"<a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7LxGtCxxsE&amp;t=6m50s"">6:50</a> Mostly wrong? And then you follow it with bunch of inconsequential arguments for why it is wrong.<br>Argument is that (sport) games can exists without predatory mechanics in them and you are saying that it is mostly wrong because:<br>- Because the thing for which they are going to be regulated is one they are using (and which forced that regulation)", it somehow prevents anyone to make game without those predatory mechanics.<br>- Because companies are greedy and want to always bigger profit then last time instead of just having good profit<br>- Because regulation that will prevent predatory mechanics in games will have consequences to those who are making games with such mechanics<br>- Because they would have to redesign how they are making their games<br>- Because they could put so much ads in their games (to compensate for lost revenue) that they would be unplayable.<br><br><br>How is ANY OF THIS in any way or shape relevant to statement that game can exist without predatory mechanics? You do not make any sense. This is exactly that kind of bullcrap that I would expect from corporate wageslave to spout at hearing in front of some comitee.<br><br><br>Maybe EA/2K games can not exist without such mechanics. If so, then that shows better then anything that they needed to be regulated. And in such case, it would be beneficial for everyone if these games ceased to exist.<br>All it would do, all the consequences you are trying to fakescare us here would be, that some other company would fill the gap and creat their own sport game without those predatory mechanics. Because as is proved every single year by many examples, good games will earn you good profit without needing any lootboxes or pay to win microtransactions.