After 10 episodes examining predatory monetisation, abandonware, exploitative early access, and corporate consolidation, what’s the verdict on whether gaming is shit?
It isn’t. We were wrong in episode one. The confession is uncomfortable because it undermines 10 weeks of critical analysis, but honesty requires acknowledging that gaming’s benefits—unprecedented choice, cross-platform accessibility, and consumer protections—far outweigh the negatives. Yes, microtransactions are predatory. Yes, live service models exploit psychological vulnerabilities. Yes, publishers prioritise shareholders over quality. However, these problems exist within an overall landscape where gaming has never been more accessible, diverse, or consumer-friendly. The ability to play with friends regardless of platform, access thousands of games through affordable subscriptions, and receive protections through EU regulations represents genuine progress that criticism about monetisation doesn’t negate.
The Three Major Positives
More choice than ever: 700 games in Steam library, 500 free games from Epic, subscription services providing instant access to hundreds of titles, indie developers releasing innovative games weekly. The abundance creates genuine first world problem of having too much to play rather than too little. This is dramatic reversal from previous eras where gaming meant choosing between handful of releases each month and hoping they were good. The modern problem is deciding which of dozens of excellent games deserves attention rather than scraping together money for single title that might disappoint.
More ways to play: Difficulty sliders, story modes, accessibility features, custom control schemes, crossplay enabling platform choice based on preference rather than friend lists. The flexibility means gaming serves diverse audiences rather than demanding everyone play the same way. A player can experience narratives on story mode whilst another tackles same game on hardest difficulty. Console players compete alongside PC players without platform creating artificial barriers. Physical disabilities that previously prevented gaming participation can be accommodated through robust accessibility options that are becoming industry standard rather than exceptional additions.
More protections: EU’s Stop Killing Games initiative ensuring ownership rights, refund policies allowing risk-free purchases, regulations preventing worst loot box exploitation, consumer advocacy creating accountability that didn’t exist previously. These protections fundamentally changed power dynamics between publishers and consumers by establishing legal frameworks limiting corporate abuse. The protections came from external pressure rather than industry goodwill, but the result is genuine improvement in consumer rights regardless of motivation behind changes.
The First World Problem
Complaining about gaming whilst owning 700 unplayed Steam games and multiple active subscriptions providing instant access to hundreds more titles is absurdity that requires acknowledging. The complaints about industry problems are legitimate but occur within context of unprecedented abundance. Previous generations saved for months to afford single game. Current complaints involve deciding which of dozens of free or nearly-free games to play next whilst subscriptions provide backup options if initial choices disappoint. The scale of privilege this represents needs acknowledging alongside legitimate criticisms.
The first world problem framing doesn’t invalidate criticism of predatory practices. Abundance and exploitation coexist because corporations maximise profit regardless of whether basic product is good. However, the framing does require recognising that gaming problems are problems of excess rather than scarcity. Too many monetisation schemes rather than too few games. Too many ways to spend money rather than too few quality options. The problems are real but they’re luxury problems occurring within overall landscape of abundance.
The Cross-Platform Revolution
Five years ago, friends on Xbox and PlayStation couldn’t play together despite owning same game. The platform exclusivity created artificial barriers forcing friend groups to standardise on single platform or accept that cross-platform ownership meant playing alone. The friction served platform holders’ interests by locking players into ecosystems but provided zero benefit to consumers who just wanted to play with friends regardless of hardware choices.
Modern gaming demolished these barriers. Space Marine 2 on Xbox, PlayStation, and PC all play together seamlessly. Battlefield enables crossplay across platforms. FIFA allows console players to compete against PC players. The transformation happened rapidly enough that its revolutionary nature gets overlooked. The ability to purchase game on platform of your choice and immediately play with friends on different platforms represents fundamental shift in how gaming works. The shift benefits consumers entirely whilst platform holders receive no advantage from maintaining previous exclusivity models.
The cross-platform adoption also demonstrates that industry can change when competitive pressure demands it. No platform holder wanted to enable crossplay because it reduced lock-in advantages. However, consumer demand and competitive pressure eventually forced adoption across major titles. The change proves that industry responds to pressure even when changes oppose corporate interests. The responsiveness provides hope that consumer advocacy can drive additional improvements despite publishers preferring to avoid changes that reduce profitability or control.
What We Still Hate
The conclusion that gaming isn’t shit doesn’t mean accepting all industry practices without criticism. Corporate consolidation remains concerning as publishers absorb independent studios and replace creative leadership with profit-focused executives. The City Skylines 2 developer replacement demonstrates this pattern where Paradox Interactive forced out Colossal Order to give franchise to wholly-owned studio. The consolidation reduces diversity in gaming by eliminating independent voices and concentrating power in corporate structures that prioritise shareholders over creativity.
