8 Lies The Video Game Industry Can't Stop Telling

2. Almost ANY Defence Of Microtransactions In Full Price Games

Microtransactions became the pre-order argument of the 2010s, and though there were some heinous pay-to-win implementations across the eighth generation, we have seen titles like Rocket League, Warframe, Fortnite and more show that if you respect the consumer, there is a way to monetise an experience over time, and largely keep it fair.

In general, microtransactions came from both the idea of opening a "blind box" of content - first used in EA's UEFA Champion's League 2006-2007 - and the notion of any initial price point not representing let's say 30+ hours of game time.

Why should something that you can play for literally hundreds of hours be the same price as a campaign you blow through in 8? Is there some way that figure can be adjusted? As various devs have weighed in over the years - including games writer Alanah Pearce - that can be a more respectful way of thinking about it.

Obviously the reality of how things went boiled down to "how many pieces of this game can we slice off and charge separately for?", but it wasn't about fleecing the populace from day one, at least from those outside EA.

Overall though, the key terms are "fairness", and "balance". The vast, VAST majority of titles that have a tail long enough to be monetised, have repeatable mechanics and levels that could be offered up for free, segueing into a fair monetisation system afterwards.

The reality is, many titles still include remnants of the mobile gaming boom that reached its worst point in 2017, still coming with a console-sized price tag because of general expectations.

Even with Battlefield 2042 we're getting a title that's multiplayer-only, with tons of cosmetic microtransactions, but it'll be sold at full price. The "Ultimate Edition" is £110.