Sure, people hate that, but it's mainly about making any sort of exclusive in-game things.
There's a kind of player who wants to be able to get everything in the game.
. . .
Anyway, you may view the content as optional extra content, but others will view it as content in the game they need to do extra outside the game to access.
Some people also tend to be fine if it's just cosmetic, but things with gameplay functions will piss people off more.
That's a paradigm that simply no longer exists in gaming.
Expecting contemporary systemic pressures to
not influence modern gaming is like being angry over the fact movie ticket prices have doubled since 1997.
Costs have skyrocketed. Living costs have increased. Technology has advanced. Standards for gaming have increased. Budgets have bloated.
....Yet the price of games have been kept down.
Hard.
Something
has to give. You can't expect Hollywood movie levels of graphics, acting, scripting, coding, programming, testing, and more and then expect the price of games to stay the same for over decade. And carry zero means of extra monetization.
That's unreal. Video games, as a
luxury good, has seen the most minimal level of inflation of any entertainment goods and service. It's also seen a high level of predatory, anti-consumer strategies to make up for this loss of profit.
And Square has chosen the better option here and to somehow rail against them for
existing within the paradigm is just. I don't even understand the logic. It's simply not fair and unrealistic.
It just seems really rich to sell tickets to a show about the dangers of corporate conglomerates, and try to also sell you corporate candy bars for better seats.
.... The game would literally not exist if it didn't incorporate a means of re-couping the loss of profit that is incurred off of initial sales. It is wholly a product and function of leisure goods and services; a product of passion, recreation and creative expression. Not a life-dependent service. Being unaware still necessitates the acknowledgment.
These are
employees (not contractual, unprotected workers) who make a living in a luxury goods industry that has continuous exponentially increasing costs, laboring in a worker-antagonistic country, producing a product that has continuously resisted market pressure to rise in price to match costs incurred in production.
For the
consumer's sake.
Square, as a profit dependent business, has given players like you the choice to simply not buy the promotional item and still keep a complete and enjoyable experience! You are free to stay true to your goal and not buy something you don't want, and enjoy the game wholly without encumberment.
You've got the freedom of choice. And a choice that doesn't punish you by making the game more time intensive, deleterious or exponentially more difficult.
This is literally the proper balance of consumer respect of choice and acknowledging the need of profit to maintain existence and justification for a goods and service.
Expecting a paradigm to exist within a system that doesn't support it is essentially asking for something to cease to exist. Games wouldn't be able to maintain themselves. A modern video game cannot be supported with a price equivalent from the nineties. Labor and costs exist.
).
)