Predatory monetisation also deserves continued criticism despite overall gaming landscape being positive. Microtransactions in premium-priced games represent double-dipping that exploits players who already paid full price. Season passes create fear of missing out that transforms entertainment into obligation. Loot boxes exploit gambling psychology whilst being marketed to minors. These practices are unethical regardless of whether games are otherwise good. The criticism should continue even whilst acknowledging gaming’s overall benefits because predatory practices harm vulnerable populations even when they don’t affect everyone.
The distinction between criticising specific practices and condemning entire medium matters. Gaming isn’t shit because some publishers implement predatory monetisation. Gaming has predatory monetisation that deserves criticism whilst overall medium provides unprecedented entertainment value. The nuanced position acknowledges both positives and negatives rather than binary judgment that everything is either perfect or terrible.
The Indie Future
Independent developers represent gaming’s best hope for maintaining creativity and innovation whilst corporate publishers chase safe sequels and live service models. Manor Lords demonstrates what solo developer can achieve with passion and dedication. The game launched in early access feeling nearly complete, used revenue to hire help for areas beyond developer’s expertise, and maintained close community relationship throughout development. This is what early access should be rather than AAA exploitation of paying beta testers.
The indie scene also provides alternative to corporate consolidation by maintaining diverse voices and experimental design that AAA publishers won’t risk. Indie games can fail commercially without destroying studios because development costs are manageable. This freedom enables creative risks that $200 million AAA budgets can’t justify. The result is gaming landscape where AAA provides polished iterations of proven formulas whilst indies experiment with novel concepts that occasionally produce revolutionary games reshaping expectations.
Supporting indie developers also means voting with wallet for gaming’s future you want to see. Every indie purchase tells publishers that market exists for games beyond safe sequels and live service models. The cumulative effect of consumers supporting indies is maintaining ecosystem where creativity is rewarded rather than exclusively serving corporate interests that prioritise safe investments over innovation.
The EU’s Impact
European Union regulations have done more to protect gaming consumers than any industry self-regulation. The Valve refund policy emerged from EU consumer protection laws requiring refunds for defective digital products. The loot box regulations preventing blind purchases came from EU gambling laws. The Stop Killing Games initiative forcing publishers to ensure game ownership comes from EU consumer advocacy. The pattern is consistent: meaningful consumer protections come from external regulation rather than industry goodwill.
The global impact of EU regulations also benefits consumers worldwide because publishers implement changes globally rather than maintaining separate policies by region. When EU requires refund policies, Valve implements them everywhere. When France bans blind loot boxes, other regions benefit from transparency requirements. The extraterritorial effect of EU regulations means European consumer advocacy protects global gaming audiences even when other regions lack equivalent regulatory frameworks.
The lesson is that consumer advocacy working through regulatory channels produces results that complaints without legal backing can’t achieve. Publishers ignore social media outrage but respond to regulations carrying financial penalties for non-compliance. The effective advocacy focuses on building political coalitions supporting regulation rather than just complaining about practices to audiences that can’t enforce changes.
The Day One Patch Defence
Day one patches represent progress rather than decline when understood in context of gaming history. Previous generations couldn’t patch games so bugs were permanent. The games that launched broken stayed broken forever. The PlayStation 2 era of “it works out of box” is nostalgic fiction—games had bugs but no one could fix them. The inability to patch was limitation rather than feature demonstrating superior quality control.
Modern patching capability means bugs can be fixed after discovery rather than becoming permanent features. The ability to deploy fixes within days of identifying problems represents substantial improvement over permanent bugs that plagued previous generations. The criticism of day one patches focuses on symptoms—games shipping with known issues—whilst ignoring that those issues get fixed rather than remaining permanent like they would have historically. The capability to fix problems is advancement even when capability gets abused through shipping incomplete games.
The abuse of day one patches does deserve criticism when publishers ship knowingly broken games whilst planning fixes rather than delaying releases. However, the abuse of capability doesn’t negate that capability existing is net positive. The better position is demanding publishers don’t abuse patching through shipping broken games whilst acknowledging that ability to patch represents technological advancement improving consumer experience compared to previous limitations.
The Final Accounting
Gaming provides unprecedented choice, accessibility, and consumer protections whilst also implementing predatory monetisation, exploitative early access, and corporate consolidation that harms independent developers. Both statements are true. The question is whether benefits outweigh negatives sufficiently to conclude gaming is good rather than shit. The accounting strongly favours gaming being good because predatory practices affect specific experiences whilst benefits apply broadly across entire medium.
The microtransactions in FIFA don’t prevent enjoying thousands of games without aggressive monetisation. The abandoned early access projects don’t negate that successful early access enables indie developers to complete games they couldn’t otherwise finish. The corporate consolidation concerns don’t override that cross-platform play and accessibility features make gaming more inclusive than ever. The negatives are real but they’re specific problems within overall positive landscape rather than systemic failures making entire medium terrible.
Does gaming being overall good mean we should stop criticising bad practices, or does acknowledging benefits alongside problems represent mature analysis that serves consumers better than blanket condemnation?
