Talk:Boycott/@comment-5738001-20130801215010/@comment-5738001-20130802005728

Oh, I'm quite sure I'm still contributing, hence non-participation in the general boycott (I wouldn't consider myself a participant, but if I had found out about this sooner before the event was nearly finished, I would have joined in fully and that includes no playing at all).

Thing is, though, isn't attributing free players to the rise and fall of paying players rather like attributing fault to a game for taking advantage of a person's penchant for impulsivity by offering purchases in very catchy places (like in the middle of the Raid Screen)?

'''People are responsible for themselves and at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own spending... or lack thereof.'''

It's people's sense of COMPETITION and having to be better than that other person and having to have that newest shiniest card that serves to feed into this whole cycle; not the free players themselves.

The free players - the people who would probably spend less than $5 USD on this game altgoether for the lifetime of this game and for the lifetime of them playing the game - will very likely always be 'free'. That's their choice and it is also their sense of competition and how they view it. They're content with the competition or lack thereof. They're okay with seeing the bigshot spenders getting all the goodies. If they're not, they'll stop playing, period.

But the people who are going to spend... why can't they just... NOT spend in the same way that free players are NOT spending?

The free players can resist the competition and, like people have pointed out, quit if they hate it so much for not getting anywhere so why can't everyone else?

Saying that free players are the food for paying players and that they make paying players feel strong is taking away the responsibility of paying players to be responsible about their own decisions about paying into the game.

You don't ultimately 'cure' addiction by taking away temptation (in this case, free players who probably will never ever spend more than $5 towards a game like this); you 'cure' it by 'curing' the heart of the addiction itself.

To me, it's a bit hypocritical to put so much onus on free players first and the paying players last. It almost feels like what's being said is, "Paying players need to be forced to lose interest enough to not pay, while the free players simply just need to quit to help stop the enabling of paying players."

I mean, I get what you're saying, but paying players need to be motivated ON THEIR OWN, too, because in the end, nobody is forcing them to pay because ultimately, it is and has always been THEIR choice and whether they feel unduly influenced by everyone around them is also on their shoulders.