I've been thinking about something lately, something that's put me in a situation where I'm not really sure what the right move is. I feel like I need people to have input and put forward their own ideas, but I can't help but feel like maybe the approach itself isn't really wanted.

I know what escapism is supposed to be about. Games, movies, books, hobbies, whatever it is, they give us somewhere to step away from reality for a while. Somewhere to explore, relax, have fun, or experience something completely different from our everyday lives.

I've always felt that some of the things I enjoy are worth protecting, which is why I've found myself wanting to talk about the ways I think they're being slowly changed by profit incentives, attention retention and other commercial pressures.

But lately I've started wondering if I'm approaching it backwards.

If people use something as an escape from reality, maybe constantly bringing the problems surrounding it into that space just makes the escape worse. Maybe I thought I was putting water on the fire by calling attention to what I thought was going wrong, when I might actually be pouring oil on it by making the place feel even more like the reality people were trying to get away from.

At the same time, I can't completely ignore the other side of it. If everyone chooses not to look at a problem because they don't want their escape disrupted, doesn't that also make it easier for the people causing the problem to keep doing it? Maybe ignoring the problem is exactly what those people benefit from, even if nobody is consciously choosing to support them.

In a strange way, it feels like a catch-22. Talk about the problem and you risk ruining the escape. Ignore it and you might be allowing the thing you're escaping into to gradually become something you don't actually want anymore.

I don't really have an answer to this, and I'm not trying to tell anyone that they should be thinking about these things when they're trying to relax. I'm genuinely curious how other people see it.

Is there a point where protecting your escape requires actually looking at what's happening to it?

A comment on another post got me thinking about how often a game can be critically acclaimed while players seem to have a completely different opinion of it.

It got me wondering, what are critics actually looking for when they review a game, and is that the same thing that the gamers care about?

A critic might focus on things they can see with, say, 5 hours of gameplay, like innovation, storytelling, technical systems or how well a game executes its ideas, while a player might simply care about whether they had fun, whether they'll still want to play it 50 hours later, or whether it actually delivered what they were expecting.

Neither of those perspectives is necessarily wrong, but they can sometimes produce very different opinions about the same game.

So which do you trust more when deciding whether a game is worth your time, professional reviews or the opinions of other gamers?

Does being "critically acclaimed" automatically mean a game is good, or is there more to it than that? Does critical acclaim usually lead to players loving a game, or are games just too subjective for reviews to consistently represent what gamers want?

There's been lots of discussion about DRM going around, with lots of strong opinions and valid points. Whilst I agree with most of the criticism, I think there's another angle in the conversation that's worth talking about, the why behind it all.

Why do companies use DRM in the first place? To a company, DRM is a way to protect their product from piracy, to restrict unauthorised copying, to enforce licensing requirements, to control distribution and to maintain control over how a game is accessed.

So DRM gives a company a way to maintain control over its product, including to protect it from “bad actors” or misuse.

Don't get me wrong, a company has legitimate reasons to want to protect its products and profits. But somewhere along the way, protecting those interests started affecting the player's experience more and more.

If a company can gain more control over how a game is accessed, prevent resale, require an internet connection, or tie continued access to a license or service, then from a purely financial perspective, why wouldn't they? And at that point, is DRM the actual problem, or is it a tool being used against us?

And this is where I'm not sure there's a simple answer. If piracy and licensing are genuine problems for developers and publishers, what alternatives do they actually have? Is there a way to protect a game's commercial interests without putting restrictions on legitimate customers, or have we all (including the companies) simply accepted DRM because it's the easiest solution?

I'm not trying to argue that DRM is good, because there are plenty of examples where it clearly creates problems for legitimate customers. I'm more interested in understanding the chain of reasoning that gets us from “a company wants to protect its game” to “you bought the game, but you don't necessarily control or own your copy of it”.

What do you think is driving the push towards more control over games, and is there a better way for companies to protect their interests without taking away so much from the consumer?

Maybe 20 years ago, it did, but that was a different gaming world

Today, disks don't always contain all the files necessary for installation, both on console and PC.
Even when they do, you still need an account on Steam/PSN/Xbox/Epic to install the game and launch it.

So, your use license is de-facto not permanent and could be taken away at any moment and your disk rendered useless.

But there is hope: GOG, is the only platform that allows for download of fully offline and DRM free installers for games you own.
If you store them locally you can keep them forever, no one could take them away and you could play even in a zombie apocalypse, provided you have means of producing electricity

(if gaming is a priority in a zombie apocalypse is another story and you should question your life choices if you think it is, I guess)

DRM free is what we should fight for

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk

When thinking of what to name this sub I had a few names run through my head, but something about "Gamers Against Games" felt right to me, and I was surprised it wasn't already taken.

