Post by @nimgimli@gamepad.club

View on Mastodon

This post from @Nimgimli set me off this morning, not in a bad way, but because he sent me to start this video, which in turn made me want to write this post.

Gaming means different things for different people; any hobby means different things for different people. Some folks want to relax and unwind, some want to succeed and advance, and some want to compete and dominate. How people approach gaming is also different, with some folks taking a casual approach, some folks consuming anything and everything they can about a specific game, and some folks (maybe the majority) falling in between those two extremes. There is no one reason why people want to play games.

Sometimes, though, I feel as if the video game ecosystem is pushing gamers towards the extreme end of the hobby where everything must be controlled. If it’s not the designers dictating narrow confines of how interaction with the game happens, it’s the community who demand that others play from the same cheat-sheets.

In the video that @Nimgimli linked, the creator talks about how he feels that Diablo III is more of what he’s looking for while Diablo IV seems more “controlled” (my word) by the design. The creator talks about how D4’s seasonal character approach leave him always feeling behind the curve when it comes to the gameplay, whereas D3, which doesn’t have the constant updating, allows him to take things at his own pace and doesn’t stress him out (again, my words) if he should step away for a while. @Nimgimli had posted yesterday saying something similar.

Like many other aspects of our modern lives, video games sometimes take on an air of hostility aimed at their primary consumers. Diablo IV is just one video game in an absolutely massive ocean of possibilities. It’s in Blizzard’s best interest to keep players playing Diablo IV and not any other game (unless it’s a Blizzard game) and seasonal characters is one way they do that. That’s not even a cash shop option. It’s just playing on a fan’s fear that “they’re not playing the game right” or that they’re “not taking advantage of everything the game has to offer”.

We sometimes allow ourselves to become the victims in situations like this, so the entirety of the blame can’t be placed at Blizzard’s feet, although they get no bonus points of exploiting anyone’s FOMO. During the 2026 Steam Summer Sale I filled in the gaps of DLC that I didn’t have for Crusader Kings III, not because I felt I was missing anything with the game and DLC I did own, and not because I wanted something specific from a DLC I didn’t yet own, but because I felt that the game was “incomplete”, and the price point during the sale seemed reasonable enough to alleviate that feeling. In another example I finally started the quest in Guild Wars 2 to acquire the skyscale mount not because I really wanted it, but because I felt that ANet was creating more and more content which made things unnecessarily difficult without one. Now, is that really the case or was it just me, seeing other players simply jumping into the sky to head off to somewhere, feeling like my game experience was “lacking” somehow? I don’t know if one possibility overrides the other, but I don’t think either can be removed entirely from the table.

As gamers and consumers I think that we often put the balance of blame on the developers for predatory business practices, and we are often right to do so. The idea of the “walled garden” is too powerful for companies to resist especially in industries where consumers are spoiled for choice. Convincing players that they are missing out by not focusing on one game specifically is more like an electronic fence than a chain-link one as it’s relying on a player’s fear of missing out. Cash shop sales also play into “sunk cost” fears (ask me how I know!). But mistreating consumers isn’t the only target to point fingers at. We as gamers are not blameless if we allow a company to corral us into feeling a certain way if it drives us to play a game or play in a less-than-desirable way just to keep up with the Joneses who, in this case, are executives at the developer’s HQ who are only looking to increase revenue.

I frame this as “hostility” not in a torches-and-pitchfork way but because it’s both business practices and mindsets that can very easily suck the fun from what we often consider to require fun, and from what we often approach with a desire for fun. When a game seems like work, or when a game rewards us and/or punishes us — both of which depend on an individual’s view of what a “reward” and what a “punishment” look like — are we getting what we want from the game? Or is the game actively trying to push the developer’s agenda in the guise of something that we may falsely believe we want? All games have periods of grind, struggle, and boring content, but we don’t have to give our time or money over to any game which devalues the interests of consumers, nor do we need to always “chase the meta” because we’d otherwise feel that we’re missing out or “playing the game wrong”.