It being a singleplayer game is not relevant to this psychology as I explained. If your enjoyment of the game comes from the accomplishments in the game then those accomplishments being trivialized by a cash shop will diminish your enjoyment of the game. This, again, is part of this fundamental element of human psychology I was talking about which is why I mentioned it.
It's not fundamental because it's clearly not something that applies to everyone. It does not diminish my enjoyment of the game, I do not care because it does not affect me. If it doesn't apply to everyone it's not fundamental, it's social and/or environmental in some way.
It does not diminish my enjoyment of the game, I do not care because it does not affect me.
If it does bother me, doesn't that make it fine to complain about it? If I don't like seeing microtransactions in a game I paid full price for (or even just the trend of this happening across the industry), or if I don't like knowing that some features in the game that used to be free were put into a cash shop, or if I don't like that executives are trying to monetize every aspect of my experience, even after they've already gotten money out of me, shouldn't it be well within my right to criticize the game and company for degrading my experience?
And if you truly aren't bothered by it but see that some people are, should you really be trying to defend the practice? You have every right to not be bothered by in-game monetization and not complain about it, but do you really need to try and convince other people that are bothered by it that it isn't really such a big deal?
It doesn't have to apply to every single person to be fundamental. Some people are not pressured by FOMO. Some people are not tricked by dark patterns. Yet these things play on fundamental psychological phenomena of the human mind.
Whether or not a game is played against another is not relevant as to whether or not it is pay-2-win. At all. Not even a little bit, as a treat.
Games played against one another.
It's not fundamental because it's clearly not something that applies to everyone. It does not diminish my enjoyment of the game, I do not care because it does not affect me. If it doesn't apply to everyone it's not fundamental, it's social and/or environmental in some way.
If it does bother me, doesn't that make it fine to complain about it? If I don't like seeing microtransactions in a game I paid full price for (or even just the trend of this happening across the industry), or if I don't like knowing that some features in the game that used to be free were put into a cash shop, or if I don't like that executives are trying to monetize every aspect of my experience, even after they've already gotten money out of me, shouldn't it be well within my right to criticize the game and company for degrading my experience?
And if you truly aren't bothered by it but see that some people are, should you really be trying to defend the practice? You have every right to not be bothered by in-game monetization and not complain about it, but do you really need to try and convince other people that are bothered by it that it isn't really such a big deal?
"It doesn't bother me personally therefore it is not predatory or anti-consumer or pay-2-win."
You can't see the genius of this position.
It doesn't have to apply to every single person to be fundamental. Some people are not pressured by FOMO. Some people are not tricked by dark patterns. Yet these things play on fundamental psychological phenomena of the human mind.
Whether or not a game is played against another is not relevant as to whether or not it is pay-2-win. At all. Not even a little bit, as a treat.