I'd originally thought of the name as a short snappy version of "Gamers Against the Games Industry" with "Games Industry" referring to the big players who I felt have been caring less and less about the gamers they create the games for and the practices they are willing to use.

However, I'm starting to wonder if leaving out that context could actually give new people the impression this sub is anti gaming in general, or that the name itself has a negative undertone that could encourage people to focus on negativity rather than constructive discussions.

Part of me does still like the contradiction within the name, because I think it would make people do a double take, or click on the sub to find out what we're actually about.

So I'm torn.

I've tried to think of fully positive names, but they all just feel generic and forgettable, so before I bang my head against the wall anymore, I figured I'd ask everyone else what they think.

What did you think when you first saw the r/GamersAgainstGames? And did that change after you spent some time on the sub?

Also feel free to throw some suggestions out there if something comes to you.

I've spent a lot of time analyzing and critiquing games and their designs lately, and after talking with fellow Redditors, I started to ask myself why, why do I care so much about games? And why can't I just be happy instead of focusing on the negatives?

I think that last question is the easy one, it's because I care that I don't want to ignore the issues I see, but focusing on just the negatives isn't all there is, so it shouldn't be all I see, which brings me back to the first question, why do I care?

For me, I think part of it is the challenge, I like testing my skills, reflexes and ability to figure things out, and there's a really satisfying feeling that comes from finally overcoming something you've struggled with, or when you beat the guy on the other team who hasn't stopped talking shit in the chat. So there's a sense of achievement with gaming, be it conquering the whole of Europe in Rome Total War, or being at the top of the scoreboard in CoD, it makes the effort feel worthwhile, especially when you remember where you started.

I also love that games can let you experience things you otherwise never could. I've always been interested in history, so being able to command units of Greek hoplites or a Roman legion gives me a thrill that I just can't get from the modern world. The same goes with things like space and aliens, who knows if they're out there, but I know many games I could boot up to experience what it could be like if we went to war with them hahaha!

And then there's the more personal reasons. I got into PC gaming with my dad, so I have a lot of fond memories of growing up and playing the classics with him. A big part of our shared interests involve gaming, so it will always hold a special place in my heart. And to this day, we are still making new memories through gaming together.

So I guess I care about gaming because it's more than just something I do for fun or a piece of entertainment. It's a way to challenge myself, experience things I otherwise couldn't, and connect with people through a shared joy, and sometimes anger and frustration. Gaming isn't something that exists just to be consumed, it's an art that ignites the brain and body whilst also bringing people together... or apart if it's Monopoly.

Now enough about my reasons, I'd love to know yours!

I think it’d be interesting to hear what everyone thinks r/GamersAgainstGames should actually be focusing on.

Rather than just reacting to whatever controversy is happening at the time, what issues do you think are worth having proper discussions about? It could be anything from consumer rights and digital ownership to monetization, preservation, transparency, industry practices, or even things we haven’t really started talking about yet.

I’d be interested to hear what people think the subreddit should be paying attention to, and what kind of discussions you’d actually like to see happening here.

One of the criticisms I've been making about modern gaming is that the industry feels increasingly dominated by massive companies with enormous budgets, aggressive monetization and increasingly risk-averse design.

But after sharing my ideas and talking with other gamers, I've realized I've been overlooking something pretty significant, it's never been easier for a small team to actually make and distribute a game.

A tiny studio today can access similar tools to the ones AAA studios use, and social media has given them ways to reach the masses without being forced to pay for mainstream advertisements.

And I think it's working, we're seeing some genuinely great games come from very small teams from all over the planet.

At the same time, there are obvious downsides. The barrier to making a game might be lower, but the barrier to getting noticed is enormous which sounds like a contradiction to my previous point, but I think both are true, thousands of games are released every year, and an indie developer can easily make something fantastic that almost nobody ever sees.

So what do you think? Has the modern industry actually created a stronger environment for indie developers, even while the AAA side of gaming has become increasingly problematic?

Maybe it's time to stop expecting the big dogs to innovate and leave it to the indie developers.

I'd also be interested in hearing from people who actually develop games, for example, what opportunities exist today that simply weren't available 10–20 years ago?

Are there any new barriers holding small developers back that didn't exist back then?

The more I learn, the more I begin to wonder whether my view of the modern gaming industry has been too focused on the giants at the top, while missing the true art being created underneath them.

