Why I'll be skipping Solo: an SJW story

First the first time in my life I haven't purchased a Star Wars ticket in advance, and probably won't be seeing it in the theater at all. Why? I'm not sure where to even start, but I suppose if I had to place the blame anywhere, it would be on that turd masquerading as a Star Wars film the The Last Jedi. As I said following that film.

"I can't wait for the next Star Wars, so I can be subconsciously told that white men and tradition are bad, and women, brown people, and iconoclasm are good some more."

The film induced me at the time to create this graphic illustration of the differences between what leftists and Conservatives expect in movies.

The Last Jedi was such a profound disappointment. I walked out of the theater with a protracted sigh. I'd just watched the deliberate murder of one of the most beloved franchises in entertainment history.

The portrayal of the male seen in the list above, just as in The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., was plainly manifest in the TLJ via the arc of Poe Dameron. If you didn't see it, you weren't paying attention, or you're simply blind. Poe was the typical pig headed, brash male, of leftist entertainment. His attempt at "man-splaining" was shut down by the "strong" and "independent" vice admiral purple hair. And purple hair's superior, calm and collected female wisdom, eventually prevailed and exposed Poe's masculine folly. Her and Leia condescendingly revel in their mutual superiority over stupid, brash, male Poe Dameron. And rightly so. I mean, what have men ever accomplished with their pig headedness? Besides establishing civilization, American liberty, ending German fascism, etc., etc., etc.

"Feminists" will of course argue those accomplishments have no merit, because all of those conflicts and circumstances resolved by men were created by men. Men are a blight. The world would be much better off under female rule, because women are never visceral, brash, obtuse, or violent.

This portrayal of men is, as with all things concerning the left, the opposite of reality. Everything leftists say and believe is, without fail, the utter converse of truth/reality. It is typically women that are driven by emotion, and men who are pragmatic by nature. This existential truth is often depicted via memes in which a woman complains to her boyfriend/husband about a personal problem, and then chides the man for proposing a solution to the problem, when she wanted him to "just listen." Sure, there are exceptions to this paradigm. I've seen/met pragmatic women (Margaret Thatcher) and emotional men (Joel Osteen), but as a general rule women are the more visceral, as they are nurturers by nature. And to make the former into the latter far too often comes at the expense of extirpating their feminine virtues.

If anyone was paying attention they would have noticed this portrayal of men employed in the last election.

What Hillary's really saying is, I'm more rational and level leaded, and therefore more trustworthy; because I'm a woman. You don't want the brash, petulant, pig headed man with his finger on the nuclear button. Because men, as portrayed by Poe Dameron, are impulsive and stupid. You want the calm, cool, and collected woman making those decisions. Even a woman who's been mired in controversy her entire life is better than a man being in charge. Because women approach everything from a female serenity of which men are incapable.

It is no less fallacious to portray men as incapable of self-restraint and placid lucidity than it is to portray women as suited purely for the kitchen. But again, leftists have no problem engaging in the sort of abject generalization of which they claim to be victim. 

It's not coincidence that leftists have completely subverted entertainment, and this narrative is constantly pushed therein. Entertainment has a significant influence upon people, and people do to a significant degree emulate entertainment. How many of you recognize, or have heard the phrase "I'm Rick James bitch" from someone you know? People, particularly young stupid millennials, are heavily influenced by their entertainment. And leftists like Kathleen Kennedy know this. These portrayals of men and women, inversely to their traditional portrayal, in modern entertainment is not coincidence. It's social engineering to which the young are, and have always been, the most vulnerable. It behooves a totalitarian state (or those seeking to establish one) to extirpate masculinity and ruggedness, and inculcate the notion that "violence never solves anything." 

It behooves a totalitarian state (or those seeking to establish one) for a populace to believe that unwavering deference, or peaceful "dialogues," are the only acceptable recourse to any problem. But that's not the truth; that's not reality. There are times when that is indeed the preferable solution to a circumstance, and times when the circumstance requires brash, risk taking, masculine aggression. It's not that women are "inferior," it's that men and women are different, but different is contrary to the Socialist myth of "equality." So it promotes masculine qualities in women and feminine qualities in men, and what you ultimately get with both, is some androgynous crap in the middle. What's lost in the process is the spirit of "opposing with manly firmness (the King's) invasions on the rights of the people," that gave birth to all the things traditionally American we love.

