@KoovapsI kind of agree with you, but I think this comes down to a question of politics, almost. Like big or small government. Do you think someone should be allowed to drink himself to death, as long as it doesn't impact anyone else? Similarly, I think these games DO prey on obsessive/addictive personalities. You and I can probably control ourselves when we play. But what if there's someone who can't? It
is kind of non-Nintendo, since they often remove features that
might be harmful to only a segment of their audience (kids).
From a personal standpoint, though, I think the games give a pretty good value, since I've spent $0 on Shuffle and less than $2 on Rumble World. I mean, I've bought tons of games for $15 that I've never even opened. Even though my kneejerk reaction is to reject pay-per-play, it would be a much more economical option for me, personally. My only personal concerns are whether the gameplay is compromised by the business model and whether the time I'm spending on these admittedly addictive games is the best usage of my gaming time. Like, it's not as if my StreetPass gaming sessions have been endless locomotives of bliss, but I have sunk a LOT of time into those games. Almost definitely more time than I've spent with games that offer me more utils/minute. That's troubling. Addictive is often used as a positive adjective when it comes to videogames, but I'm not sure that it always is.
@StephenPokemon Rumble World apparently has a cap of $30. Which is less than the 3DS Rumble game's retail price (to say nothing of it's current grey market price). Does that change your feelings on it?
Also, is buying cosmetic items really so different? Or does it feed on people who
have to have everything? I'm sure there are a lot of hat whales, as well.