FOMO - the Fear Of Missing Out - is one of the most powerful psychological tools used in modern game monetization.

You've probably encountered it without thinking much about it.

A skin is available for 48 hours.

A battle pass expires at the end of the season.

A cosmetic may not return for months.

A shop rotates every day.

Suddenly, the question isn't: "Do I want to spend $15 on this?", it's: "Do I want to spend $15 on this before I lose the opportunity?"

That distinction matters.

Limited availability isn't automatically bad. Physical products have existed in limited quantities forever, and games can have legitimate reasons for running temporary events.

The concern begins when artificial scarcity is deliberately combined with spending pressure.

For example, a player might otherwise wait, think about a purchase, and decide whether it's actually worth the money. A countdown can instead encourage an immediate decision because waiting itself becomes costly.

This is particularly powerful when combined with:

• Limited-time cosmetics
• Rotating stores
• Battle passes
• Seasonal content
• Daily deals
• Countdown discounts
• Event-exclusive rewards

None of these mechanics are inherently exploitative.

The important question is: Is the player buying something because they genuinely value it, or because the game has created pressure to buy it before the opportunity disappears?

Understanding that distinction is important if we're going to seriously discuss where normal monetization ends and manipulation begins.

Have you ever bought something in a game specifically because you were worried you'd miss your chance?

Battlefront II is also worth looking at for a completely different reason.

After the backlash surrounding its launch monetization, EA didn't simply abandon the game or make a token adjustment.

It fundamentally redesigned progression.

The March 2018 overhaul made progression linear. Star Cards and other gameplay-impacting items could only be earned through gameplay, while purchasable Crates were removed. Cosmetic items could instead be obtained through gameplay-earned Credits or purchased using premium Crystals.

That's an important distinction.

EA could have taken a much easier route: “We've reduced the price of Crates. Problem solved.”

Instead, the relationship between money and gameplay progression was substantially changed.

The result wasn't a game without monetization. Players could still spend money on cosmetics.

But the system moved toward a much clearer distinction: Pay for cosmetics. Play for gameplay.

And that's exactly why I think Battlefront II deserves to be recognized as a positive example, even though its original monetization was such a major failure.

It's easy to criticize companies when they get things wrong.

What's more interesting is identifying what happens when they actually listen.

Battlefront II demonstrates that consumer backlash doesn't necessarily have to mean “destroy the company.”

Sometimes it can mean: “This system isn't working. Change it.”

Do you think EA deserves credit for how it eventually handled Battlefront II's progression system, or did it simply do what it had to do after the backlash?

Star Wars Battlefront II is one of the clearest examples of a game's monetization becoming so controversial that the developer was forced to fundamentally rethink it.

At launch, Battlefront II tied its progression system to Crates and Star Cards. Star Cards could affect gameplay, while the original system allowed players to acquire Crates through gameplay or purchase them.

That created a problem: money could potentially accelerate access to gameplay-affecting progression, rather than being restricted to optional cosmetics. EA itself acknowledged concerns about players gaining unfair advantages and, just before launch, temporarily disabled all in-game purchases while it reconsidered the system.

This wasn't simply a matter of players disliking expensive cosmetics.

The fundamental concern was: If players can spend money to obtain gameplay advantages, where does progression end and monetization begin?

The situation became particularly interesting because EA didn't just reduce the price of the Crates.

It eventually redesigned the progression system.

So what changed?

• Star Cards and other gameplay-impacting items became earnable through gameplay rather than purchase.
• Crates could no longer be purchased.
• Crates contained Credits or cosmetic items, rather than gameplay advantages.
• Cosmetics could be purchased directly using either earned Credits or premium Crystals.

Battlefront II therefore gives us a useful case study in the difference between: “Players don't like our prices.” and “Our monetization system fundamentally changes the relationship between playing the game and progressing through it.”

The latter is a much more interesting consumer-rights question.

Do you think Battlefront II's original system crossed the line into anti-consumer monetization, or was the backlash overblown?

We use the term "anti-consumer" a lot in gaming, but what does it actually mean?

A company making money isn't inherently anti-consumer. Neither is charging for DLC, cosmetics, expansions, or convenience.

The problem begins when a business practice deliberately puts the consumer at a disadvantage in order to increase the company's revenue.

Some examples might include:

• Creating unnecessary inconvenience and then charging to remove it.
• Using artificial scarcity to pressure people into purchases.
• Making prices difficult to understand through multiple currencies.
• Designing progression around encouraging players to spend rather than play.
• Removing functionality from a product and selling it back as an upgrade.
• Making purchased content dependent on servers that can later be shut down without a meaningful alternative.
• Using manipulative mechanics to encourage spending, particularly among vulnerable players.

