Monday Tip-Off: Being Broke Isn’t The Problem

We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on how accusations of being “broke” are justifying predatory practices in gaming.

It’s time once again for me to attempt the impossible task of shutting down an ad hominem that’s become far too popular in basketball gaming discourse (and gaming discourse in general). Spend enough time talking about microtransactions, pay-to-win (or pay-to-enjoy) mechanics, and tedious grinding, and someone will accuse you of being “broke”. For you see, the only reason not to want to pay above and beyond the cost of a game is – apparently – because you can’t afford it. Conversely, being willing to dump disposable (or not-so-disposable) income into a game is somehow virtuous.

There are so, so many problems with that line of thinking. Sadly, however, shills continue to trot out that argument to shut down any criticism of recurrent revenue mechanics. “Broke” has become a buzzword along the lines of “cartoonish“, only it’s far worse because of how judgmental it is towards your fellow gamers. Obviously, there are hobbies that are expensive, and given the cost of hardware alone, video games do arguably qualify as such a hobby to some extent. There are still reasonable and unreasonable costs though, and focusing on personal wealth overlooks that the problems with recurrent revenue mechanics have nothing to do with being broke.

Although this issue does apply to MyTEAM as well as MyCAREER, I believe that it’s worse when it comes to the latter. For as much of a money-maker as MyTEAM is, it’s arguably less of a grind than MyCAREER. If nothing else, the pre-order bonuses tend to benefit MyTEAM gamers far more than they do MyCAREER enthusiasts. The high odds of pulling doubles aside, the weekly packs are a way of picking up some good cards to boost your lineup. On top of that, there are enough modes and features in MyTEAM to make No Money Spent a surprisingly viable approach. Upgrading a MyPLAYER on the other hand is far more tedious, or alternatively, quite expensive.

This doesn’t make the NBA side of MyCAREER a lot of fun at the beginning, and it makes the online competitive scene completely miserable. As I’ve discussed in great detail before, the two options are to grind hard and take advantage of every method of earning additional VC, or paying for a shortcut if you don’t have the time or patience. This feeds the whole “it’s optional” narrative; something that is technically true, but doesn’t consider the appeal and fairness of the two options we’re presented with. We don’t need to get into all of that again, but those options are frequently justified with the suggestion that anyone who finds them unfair or unappealing is just lazy or broke.

The idea that the only reason someone won’t pay to skip the grind and have a better experience is because they can’t afford it is simply absurd. It’s also extremely elitist and classist, but first and foremost, it’s often erroneous. Sure, those of us who are living more modestly or indeed paycheque to paycheque are going to seek bargains, and be concerned with unnecessary costs and fair value for money. At the same time, wealthy people don’t remain wealthy by being reckless with their fortune. Sure, some people have so much disposable income they can and will safely pump it into their hobbies without a second thought, but most still try to be financially responsible.

To that point, we want our hobbies to be enjoyable. If a financial stake is involved, we usually want it to be a fair investment. We don’t usually relish the thought of doing and paying for something that we’re not enjoying. If a leisure activity is no longer enjoyable, then it becomes an unwanted expense. By the same token, if a hobby isn’t fun unless we need to spend exorbitantly and unnecessarily, it’s not an expense that most of us will be willing to incur. Whether or not we can comfortably afford it is irrelevant. If an activity, product, or service is unappealing and/or not worth the price, then there’s no incentive to keep doing, buying, or subscribing to it, even if you can.

Not wanting to pay an additional cost for a MyPLAYER that’s actually enjoyable to play with has nothing to do with being “broke”. It’s recognising the predatory nature of microtransactions, and refusing to be a part of it. It’s realising that the predicament is by design, which means the gameplay experience is intentionally poorer in order to squeeze additional revenue out of gamers. It’s refusing to support a system in which people who don’t want to spend above the cost of buying the game are at a marked disadvantage in the online scene, undermining competitive balance and the notion of “stick skills”. It’s making the statement that “this isn’t worth spending my money on.”

