I think the argument in the second half of the video is relevant, but not compelling. It's true that games corporations have created a business model that depends on secondary transactions like loot boxes and so forth and that regulations that impacted that business model would have consequences that might be deleterious to those corporations, their employees, or down the road, end users, but defending that business model based on those consequences is only saying: "Yeah, we created this monster of a system out of our greed and cynicism, but we're stuck with it, because regulation would hurt our shareholders, make us fire some employees, charge more for games, and not put out annualized games."<br><br><br>That's just using employees and gamers as meat shields when ten minutes ago you were using them as walking piles of cash. That's beyond cynical. I'm as leery of governmental interference in markets as the next guy, but if the last two arrows in your quiver are regulation by the government and self-regulation by an industry that has shown itself to be abjectly unable to self-regulate in its entire history, I'm willing to let the government step in.<br><br><br>I see the government's role in markets as a referee, to make sure it's a fair market, where sellers don't take advantage of purchasers. The games corporations create their product, hype it so that everyone wants it, and then starts erecting barriers between the product and the consumer. You can buy the shell of the game, but if you want all the content, you have to pay again. To finish the game (or sometimes even progress in it), you'll either have to invest time you don't have or you'll have to pay again. To play with other people without just getting murdered every five seconds, you have to pay again. Put simply, that isn't fair. <br><br><br>End users are being fleeced because games corporations went from nimble studios and devs to huge, bloated, corporate monstrosities that hate innovation and take years to change. Their inability to sustain their business models really isn't our problem. Their willingness to wring every penny out of people's pockets until it becomes unsustainable is. The government can legitimately act as a referee is this case by saying to games companies, "That's going too far. Stop."<br><br><br>There might be an indirect advantage to end users via regulation, too: they might be forced to manage their expectations. Consumer demand is part of the reason games corporation got so big. If consumers hadn't bought annualized products, they wouldn't be making them now.  If regulation led to a significant portion of the industry burning to the ground, gamers would have to look in other places, like older games, and they might have to be a little more patient. That might be the secret benefit of the government stepping in.