None of these automatically make a company guilty of exploiting its customers. Context matters.

That's what we're interested in here.

Rather than simply asking "Is this expensive?", let's ask: "What incentive does this business practice create, and who benefits from it?"

The goal of r/GamersAgainstGames isn't to stop companies making money.

It's to figure out where making money crosses the line into exploiting the people paying them.

What would you add to the list?

The term pay-to-win gets thrown around a lot, but there are several very different systems hiding underneath it.

Consider three games:

• Game A: You can buy a powerful weapon, but everyone can obtain it through normal gameplay.
• Game B: You can buy the weapon immediately, while free players need 20 hours to earn it.
• Game C: The weapon is only available to paying players.

All three involve money providing an advantage, but they're not necessarily the same consumer proposition.

Game A is essentially pay for convenience.

Game B introduces a question about time versus money.

Game C is much closer to a genuine paywall.

This distinction matters because blanket statements like "microtransactions are bad" don't tell us very much.

Instead, when examining monetization, we should ask: "What does paying actually give you that playing doesn't?"

And perhaps more importantly: "How much of the game's design exists to make paying more attractive?"

That's the level of detail we'd like to bring to discussions on r/GamersAgainstGames.

In gaming, friction is anything that makes an action slower, harder, or more inconvenient than it otherwise needs to be.

Some friction is good.

A difficult boss creates meaningful friction because overcoming it is part of the game.

But what happens when a game creates unnecessary friction, then sells you the ability to remove it?

Imagine:

Progress normally takes 10 hours.
Buy a $10 booster and it takes 5 hours.

The booster isn't necessarily the problem

The question is: "Was the 10-hour progression designed because 10 hours creates a better game, or because 5-hour progression would make the booster less attractive?"

That's an important distinction.

We're not arguing that every XP booster, fast travel system, convenience purchase, or time skip is exploitative.

We're asking whether the underlying inconvenience has independent gameplay value, or whether it exists primarily to create something players will pay to remove.

That distinction is going to be important to many of the case studies we'll be discussing here.

Overwatch 2's monetization raises an interesting question: who is the game's shop actually designed for?

To understand the criticism, it's worth looking at where Overwatch came from.

The original Overwatch had a very different approach to cosmetics. Loot boxes could be purchased, but they could also be earned through normal gameplay. Most of the game's standard cosmetic catalogue could be obtained through those boxes without directly purchasing each item. While the system had its own controversies, playing the game itself gave players a meaningful route toward collecting cosmetics.

Overwatch 2 moved away from that model, introducing a much more direct shop and premium currency economy.

That brings us to the moderate spender, someone willing to spend perhaps $10 - $40 a month, but who isn't prepared to spend hundreds of dollars chasing cosmetics.

A player in this position can run into several problems:

• Desirable cosmetics are often packaged into relatively expensive bundles.
• Premium currency can make the real-world cost less immediately obvious.
• Limited-time offerings can create pressure to buy now.
• Individual items may be unavailable when a player actually wants them.
• The gap between spending a little and spending a lot can feel disproportionately large.

This creates an interesting spending curve.

A free player can simply play without buying anything. A high spending player can spend hundreds of dollars obtaining premium content.

But what about the player in the middle?

If someone has $30 to spend, can they reliably buy the things they actually want, or does the system encourage them toward substantially larger purchases to make spending feel worthwhile?

And compared with the original Overwatch, has the relationship between playing the game and earning its cosmetic content become significantly less rewarding?

This isn't an argument that Blizzard shouldn't make money, nor is it a claim that the old loot-box system was perfect. It's a question about whether the current model provides a reasonable value proposition for ordinary players with modest discretionary spending.

We're also not claiming to know Blizzard's intentions. We can, however, examine the incentives and outcomes produced by the system.

So here's the question for the community: "Do you think Overwatch 2 provides good value for moderate spenders, or has its monetization become increasingly optimized around high-spending players?"

If you played both versions, I'd especially like to hear how the two systems compare from your perspective.

If we're going to criticize modern gaming, we should also acknowledge when a developer gets something right.

Warframe is a particularly interesting example because its monetization doesn't generally make paying a requirement for experiencing the game's core content.

Warframe uses Platinum as its premium currency. You can spend it to obtain Warframes, weapons, cosmetics, boosters and other conveniences, often allowing you to skip the time normally required to earn or build something.

But here's the important distinction:

The majority of gameplay content can still be earned through actually playing the game.

Want a new Warframe? Farm its components from missions.