After all, MyCAREER could be just as fun without microtransactions. It was prior to their introduction back in NBA 2K13, and even for a few years afterwards, before the pushiness to recurrent revenue mechanics really set in. The fact that there is a career mode in NBA 2K that completely foregoes microtransactions – The W – is proof that it isn’t necessary to the design, or for our enjoyment. It’s only necessary – or at least tempting – to buy shortcuts in MyCAREER because it’s designed to be frustrating if we don’t! Considering that fun and value for money are aspects of video games that can and should be evaluated when critiquing them, these are reasonable observations.

Shills are going to shill though, and shout down those criticisms by crying “broke”. Of course, this not only misses the point of why someone would refuse to pay extra even if they’re able to, but also shames people who literally cannot. The response to this is usually “Well, don’t play video games if you can’t afford it”. Frankly, this is some gross, classist rhetoric. Someone may well save and budget for gaming hardware and the title of their choice, but can’t afford to spend above the cost of a game every year. To bleat about the purity of competitive balance, while simultaneously being fine with paying for an advantage if you can afford it, is either incredibly obtuse or hypocritical.

It’s led to gamers being way too comfortable paying above full price for the good version; never mind the deluxe experience! Once again, I’ll compare it to going to see a movie. Paying extra for a cinema that provides special service such as a meal and drinks, and luxurious seats, is understandable. However, while that part of the movie-going experience is different, the film that’s screened will be the same as in a regular cinema. Imagine for a moment that that wasn’t the case, and that anyone paying the standard ticket price was shown a boring and poorly-edited cut of the film. To see the proper version of the movie, they’d need to pay extra on top of the price of admission.

If that did actually happen with a film, no one in their right mind would call someone “broke” if they objected to it. We wouldn’t accept it, and rightfully so! It’s bizarre that with a different medium such as video games, we accept a choice between subpar and good, rather than great and premium. When a “deluxe edition” is the most viable way to maybe get minimal enjoyment out of a game, it’s hardly deluxe. The sad part is that we did used to push back on these things. Paid DLC to flesh out an unfinished game or add the “real ending”, as well as concepts such as on-disc DLC, used to be highly controversial. Over the years, we’ve come to accept them as being the way of things.

People even defend it! Those who speak out about it are accused of being “broke”, dismissing legitimate critique and shaming anyone who can’t afford to throw away their income on digital content that’s ultimately temporary. In that respect of course, video games have caught up to other aspects of pop culture and fashion that inspire peer pressure and bullying. Long before microtransactions in video games, kids were bullied if they didn’t wear the right clothes and shoes, or they had knock-off brands instead of authentic ones for fashion, toys, electronics, and so on. It’s happened for years, but that doesn’t make it right, or something video games needed to emulate.

That’s what’s happened though, and it’s why we have kids getting bullied because they’re not using premium skins in Fortnite. It’s why the online scene in NBA 2K has problems with people avoiding playing with and against each other, because of how their MyPLAYER is dressed. It’s why MyCAREER is designed to be a slog if you don’t pay (or at least pre-order the expensive edition with its additional VC), and competitive online balance is ruined. It’s why you have shills calling people “broke” because they dare to believe that you shouldn’t have to pay above recommended retail price to get an enjoyable experience out of a video game. That’s where we’re at, now.

The problem with MyCAREER, and MyTEAM to some extent, isn’t that people are broke. It’s that the design is broken – albeit intentionally – in order to make them more profitable thanks to people who can afford to pay even more money, as well as those who can’t but do anyway. It’s predatory, it’s antithetical to the point of video games – or at least, what they were envisioned as – and the only people benefitting from it are the suits who devise these slimy practices. If you defend or advocate for them, you’re a shill, a fool, or utterly heartless; or, possibly all three. Either way, your view is utterly contemptible. At some point, corporate propaganda flat out broke your mind.

After all, it’s ultimately your loss as well. I’m bewildered how anyone could look at how games used to be, and how recurrent revenue mechanics have affected them so negatively since, and think “that’s progress; this is the way it should be”. There’s a difference between acknowledging the situation, and accepting or even embracing it. Suggesting someone is “broke” because they won’t support a predatory practice is myopic nonsense. Shaming someone who actually can’t afford it is as childish and rotten as bullying someone for not wearing designer clothes. Again, if you can’t see what’s actually broken and bankrupt here, then you’ve got more dollars than sense.