If "feminists" like Kathleen Kennedy have their way traditional gender roles will be extirpated. Femininity is a disability in women, in their minds, and masculinity a vice in men. Neither of us, men or women, can be ourselves or true to our nature under the psychotic Socialist paradigm. Both of us are assiduously being nudged, coerced, and warped into being something contrary to it.

I recall some "feminist" appeal, years ago, for women to major in engineering to mitigate or eliminate the disparity in engineering degrees obtained by women and men; as if that were some kind of "problem" that needed to be solved. In such instances the Marxist roots of Feminism shine through; this doctrinaire insistence on eliminating disparity, with no regard for pragmatic concerns or cognizance of any other factors, wherever it exists. If a woman wants to major in engineering so be it, but what's wrong with most women not wanting to be engineers? Again, it illustrates the (ironic) hatred for the female gender endemic to and on constant display in "feminism." Don't be a woman. Don't like things girls like. Be a man. Like what men like. Do what men do. Because being female is a form of disability to leftists, that can only be cured by turning women into doppelgangers of men; this coming from a movement that claims to be the vanguard of "diversity." (Again, always the opposite of what it purports.)

Some (leftists) will of course argue this hyperbole or nonsense. But Kathleen Kennedy made her feminist (feminist merely being code for female Socialist) disposition abundantly clear in her remarks to the New York Times.

"I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. [...] I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.'"

This is Kathleen Kennedy basically saying **** men; especially white men. And this statement as such conveys everything wrong, on a fundamental level, with the new Star Wars films. Who, if not white males, made SW the film/entertainment juggernaut it is? But they deserve no consideration, according to Kennedy, who like all leftists apparently believes you should cater to everyone equally, regardless of their level of contribution, etc. One sees this same mentality in leftists regarding any other number of things, e.g., the notion that Americans, i.e., the people who make the country what it is, shouldn't be catered to in its immigration policies. Rather, we should try to cater to everyone equally, even non-citizens and criminals who played no significant part (if any) in its creation and prosperity. Of course when a leftist says treat or represent everyone "equally," what they really mean is extend preferential treatment to everyone besides white Christian males of European descent.

Anyone paying attention will immediately recognize that this is the exact same agenda of leftist orchestrated demographic transition we see in politics. Kennedy is doing to Star Wars, and leftists to our entertainment in general, what Marxist politicians like Nancy Pelosi are doing to America. Kennedy, like Pelosi, hates white men, and doesn't want the Star Wars universe filled with them, in the same manner that Pelosi doesn't want America (or any other country) filled with them. And so both are flagrantly doing their part to purge them from their respective spheres of prominence, regardless of the consequences for such, and even if it means their complete ruination. Just as Pelosi would gladly drive America into the ground to procure the elimination of white men from positions of prominence in politics, or altogether, Kennedy will gladly do the same to the SW franchise, rather than continue catering to the demographic that made it, and her posh lifestyle from association with it, possible. And it will have the same result for the films as it has for the country. Perpetual decline, as subversive iconoclasts extirpate everything that made it special, in the pursuit of that most fundamental and illusory construct of the leftist mind; "equality."

To that end Screen Rant's Valerie Davis says.

"A bigger test for this franchise would actually come when and if a those film posters ever feature more women than men."

The abject senseless drivel these people produce from their benighted, shriveled brains, never ceases to amaze me. Again, this is an utterly typical display of leftist anti-logic. This sentiment, along with Kathleen Kennedy's above, is tantamount to saying the Madea film franchise should try to appeal more to white people, and depict more white people in its posters, than black people. But of course that will never happen. It's only okay to exclude and be racist toward white people; especially white men. Why do this? Why would you try to represent, and appeal more to a demographic that doesn't make what you're doing possible, than the one that does? Well, because that's what leftists do, for reasons I've already explained. Artificially create parity wherever you find disparity, no matter the cost, with no consideration for the fact that some things find their natural balance through imbalance.

What little interest for this franchise that remained for me was promptly strangled, the moment I saw that Lando was apparently a sexual deviant, and the new droid in this film was a droid rights activist.