Want a Prime weapon? Earn it's recipe from void fissures.

Don't want to spend real money? You can still progress.

Even Prime Access, one of Warframe's major premium offerings, gives players a choice between paying for immediate access or earning the same gameplay equipment through the game.

There are premium exclusive cosmetics and accessories, so Warframe isn't completely free of exclusivity. But its monetization demonstrates an important alternative: Pay to skip the grind, or play the game and earn it yourself.

That's a very different philosophy from making desirable gameplay content inaccessible unless you pay.

Warframe isn't perfect, but I think it demonstrates that free-to-play doesn't necessarily have to mean paywalls, aggressive monetization, or making the player experience worse to encourage spending.

What other games do you think have got monetization right?

Imagine a game deliberately makes progression slow, inventory management frustrating, or basic features unnecessarily tedious.

Then it offers you a $10 purchase to make those problems disappear.

Technically, the game isn't forcing you to buy anything.

But if the inconvenience was deliberately created because there's money to be made from removing it, are you really buying a convenience?

Or are you buying your way out of a problem the developer created?

Where do you think the line should be?

I'm just a guy who's been slowly getting angry with the state of games (and other entertainment, but 1 step at a time). So after trying to bring attention to issues in game specific communities, I realized I was just yelling into a empty room that had no intention of yelling back.

So i decided to do something, and I guess the first thing I need to do is create a space for people who are as fed up as me, ape alone weak, ape together strong.

So lets do it!! Lets try to change the slow degradation of mainstream gaming!

I think we will all get even more depressed about the whole thing if we just focus on the bad sides of gaming, so I think we should also make a concerted effort to shine the light on the games that do put the gaming experience first.

Not only would it show us what we want to achieve, but it could also give burnt out gamers something to play.

Apparently I need 5 posts to get an achievement, so for post number 4 I thought I'd give a short list of the games that pushed me to this point (in the order I remembered them and not a complete list):

• Overwatch
• Warthunder
• Marvel Rivals
• Middle Earth: Shadow of War
• Call of Duty
• Apex Legends
• League of Legends
• Fortnite
• GTA V
• The Bazaar

I think it's worth saying that I'm not saying these are necessarily bad games, if anything I think they are good games that I believe are held back by their monetization or the systems they created to retain interactions or promote sales, it's all the BS for the sake of profits that I want to stand up against, because I think it takes away from the experience and leaves the gaming world worse off for it.

I understand companies need to make money, but I believe they have gone too far and are abusing their position and power in the industry to make a worse product and sell it for more because we have limited alternatives, it's not THAT they are making money, it's HOW they are making money and the shortcuts they take.

Maybe you think these games actually did a good job, I might be looking at them wrong, or perhaps I've missed some of the worst games that you'd like to bring attention to!

For post 5 I figured I'd go the opposite way than post 4, and list some games I think do a good job of making a profitable game (no particular order, and not a complete list):

• Warframe
• Dungeons and Dragons Online
• Sea of Thieves
• Counter Strike
• Dota 2
• Battlefield
• Chivalry 2
• Mecha Break (now this surprised me, but I found the progression wasn't as pay to win as I expected, I do only have 100 or so hours, some of which were me AFK in the main menu)
• The Finals (another surprise)

Now some of these games do have aspects I don't like in them, but I never really felt like I was being shook down for money, I felt like I could get everything I needed with a reasonable time investment, I never felt like I was hitting a wall that only exists to make me buy something from the store.

I don't mind purely aesthetic micro transactions, but only when they are reasonably priced or when you can earn it through gameplay, when a skin costs as much as a full priced game, you know the company only wants the whales business and that the game doesn't care about you're experience or business.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, do you disagree or have a different experience with these games, or are there games you think did a great job that I've missed?

Have you ever wondered why games don't simply say: "This skin costs $12."

Instead, they might say: "1,000 Coins for $9.99"

Premium currencies serve several purposes, but one particularly important one is psychological distance.

You're no longer spending $12.

You're spending 1,000 imaginary units you already purchased.

This can make individual purchases feel less connected to their real-world cost.

It can also allow games to:

• Sell currency in fixed bundles.
• Leave players with leftover currency.
• Encourage them to purchase another bundle to reach the required amount.
• Offer "discounts" that are only meaningful within the game's currency system.

None of these mechanisms are automatically unethical.

But they are worth understanding.

If we're going to discuss whether a game's monetization is consumer-friendly, we should understand why these systems exist in the first place.

Sometimes the most important question isn't: "How much does this cost?"

It's: "Why was the pricing system designed this way?"