Video game pundit Jim Sterling has amassed an impressive following on YouTube, speaking candidly about predatory industry practices within the game industry. His success on the platform is both a factor of his previous career as a professional games journalist and his current role as an expressive, brash critic of the negative trends in video games.
Jim Sterling’s time as an editor on gaming culture site Destructoid helped him establish a voice and a following in the days before “YouTuber” was a common word. It was there that he launched The Jimquisition, a web video series in which he dissects what he perceives to be an unsavory issue in video games, usually with a dose of comedy and a deluge of profanities. In most cases, that issue is either related to the design choices represented in the game itself, or to the game’s business tactics for generating revenue.
Over the past decade or so, there’s been a raging debate in the game industry regarding video games having the option to purchase add-ons. These purchases (known as microtransactions) can range from content that extends a game’s story, to randomized packs of items that may give the player an edge in competition. The latter, referred to as a loot box, has been a heavy point of criticism over a simple concept: handing over money for a product, while being unaware of what the return will be, is the definition of gambling.
How Jim Sterling’s Earned a Mass Following
Sterling’s community is a major part of his online presence. His YouTube channel is unsupported by advertisements, and his primary professional income is via the crowdfunding website Patreon. While consistency and SEO certainly played a role in his success, Jim Sterling’s public persona as a “tells it like it is” critic, unafraid to speak his truth to the larger corporations powering the game industry, has won him many allies. At times he serves as a mouthpiece for the complaints gamers have with the business side of video games. He appeals to a like-minded audience and presents his content to them in a way that captures their anger on each issue. It’s an organic relationship that has created a scenario in which fans watch him, not to get news on the topic, but to specifically get his take on it.
Why Jim Sterling Is So Opposed to Loot Boxes
The microtransaction debate is much more complex than most gamers realize, but it’s very easy to be upset at all the issues in-game purchases can create. The biggest issue societally is the idea that glorified gambling in a video game takes advantage of financially irresponsible people. That could mean gambling addicts, but it could also mean children. The bigger issue from a gaming perspective is the notion that if a game encourages players to pay cash for an advantage, it is likely also designed to penalize players who don’t spend the extra money. Players fear that a skill-based, competitive game with purchasable upgrades gives an unfair advantage to players with more disposable income, for example. Similarly, there’s a fear that games will artificially stretch their progression paths and then provide players the option to skip the progression stage by paying more money.
These ideas, when successful, have the potential to reverberate across the industry, thereby making all games worse on average. That’s the reality critics like Sterling feel they’re combating by opposing microtransactions. They feel a game designed without a focus on monetization is more likely to be a quality product.
Next: Animal Crossing In-Game Purchases Might Not Be Microtransactions
