The mobile gaming era pioneered the approach where game design is fundamentally driven by the game's monetization mechanics.
Just as an example, Halo Infinite came out and it had warts, but also had a good fundamentals for gameplay. Good speed and weapons. Every single comment was about armor cores and skins. I just didn't get it.
Buying a monthly pass for one of those games ends up feeling like a pretty good deal because it enables you to increase your engagement with the game by a lot for what feels like a good deal. AAA shooters that go down this rabbit hole feel like they’re spending more development effort pushing skins I don’t want while giving a half-backed game with the promise of improvement in the future that often never happens.
For the price of a monthly pass for Clash games, I’m easily getting more hours of enjoyment than dollars invested each month.
You have no idea how right you are. It increases your engagement. Not your enjoyment.
> Good speed and weapons. Every single comment was about armor cores and skins. I just didn't get it.
You have to play for something. To reach the end of the story. To grow a thing (city builders, minecraft). Or... for skins in a competitive shooter. But there are no skins unless you pay real money for the game you've already paid for. Oops?
I don't know when it happened, but at some point in the past it stopped being about playing games for fun, and turned into playing these things for something else - status maybe? I don't know how to describe what I'm thinking.