Audience’s Rights Reform #12: Removal of unpopular game features
If a specific feature in a video game is widely rejected by players, it should be edited. Sequels and updates should only introduce positive changes, and never negative ones.
If a change clearly diminishes accessibility, fairness, or enjoyment without serving the game’s core themes or challenge integrity, it should be reversed. This includes exploitative pricing changes, mechanical downgrades, or design flaws.
Example A: Pokémon GO
In 2023, remote raid passes became more expensive. It is an absolute outrage that, to date, no country has passed a law forcing the price to revert. Ideally, the price increase would be reverted retroactively, complete with refunds for past buyers.
The change restricted gameplay options and increased costs without adding corresponding value. A reform-minded solution would require reverting the price hike retroactively, complete with refunds for past buyers.
More recently, the game discontinued remote raid invites from in-person events without notice, leaving many players blindsided. Sudden removal of established features undermines trust and community engagement. Negative monetization shifts and abrupt feature removals are unfair and should be banned.
This argument fits well with my greater opinion that wealthy individuals and corporations should not have more rights or privileges than everyone else, but should instead have more responsibilities.
Example B: Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
This game should be edited in two ways. First off, the “bingo” feature (widely judged to disrupt battle flow) should be either removed or changed to an option that can be turned off. Secondly, and more notably, the game should be edited so that either a Game Over only happens when both Mario and his partner are defeated, or so that Life Shrooms work on Mario only. (Because Paper Mario 64 partners don’t have HP, this is clearly a design oversight rather than an intentionally negative change.)
Example C: Animal Crossing: New Horizons
This game removed several quality-of-life features present in earlier titles, most notably the ability to bulk-craft items. Players must craft materials one at a time, resulting in repetitive menu navigation that adds time without adding meaningful gameplay value. This design choice has been one of the most consistently criticized aspects of the game.
Forcing unnecessary repetition diminishes enjoyment rather than enhancing difficulty or theme. Adding bulk crafting as an option would not disrupt balance, narrative, or challenge integrity; it would simply respect player time. When a mechanic is broadly viewed as tedious rather than engaging, it should be updated or made optional.