What's so revolutionary about L3-37? Well, she apparently feels really strongly about droid rights according to the actor that played it.

"'She has a social conscience, which is really great to play,' says Waller-Bridge, 32. 'There’s a fire in her belly and something she cares about.'"

People will probably say this all a big, unwarranted fuss, over an improvised joke that made it into the movie. And that may very well true. I haven't seen the movie, but it occurred to me. But those people would also be missing the point. And what is that point? That leftists don't, and can't elevate art, but are invariably compelled to inject their own prejudices and predilections (via the actress's pursuit of "social justice" in this instance) into it, and render art a reflection of their vices and a vehicle to combat the perceived injustices of the real world in their eyes. I don't want droids with a "social conscience." I want droids that entertain me. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge couldn't let L3-37, be L3-37, in galaxy far, far away. She imbrued the character, and therefore the film, with her own real world political agenda (as all leftists do anything with which they come into proximity).

This is only further illustrated with Lando Calrissian, whom writer Jonathan Kasdan felt compelled to make "pansexual."

I think my favorite part of this article, from that leftist rag and den of reprobates known as the Huffington Post, is this gem.

"Since the beginning of the 'Star Wars' saga, we’ve wondered whether LGBTQ characters exist in George Lucas’ galaxy far, far away. Up until 2018, there had been little to no queer representation in his decades-old franchise. And then 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' happened.'"

My immediate thought upon reading this (after laughing that is) is who's "we?" Who the hell watched The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, and sat in the theater thinking to themselves, "I sure wish Lando was a homosexual?" Not me. Lando's "sexuality" never even crossed my mind frankly, much less did I have any desire to have it conveyed to me in any depth. Star Wars movies were never about "sexuality." But now they are. Because with leftists everything is about sexuality, because leftists are hyper-sexualized degenerates, who seek to inject their deviant predilections and proclivities into every aspect of their own life, and everyone else's life too. And this is why I am at this juncture done with Star Wars. Sure, if it turns it self around at some point, I may come back. But my days of buying a ticket with no reservations, no questions asked, are over.

As much as I would like to blame that exclusively on Solo, I can't. The farce that was TLJ had already driven me away. I offered my thoughts on that film on my social media (from which much of my blog is taken nigh verbatim) when it came out. The people responsible for that film were obviously leftists; the film is ostentatiously permeated with the taint of leftist sentiment (as are all things they touch). Its mediocrity is no surprise when this is taken into account, because that's what the leftist worldview produces, mediocrity. Any time a psychotic leftist gets their hands on a thing the outcome is invariably vitiation. Never sublimation. Quixotic, agenda driven, platform affirming excrement always becomes the priority, and pragmatism invariably falls to the wayside. For example, has government been purified or degraded by leftist involvement? Is government more focused on pragmatic concerns when leftists are in charge, or frivolities like "feelings," promoting "diversity," and pursuing Utopian fantasies? TLJ only further served to illustrate this existential truth. And even were that not the case, the writing was simply terrible.

What stood out to me, almost immediately, was that the entire premise of the film was erected upon a fallacious supposition; that fuel is needed to maintain speed in space. The entire film literally revolved around this notion. An object traveling through space will remain at a constant speed, forever, unless some opposing force acts upon that object. Once the Rebels reached the desired velocity, they could have literally shut off the engines completely, and drifted through space at that speed forever. But that obviously creates no tension, so an absurd fuel depletion narrative was devised, that completely disregards how objects operate in space in a movie ostensibly about space battles. Except they're not actually space battles, because ships do things like run out of fuel trying to stay out of range of weapons, the projectiles of which arc downward for some inexplicable reason, as they would in a naval battle occurring in water, under the constraints of an atmosphere and gravity, as opposed to the vacuum of space. I didn't know whether to scoff or guffaw. Inside, I was kind of doing both.

