Ratings

It is abundantly clear that user experience is the primary focus
One-time purchase games have zero after purchase monetization
DLCs are clearly based around providing additional game content - DLC may include cut content, but the content must have been cut for time, gameplay, story or cohesion reasons, not removed with the active intent of later monetization
Live-service games have a reasonable subscription cost and do not excessively time gate or pad content in order to maximize player retention - While these mechanics must exist in games, they should be optimized around improving player/community experience rather than forcing players to keep paying the subscription
need something addressing battle passes
need something addressing unnecessarily addictive mechanics (CoD aim-assist tuning) that indirectly increase monetization
do we care about DRM, invasive anti-cheat, data collection, or anti-competitive behavior outside of a game? (Nintendo lawsuits etc)

It is clear that user experience is the primary focus, but some liberties have been taken for monetization purposes
One-time purchase games may have some monetization, but the game is not optimized around purchase of them, and they are not implemented in a way that detracts from gameplay or are completely cosmetic/optional during gameplay
DLCs include content that could possibly be considered cut from the base game for the purpose of monetization, or could possibly be considered a bit of a cash grab, but they are still primarily focused on quality gameplay experiences or features that improve user experience
Live-service games have a subscription cost that may be considered high and may time gate or pad content for retention purposes - but they still seem to be prioritizing player/community experience over maximizing profits
need something addressing battle passes
need something addressing unnecessarily addictive mechanics (CoD aim-assist tuning) that indirectly increase monetization
do we care about DRM, invasive anti-cheat, data collection, or anti-competitive behavior outside of a game? (Nintendo lawsuits etc)

It is clear that monetization is a high priority and comes at the cost of user experience, but it is not completely egregious
One-time purchase games have an excessive purchase price or have a clear focus on monetization which detracts from gameplay experience
DLCs are clearly cut content or withheld features from the base game for the purpose of monetization, or can easily be considered a cash grab
Live-service games have a subscription cost that is clearly high and obviously time gate or pad content for retention purposes
need something addressing battle passes
need something addressing unnecessarily addictive mechanics (CoD aim-assist tuning) that indirectly increase monetization
do we care about DRM, invasive anti-cheat, data collection, or anti-competitive behavior outside of a game? (Nintendo lawsuits etc)

It is clear that monetization is the primary focus to an egregious level
One-time purchase games have an absurd purchase price or maximize monetization at any cost to user experience
DLCs are specifically designed to be cut content or contain purposefully withheld features from the base game for the purpose of maximizing monetization, or are blatantly optimized cash grabs
Live-service games have an absurd subscription cost or blatantly time gate or pad content in order to optimize revenue generation at all costs
need something addressing battle passes
need something addressing unnecessarily addictive mechanics (CoD aim-assist tuning) that indirectly increase monetization
do we care about DRM, invasive anti-cheat, data collection, or anti-competitive behavior outside of a game? (Nintendo lawsuits etc)

none

GRIFT