> Obviously, many parents avoid these conflicts altogether by simply banning such games altogether. While I sympathize with that sentiments, to me it seems extreme; fun and gaming strategies are legitimate pursuits for a child.
That's one hell of a false dichotomy. Why not just ban games with in-app purchases?
True, I'd been assuming a context of mobile apps. Though IAPs in console games are on the rise as well, so I don't expect that to last much longer. So far still clear of tracking adverts (far as I know) so they would be good on that front - for a while yet, anyway.
FWIW I have been avoiding mobile games almost entirely since they all started going the freemium route, and I will definitely point my daughter toward non skinner box games (as well as never paying for consumable or "cheat" IAP). If this limits her to mostly non-mobile games, I'm OK with that.
The problem is the implication that "fun and gaming strategies are legitimate pursuits for a child" are only present in games with in-app purchases. That makes no sense at all.
I didn't take that implication away from the author's overall post or the specific sentence that you're referencing. I find it odd that anyone would. For someone to write enough words to be so specific as to remove all ambiguity would not make for interesting reading. Instead I choose to interpret the meaning of their limited words charitably.
That's one hell of a false dichotomy. Why not just ban games with in-app purchases?