I questioned the utility and practicality of "bombers" in a space battle from the outset of the movie and throughout its duration. One would think any object worth dropping on someone in a fight, is worth shooting at them from a distance, in the vacuum of space; particularly large lumbering Star Destroyers. If the ships could penetrate their shields, then in theory so could the bombs. Bombs which, by the way, illustrate the concept above; i.e., an object in motion stays in motion; seen in how the bombs, after leaving the bomb bays, continued to travel through the vacuum of space at the same speed. The bombers were merely one of numerous blatant contrivances on display in the indolent mess we got in TLJ. I mean, without "bombers" the Rebels wouldn't have had to commit mass suicide by literally parking directly on top of an enemy with superior firepower. And if they wouldn't have done that, how could Rose Tico's sister we don't care about die, in some vain attempt to establish a rapport between the viewer and Rose Tico? (Oh, and to make us care about Asian people in space. You know, because space is a really "diverse" place, in case you didn't know.) The film felt like one extemporaneous contrivance after another moving a lazy story from one ill conceived scenario to the next.

I also loved it when Rose Tico admonished Finn for trying to sacrifice himself to save others, when the only reason they're still alive, is because vice admiral purple hair had just sacrificed herself to save all of them. But none of that matters, because "diversity." Did you know that Rose Tico was the first Asian American in Star Wars? Because the media sure knew; it was gushing over her historical achievement. I mean, never mind that we saw Veronica Ngo, who played Paige Tico, long before we saw Rose. I guess the Vietnamese Veronica wasn't Asian enough or something. And Rogue One's Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang? Apparently they don't count either. 

I went into TLJ having spent a year anxiously waiting to learn more about this new villain, Supreme Leader Snoke, who was by far the most interesting new character in the new installments. As the film progressed, and the minutes slipped away, I began to get more and more anxious waiting for his development. Only to have him unceremoniously killed off after having been in the film for mere minutes. I was almost livid when I saw his body, cleaved in twain, slump onto the floor. I muttered a slew of profanities under my breath, almost in disbelief, that this was actually happening. They really just killed off the most interesting new character in the film, and ultimately would do the same to Luke, consequently killing off the two most interesting characters in the film, in some botched attempt to hand the franchise over to these two non-entities, Rey and Kylo Ren. 

Or as I call him.

Kylo Ren is easily the worst antagonist in Star Wars history. He contains none of the terror inducing malice of Darth Vader, nor the insidious cunning of the aptly named Darth Sidious. He just gets triggered a lot, shouts at people, and commits acts of vandalism. And that's when it dawned on me. His character, if you look beyond his Star Wars accouterments, is an SJW with a light saber. It's no surprise as such that SJW's are so enamored with him, and portray him as some deep, complex character. They unconsciously see themselves in him. A shockingly superficial and simplistic entity, veiled in illusory depth, just as they are. I mean, Kylo Ren's lightsaber has more personality than he does for Pete's sake. I never cared about Darth Vader or Luke's lightsaber more than I did the characters themselves. But that's how I feel about Kylo Ren.  

Just look at The Rolling Stone cover promoting the film.

The same recurring motif. Men take a backseat. Both Kylo and Luke are by their placement subordinated to the superior, "strong" and independent" woman in their lives, Rey. Kylo Ren's supposed to be the new "dark" villain of the SW universe, but he looks like an emasculated, pouting 10 year old who just got spanked by the schoolmarm (after being dominated by female Rey in TFA).

I could go on and on about this, about how I couldn't tell if I was watching Star Wars or The Hunger Games, during their ultimately pointless excursion to the casino planet. A portion of the film that existed purely to subconsciously convey to the audience Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy's nigh palpable loathing of capitalism. They way they butchered the character of Luke Skywalker. This is a guy who preferred to die, rather than strike down his sith lord father in whom he could sense only the most diminutive vestigial remnants of the light, yet tries to murder his nephew in his sleep because he could sense some nascent element of the dark side in him. That probably offended me more than anything else about TLJ; this brazen perversion of virtually every male American sci-fi fan's childhood hero. And don't even get me started on Rey.

I said it then and I'll say it again now. The caliber of writing on display in TLJ, is comparable to what you'd get from me, who's never written a film script in my entire life, if you put a gun to my head and said "write me a Star Wars film in 2 hours."

I'll just conclude here. The internet is now utterly replete with criticism of TLJ. And if current reviews are any indicator, it will be again in regard to Solo.

God of War is more than just a video game: It's vindication

There is perhaps little in life that feels better than being truly right about something. And Cory Barlog knows that joy. He made a bold claim when he chided EA's Blake Jorgensen for claiming that people don't like linear gaming experiences anymore.

