I haven’t checked in on Counter-Strike in a long time, but we can and should call out shitty business practices designed to exploit gambling addiction to make you play when you don’t want to. I’m not equipped to assess whether CS is designed that way, but gaming in general is not predatory and addicting in this way.
assess whether CS is designed that way
It isn’t. There’s no grind to get better weapons so that you can remain competitive with other players and no paid lootboxes that give you an early advantage. You start out with the standard set of weapons just like any other player and that never changes. The only addicting thing about the boxes in CS2 is that they look cool but I’d say that that’s more on the player to decide whether they want it or not.
It’s like saying providing the ability to paint your car is an addicting business practice, which I don’t really buy. This is not the same as pay-to-win and the distinction should be made here.
You get no advantage from the battle passes in Street Fighter 6 either, but they’re still designed in such a way to keep you chasing the rewards. It can be scummy without being pay to win. But again, I don’t know what hooks CS2 has. Last I played CS:GO was when it was $15 and had no microtransactions.
But because they have no impact on the gameplay, the onus is entirely on the player whether they want it or not. At this point you’re basically saying that they made the battlepasses and lootboxes interesting and therefore they’re bad
