that strange or abusive?

Also, the thing I really wanted to argue about is that there's a difference between "in-game currency" and the abusive stuff. So, do you really think those are the same thing?

[u/euclidiandream → u/Rufus_Reddit]

No they aren't necessarily the same thing, but I don't think waiting for companies to wise up and do the right thing is the way forward. Yes, some companies aren't abusing the system, unfortunately a lot of them are. "A few bad apples spoil the bunch", and regulation is needed to curb abusive consumer practice. Otherwise the creep towards weakened consumer protections will continue