Luckily, for us, Cory's rebuke was no idle boast or baseless aspersion. The subsequent release of Cory's game, God of War (GoW henceforth), has proven that beyond any doubt by garnering nigh ubiquitous praise.

Having now had the chance to play it, I can attest that this appraisal is entirely warranted, and not merely "hype." Personally, I never cared for the hack and slash type of game GoW was in prior installments, and thus was no fan of GoW before now. I never played the previous games and frankly never had any desire to play them. I went into this installment with tempered (if not pessimistic) expectations, assuming I was in for a rather brief excursion of 8 hours or so maximum, and only trying it at all because it seemed much more like Tomb Raider or Uncharted (both games I liked very much). Several days of binge playing later, after a superbly constructed story, I've completed the game (though still not everything it has to offer).

Nothing is perfect. But GoW is perhaps the closest thing to such in gaming we've seen thus far. And in my opinion there's a very clear reason for that; a very simple reason. Cory Barlog has principles. Better still, he sticks to them even against the tide of popular opinion, and even when it's at the cost of turning a quick/easy buck. And this was conspicuously conveyed in a discussion he had with a panel for IGN.

I don't know Cory personally and couldn't comment on any other aspect of his life. But Cory apparently takes great pride in his work. And for this reason, this adherence to principle it seems, Cory was unwilling to completely whore himself out and compromise the integrity of his product, by allowing it to be degraded into the sort of insipid revenue generating fodder that pervades many (if not most) modern games. Cory proved, unequivocally, you can be both inspired and profitable and, perhaps most satisfying of all, symbolically shoved Blake Jorgensen's comments up his ass with all the brutality of a Kratos finishing move through the success of GoW.

It clearly eludes some (like Bungie for example), but Cory's sentiments in the above video are the exact reason God of War has been a smash hit, and Destiny 2 (D2 henceforth) was a failure. Bungie did exactly what Cory, having principles and not being motivated solely by profit, would not. And we've all seen the result. Cory's game felt like a comprehensive and complete experience that was every bit worth the price of admission, and was consequently a massive success, whereas D2 by contrast according to many of its players felt like an incomplete and hollow husk of a game. And I stated as much on Bungie's own forums (you know, back before they changed their forum policy to silence large scale criticism of their game) long before God of War came along (and long before D2 came along as well).

"Game developers are increasingly releasing a compartmentalized product, with diminutive content and features up front, in order to fleece the consumer for as much money as possible. Instead of games being released as complete products, they're being deliberately preemptively partitioned, and incrementally dispensed with an additional fee every time a new increment is allotted. 

You're all obviously either too stupid to realize, or too young to remember, there was a time when you got 100% of a product for your money. Now, by contrast, morons like you are perfectly content to pay full price for 20% of a product, and pay again every time another 20% is subsequently released."

This is basically what Cory is saying he didn't want to do (he even coincidentally uses the same increment measurement). What he didn't do. What Bungie did do. And the results speak for themselves. So Cory was right, and has been vindicated, and through extension all of us sick of this practice among prominent developers were likewise right and have been vindicated. The problem, unfortunately, is we're the minority. When I made my comments on Bungie's forums, there were a few who voiced agreement, but the majority responded with mockery and derision in defense of Bungie to my recollection. The reality is there's a whole generation of gamers coming of age who've never known a time when the practice of partitioning games for hyper-monetization didn't occur. They've never known what it's like to get a 100% of a product for their money up front. They're accustomed to leasing their games in perpetuity. In this it is but a microcosm of the larger society, in which the people accept assiduous socio-political vitiation without question and defend the status quo, because it's all they've ever known or can remember. And likewise as such if not stopped in its nascent stages it will become an irrevocable fixture of gaming. 

It needs to be understood (because it's plainly lost on many) that D2 will never offer a complete experience like God of War or be "fixed" through DLC releases or expansions. The latter being conspicuously the hope of many/most Destiny fans, which incessantly voice their hopes of the next DLC release providing the substance the current game lacks. The release of DLCs is part and parcel of and serves the compartmentalization and incrementalist "games as a service" monetization model. It's not meant to be a solution to it, or eliminate incompleteness in a game, it is the cause of it.

