You asked what makes me think objecting to this means not objecting to any of the other thing I'm whatabouting, well the answer is absolutely nothing. Besides, that’s not even the point I was trying to make. I’m not here to moralize about which pricing tactic we should object to or not. And I’ll say it again, I’m also not trying to defend R*. I’m pointing out that this situation isn’t some shocking outlier. It’s just another version of the same tiered‑pricing bs that every major company already uses.
At the end of the day, I’m being offered a product that I don’t need but might want. I can choose to buy it or ignore it. That’s the only part of this equation that I think actually matters. Companies breakdown their products, attach different price points by adding different bits and/or removing them, and people buy whatever matches the experience they want and/or whatever they can afford. To me, this is just another form of that.
And for the record, as it stands, I am going to buy the ultimate version. Not because I’m guzzling it down and be part of the problem as you said but because that’s the version that will give me the full experience of the game without anything being locked behind a paywall. Does that mean I agree with the practice? No, not really. But it won't change a darn thing to say I object when literally every other company on the planet does the same thing in one form or another. It's the normal state of how things are sold to consumers.
So buy it, don’t buy it, whatever. You do you. The only real power any of us have is deciding what we’re willing to pay for. And honestly, I'm positive R* knows that and it's probably why they did it this way.
