Would you charge for cynical predatory but perfectly legal DLC/MTX/loot boxes if you could make billions from it?

I'd like to think no....but in reality yes I would.

If i was to set up a game studio, i'd probably look to fish for whales while also getting money for in game advertising to generate moolah (focusing on mobile platforms here but wouldn't ignore the console/PC space).

I think i would then use that money to make a game that i hope ends up actually being great (and also generate a boat load of money...that's still needed for business).

It's really really hard to ignore the mobile sector though. It's a monster. It's a shame but it is what it is.

No, for many reasons:

1. Unethical

2. Wealth corrupts. I could use some more money in my life don't get me wrong but I don't needs billions or even hundreds of millions.

3. It hurts the field, which I cherish way too much to see hurt more.

4. I believe games should be "one and done", we shouldn't keep people hooked on the line. They should be released as complete and finished product. Now legitimate expansions to said games is fine but not the predatory/cosmetic DLC we see.

5. I'm a true believer in socialism, not acquiring a lot of material (note I said "a lot" so don't come in here being like "Oh well then you don't need ahouse or car hippie! hyuk hyuk") wealth, and frankly being a billionaire just doesn't appeal to me. By the time you amass that much wealth, you're not even really human any more, and you are so owned by the things you own it's not worth it. I doubt Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will die happy, fulfilled people.

The only reason I would do something like this is if I made billions and would then fund an army of lawyers and lobbyists to help me shut down predatory DLC practices via government legislation, a sort of "I did the bad so I could stop the bad!" thing.

Then I'd give the money back to the people if there was any left over, or use it to set up a development fund for small, struggling, independent developers. They're the only ones worth anything these days.

@GalvatronType_R:

Oh and anyone who chooses No is a flookin’ liar.

WTF would I do with billions of dollars that I couldn't do with a few million? Seriously, at some point, it's less about being financially stable and well-off, and more about just seeing how much wealth you can pointlessly acquire.

No, I wasn't lying when I said "no" lol 😁😋

@mrbojangles25: @mrbojangles25: as the kids say: STOP THE CAP!

Anyone who turns down the opportunity to set up their family for multi-generational wealth via legal means is an absolute fool. A man’s job is to protect and provide for his family so I would even argue that he has a fiduciary duty to make those billions if he can.

There is not one person who would not set up their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. for life if they could do so legally such as charging for video game extras.

As stated previously, it may be cynical and predatory but there is nothing illegal about it. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, it is the free market at its most beautiful.

Studies of wealth have shown that "generational wealth" is, more often than not, wasted by later generations.

Plus, they should work for their own wealth.

Also, I don't have kids and don't plan on having kids...so like I said, what is the point of having billions?

It's literally the free market at its ugliest. Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.

Or should we legalize all recreational drugs, too? After all, free market, right? Let people decide for themselves, no one is forcing them.

No but I voted yes because I'm a free thinker.

Nah.

Okay, if I was the CEO of a major publisher who had shareholders demanding my company always be making more money right now than it was at this time last year, I might force my developers to push something like this.

But if I was making games myself, or runing a privately held development team of my own, then no. I'd get into the field to make the kinds of games I want to play.

Now, I'm just some guy posting on a forum, so let me quote some rich and famous dudes to give my perspective more credibility:

"I said, 'Joe, how does it make you feel to know that our host only yesterday may have made more money than your novel ‘Catch-22’ has earned in its entire history?'

And Joe said, "I’ve got something he can never have.'

And I said, 'What on earth could that be, Joe?'

And Joe said, 'The knowledge that I’ve got enough.'”

-Kurt Vonnegut talking to Joseph Heller

“Don’t make stuff because you want to make money — it will never make you enough money. And don’t make stuff because you want to get famous — because you will never feel famous enough,”

-John Green

Yes I would.

other than selling drugs, pain killers or weapons I would probably do many things.

I never gamble but I would own a casino.

I never drink but I would sell alcohol.

I never smoke but I would sell cigarettes.

I never use social media but I would work for a social media company.

And I never play gatcha or freemium garbage but I would have zero problems selling it .

People should be able to make their own desicions even if they are stupid and counterproductive, but earning money form those industries is a rational and benefitial behavior.

For drugs and weapons I draw the line because one is too compulsive and deadly and the other kills people that have nothing to do with your choices.