Interminable incompletion is the goal of the games as a service model. You're getting a portion of a game, ideally (from the developer's perspective), in perpetuity. There's a reason Destiny 1 players routinely opine that D1 wasn't good until The Taken King; that's the point at which enough increments had been released to provide what felt like a somewhat complete story and/or gaming experience. And thus Bungie, knowing completeness equals diminished revenue, promptly rebooted the franchise thereby allowing them to revert back to increment 1. Likewise, there's a reason D2 players say it doesn't feel like a sequel. And there's a reason D2 over time is reintroducing, incrementally, the same weapons from D1. D2 may have been marketed as one but it wasn't a sequel; it's a reset of the incremental monetization model. But that truth seems lost on many of the franchise's loyal fans who assiduously seek and offer solutions to a problems that exists by design; perpetual inadequacy and incompletion.

It should be obvious from the chicanery employed by Bungie (e.g., xp throttling), that they are not principled developers like Cory Barlog. They have repeatedly engaged in sophistry and coercion in pursuit of endless monetization. And that alone, to any thinking person, would assuage them of any hope for Destiny being reformed. The game's issues come from an ethos which allows, and even promotes unethical conduct, that prevails among the decision makers in the development studio. And a creation will always reflect the values of it's makers. We see the contrast in the values of the respective makers, quite conspicuously, via the disparity in quality between GoW and D2. One creator had principles and wasn't unwilling to sacrifice the integrity of his product purely for personal benefit. One did not and was. At the end of the day that's all there is to it. If people choose to reward the latter over the former, we will naturally have more of the latter than the former.

Cory has with God of War struck a significant blow to the lie espoused by Jorgensen, but that in and of itself will not turn the tide, and the elements that support it (both within and without development studios and publishers) are not defeated. The publishers and developers will continue seeking to fleece their customers to fullest extent possible, facilitated by consumers that are content to be fleeced. After all, the former could not occur without the latter.

In closing, I walked away from GoW feeling like I had a worthwhile experience, and with a contentment inducing feeling of completion as opposed to the emptiness I derive from the ceaseless grinding of games like WoW or Destiny. There was no engaging in monotonous tedium in an eternal pursuit for better loot. There were no loot boxes to purchase. And it was a more rewarding experience than I ever got from those things. And for that, Cory, I am grateful. You took me somewhere I've never been, and showed me things I've never seen, and it was one heck of a journey.

The reason modern gaming sucks is because the average gamer is an ignorant, fickle, and contradictory moron

I was happy to see the Star Wars Battlefront 2 fiasco occur. I was happy to see it blow up in EA/DICE's face. I was happy to see so many people finally acknowledging, and better yet rebuking, loot boxes. I've been criticized the slide of video games into veiled, more interactive forms of online gambling, for years. What I'm not happy about, is the abject failure of essentially all of these people, to acknowledge and address the real core issue. The thing from which loot boxes were born, RNG. And the manner in which the biggest perpetrators of using RNG as a content extender, e.g., Blizzard consistently get a free pass.

There's a Youtube video creator that made a video months ago, in which he ostensibly traces the origins of the loot box as we know it back to EA's FIFA. I actually like the guy's videos. He's an unusually articulate and thoughtful poster who produces good content. But I staunchly rejected his intimation (if not assertion) that loot boxes began with FIFA 09, and that Overwatch's loot boxes constituted an "innocuous form [of loot box] that poses no real threat to our industry."

Below is an excerpt of my response to that video.

"The notion Overwatch's loot boxes are an "innocuous form [...] that poses no real threat to our industry" is (woefully incorrect). At the very least, it desensitizes and acclimates people to the exploitative model seen in BF2, which is the first and prerequisite step to the pervasion of such. As someone who played WoW at launch, and continued to for over ten years, I say this in the kindest way possible. Spare me the (BS) that Blizzard is the "good guy" amidst an industry of greedy con men. 

WoW has been an RNG gamble grind since its inception, in 2005, 4 years before FIFA 09. The same thing that occurs when you open a loot box in Battlefront 2, occurs in WoW when you loot a dungeon/raid boss, it's just a less conspicuous (and therefore less widely recognized) version of it. And all of you consistently fail to acknowledge that fact. Every time you loot a boss in WoW a slot machine lever is pulled. And they charged you $15 a month for a gaming experience, for years, that revolves around a gambling mechanic; a random chance to get something of value to you. 

