• Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s simple, the games that appeal the most to kids require some form of subscription. If those games didn’t, then they wouldn’t want ones with subscriptions.

    • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Did it never occur to you that this might not be just coincidence?

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It did. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, or adding more to it than there is.

        Children do not desire subscriptions as a superior model to owning games. The model of access is not something they are comparing and contrasting. They are simply going for the games they prefer, which get locked behind subscriptions. I never implied that games popular with kids aren’t intentionally put behind subscriptions, I was arguing that the subscription model isn’t actually preferred by kids.

    • Astaroth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      How you worded this makes it seem like “if those games didn’t” refers to requiring subscriptions.

      I would suggest editing it to “If those games didn’t appeal to kids” or similar; if what you meant was that kids just plays what appeals to them, and those games “just happens” to be subscription games.