One thing i find odd about such arguments is that we are repeatedly told that the free market will provide. It will find the answers no one else can, and that only the competitive will survive and thrive.<br><br>Should this be regulated out of the game (an outcome we in the UK have no problem with considering regulation is not set in stone and being as it was put in place by our representatives it can be changed as easily as they can) then these companies will have to take the hit to remain competitive. They can't up the price of the game as there will be fewer purchases, they can't bastardise the experience with advertisements you can't skip as it would detract from the experience so much fewer people would purchase once the media storm ensued. The reality is if they want to remain competitive they will have to adjust and that does mean resetting their expectations in regards to quarterly profits. And should they be unable to adjust? Well then isn't it free market dogma that they should cease to exist and make way for competitors who can? Which for me would be the more desirable end game. There are plenty of good indy developers out there worthy of praise, and while power corrupts without exception it is part of the inevitable cycle of capitalism that for a while we would receive games worthy of purchase.