The game's RNG was (and is) so egregiously stingy, that the developers eventually put in loot tokens (coins) which allow you pull the slot machine lever for a second time, three times a week. (Which is an indirect acknowledgment by the developers that even they deemed their gambling system to be insufficiently generous.) It's the same exact slot machine mechanic employed for the same exact reason; to increase the revenue to content creation ratio.

I was criticizing it for what it was in 2005! That's how I know it predates a soccer game made in 2009. Everything we're experiencing now is a direct result of the wide scale acceptance of that model. Anyone who can't see that is blind, or hopelessly obtuse. The moment gamers accepted, en masse, that they would invest large amounts of labor for no guaranteed result, the way was paved for all of the exploitative practices we see now; a minimum developmental effort maximum profit production paradigm. 

WoW is one of the least innovative games in all of gaming as a result. It's been the same, rehashed crap for 12 years, much like CoD and Destiny 2 are now. And the reason why is the same for all 3 franchises. You don't have to innovate when people will pay the same amount, and even more, for an RNG/gambling system that requires a fraction of the effort to develop.

The loot boxes in Overwatch are a problem. And just because Blizzard hasn't gone full EA exploitation mode yet doesn't mean they never intended to or won't. (See their patent filings.) They frankly played a large role in legitimizing and advancing the exploitative model we see manifest today. If you people can't see or acknowledge that, then you're simply hopeless."

Developers like Blizzard and Rockstar, and games like World of Warcraft, Overwatch, and Grand Theft Auto, continue to get a free pass from most gamers, despite the fact every time you kill something in WoW, for example, the corpse gives a randomized reward; i.e., turns into a loot box. But because it's not shaped like a box, and isn't presented in the game's menu screen, it's simply not considered such or "the same" as "bad" loot boxes.

Not to defend publishers/developers, but, I can see where they might be perplexed by their customers on this particular issue. They're dealing with people incessantly demanding two completely contradictory things. In one breath the playerbase is consistently demanding more RNG under the rationale it provides "depth" and "replayability," and in another denouncing RNG as evil when it's implemented in a manner they personally dislike. The denunciation of random perks being removed from weapons among many Destiny players, and outcry for their return, whilst simultaneously railing against and demanding the removal of the Eververse (Destiny's loot box vendor) from the game is a superb example of this. Either RNG is unfair and exploitative or it's not, folks. (It is.) How is paying money for a game that dispenses guns with random perks, i.e., a random reward, any different in substance than paying for a loot box that gives a random reward? Answer; it's not. But many gamers can't seem to make up their mind, considering it "exploitative" when they don't like it, yet a good thing when they do. When the boss you just killed turns into a monster shaped loot box, or a treasure chest (loot box) literally appears in the middle of the room after killing it in a game for which you paid real money, that's okay. But if they try to sell you another one for real money in the game's menu screen it suddenly becomes unethical.

This nonsense is the actual problem, and why the loot box issue will never be fixed. These idiots simply can't make up their minds. If they really wanted to "fix" the problem they'd be demanding the removal of all RNG mechanics from reward systems in games that charge a fee, any fee, to play. Because RNG rewards systems are gambling. Period. But they're not. They're only demanding the removal of such if it's not shaped like a monster, and you didn't have to shoot it/kill it to acquire it. Are loot boxes bad or not? If they are the loot system used by games like WoW and Destiny is no less bad than BF2's loot boxes. If it's the RNG that's bad then random perks on guns is just as bad as random rewards from purchasable loot boxes. A combination of the two, obviously, would be even worse; a double whammy of "exploitation." But that's not the case with the arbitrary, widely disparate, and continuously evolving metric found among gamers which, if they want to address the problem at all, seek to treat the more conspicuous symptoms as opposed to the actual underlying cause. 

