My 3 most unpopular opinions about videogames are:

"It's not a real RPG"

"If it doesn't double jump it's not a Metroidvania"

And...

"It just sucks!"

Metroid 1 says hi!

(Later Metroid games actually have something better than a double jump; an infinite jump!)

I think that it's ok for a game to have lootboxes and other microtransaction stuff. At least as long as you can enjoy the game without using them or "premium currency" can be obtained through reasonable amount of grinding.

However, when games start to use various predatory tactics, like giving you very short time to decide about buying some exclusive thing, or constantly showing ads that create peer pressure - that crosses the line.

Yeah or games that FORCE you to sign in and make a damn account on some damn 3rd party site like twitch for example to play with "friends" over multiplayer, Minecraft for example.

There are two issues I have with this:
1. Having said mechanic causes there to be an incentive for the game developer to make it hard to modify the game or the save file, which I feel to be similar to DRM. (In fact, some ways of enforcing this literally *are* DRM.) I am of the opinion that the player should be allowed to make whatever changes they want and cheat in whatever ways they want to.
2. I also feel that a game experience should be reproducible. What if you want to play the game 30+ years after release? (I've done that.) What if you want to speedrun the game, and compare your time, both to your own times and to others? (Again, this is another reason for being anti-DRM, but it also applies in this cases, and is also an issue for games like Dragon Quest 9 (which doesn't have microtransactions or paid DLC, but still has quests that need (discontinued) wi-fi to access).)

Another opinion I have (don't remember if I expressed it before) is that *all* released versions of a game should be preserved, not just the newest one. This, in particular, includes demos (which should not be limited by number of launches or total amount of time, as such restrictions smell of DRM), and also includes badly broken versions of games (Skyrim 1.2 comes to mind here).

You monster!

(j/k.....you sound like an ok bloke)

=========
=========
You forgot those that say to a game they dislike "tech demo".

============
============
Dead Space 3 does this....you need resources(gotten via bots you deploy and other means) to build custom weapons and make secret door unlock tools, but the game is easily beatable without paying for extra resources.

Well, both issues are easily solvable by releasing server part of the game to the public.

Also I hope she meant in SP only games....as imo it'd be wrong to cheat in MP when others choose not to.

Perfect Dark might be the most fun first-person shooter in existence, especially in multiplayer. The balance probably left much to wish for, but all the insane weapons and great levels made for some hilarious scenarios.

Which brings me to the next unpopular opinion: Balance is overrated in multiplayer and can make the game more stale and bland. Not every multiplayer game out there needs to be competitive.

I was killing DARKSIMS!

How I loved the different AI personalities. Revenge AI and the bully AI that picked his victim when the game started were hilarious as well. Not to forget the asshole AI that punched you, stole your weapon and ran away.

I totally wiped the floor with the cousin his 6 kills to my 56 kills LOL! on the carpark level we were on even terms as we didn't know the level He hated it I was a right asshole and I got him back for every time he played felicity and beat me

Putting the laptop gun on every spawn spot MWA HAHAHAHAHA!
I know darksims would do headshots that quick you did not have time to screw around CIA and FBI sims were particularly funny!
Darksims were insane you'd hear the weapon and you were dead on the spot if you weren't aimed at them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-VcbNKYK50

All online-only games are worthless shite made by incompetent, money-grabbing assholes. And by "online-only" I mean mostly all the multiplayer crap which is going strong these days with teens.

But then the company would lose money from those who use their own server rather than pay for microtransactions, so it would defeat the business model in the first place; at that point, you might as well omit such features in the first place.

I was thinking single player (note that playing against only bots counts as single player), but I think cheating should be allowed in multi-player if all the players agree to it. (Also, cheats should be allowed for zero-player mode; that is, when there are no human players; it can be fun to see how the game/AI behaves when the rules change.)

Some semblance of balance should still be present in every game for which that concept makes sense. It would be no fun if, in an idle clicker, you could get a huge amount of the counter (cookies in cookie clicker) without having to do much work, for example; it also isn't fun if certain interesting playing styles are not viable.

The ideal amount of balance is certainly more than, say, Morrowind, but perhaps less than Oblivion. (Interestingly enough, I think Arena may be more balanced than either Daggerfall or Morrowind.)

Sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense. If one server (official one) operates on one set of rules and anotehr server (someone's private) operates on another set of rules, existing of one doesn't "defeat model" of another. There can be numerous reasons why player would prefer one server and other players prefer another. Including the one with microtransactions.