The unfortunate reality is a large portion, the preponderance even, of gamers are perfectly willing to accept the substitution of vapid, repetitive, pseudo-content in the place of inspired content. It's a common thing to see gamers demanding more "grind," which is not genuine content, from developers in lieu of the latter simply to sustain their gaming addictions. And the industry has naturally responded by striving to meet the demands of its junkie patrons by consistently churning out ever more grindy and tedious crap. Exceptional titles like the recent God of War can sustain themselves without resorting to such, but most games are not so inspired, simply unable to do so, and must consequently rely on grind-filler to compensate. And why not, when so many players clearly not only accept that practice, but even demand more of it?

It's easy to blame the publishers and developers but any thinking, objective person, would concede blame does not lie with them exclusively. They are businesses, and businesses can only stay in business, by providing a product people want after all.

Personally, though the recent backlash has made me somewhat less pessimistic, I am a realist and know it will only continue to get worse. Eventually the ever diminishing pool of Cory Barlogs will be replaced with Luke Smiths. Large scale, well funded, labors of love will, probably, eventually disappear, and and be completely replaced with hollow, calculated, business models masquerading as video games. This won't be stopped because, frankly, the average gamer hasn't the principle or intellect to stop it; because stopping it would require self-restraint in a society bereft of such; a society that anathematizes such.

When I see things like Star Citizen's "insurance" plans for spacecraft I see the dismal future of gaming.

I was quite interested in this game, but I'm glad I resisted the urge to impulse buy. Upon researching it, it appears to be just another grind excessive cash grab, from an unscrupulous developer. This was conveyed to me when looking at the game packages and noticing that ships have limited time "insurance." As with all games there's a contingent of mindless fanboys who will defend such a thing with all manner of specious drivel. I actually saw a video somewhere on Youtube of a guy defending this, saying he liked it because it provides "depth." Another because it helps players "bond" with their spaceship and have a "relationship" with it. Yes, you read that correctly; a relationship with an imaginary spaceship.

What this is in actuality is a real life responsibility emulator. And the problem with that is I play video games to escape those responsibilities. NOT to be saddled with more. Seriously, who the hell wakes up every day and thinks "I can't wait to go to work to pay for my car insurance?" Now thanks to Cloud Imperium Games, you can have the joy of working 8-12 hours a day to pay your house/car insurance, and then come home and log in to a video game to put in the work to pay for your spaceship insurance. That's apparently what millennial detergent eaters consider a good time. 

It's the people who think this sort of thing provides "depth" that are ruining gaming. Having to engage in tedious or laborious tasks to fulfill onerous responsibilities is not fun in real life and it's not fun in video games. And if that's the kind of "depth" or "fun" one seeks, they can have all they want of it in real life. They don't need to go to video games for that. But if that's what video games now have to offer, they no longer offer an escape from real life. More and more they're merely providing virtual emulations of all the crap people hate about life (for a fee) with none of the tangible benefits. 

The fact a developer even had the idea, much less thought it worthy of implementation, tells me a lot if not everything I need to know about them. Even GTAV Online, which I consider an egregious offender in regard to excessive grinding and real life toil emulation (requiring you to earn money to pay things like apartment utilities), gives you permanent insurance on any vehicle you buy in game by default, which includes any and all upgrades to that vehicle. But not Star Citizen apparently. Before long developers will be making players pay for health insurance too which; virtual Obamacare. Go out and kill/farm/collect/sell stuff, to accrue currency to pay for your health care, lest you lose it all should you be killed. And you will be killed.

I'm sure some fanboy will (absurdly) argue you're not paying real money for ship insurance. And to that I simply ask. Did you pay for the game or anything in it with real money? Yes? Then you paid real money for imaginary insurance on an imaginary asset. If you can't comprehend that, congratulations, you're proof human beings can survive a lobotomy. CIG is apparently a virtual insurance provider, making money in the virtual insurance business, off of morons who can't seem to grasp they're paying their premium with real money any time they buy the game, or a ship, or an upgrade, etc.

I should have gone into video game development. It's such an ostentatious racket now, facilitated by an endless sea of morons, seeking a "relationship" with their imaginary property. They just shower you with money for fleecing them in every conceivably manner. 

I will no longer invest in developers who do garbage like this. "Insurance" fees, and grinding to pay them, is not "content." CIG is abject proof, being "crowdfunded," that the prevalent disposition among gamers that "publishers" are to blame for such antics is dubious at best, if not completely illusory.