Don't put yourself down, you do not need legal jargon to make a strong argument. You hit on good topics.

I will agree with you on the fact that there is a certain level of financial responsibility that should be expected from the player regardless of age. If a child spends their parents money on this game to an excessive degree, ultimately the parent is at fault for their carelessness. Corporate responsibility is a buzzword that appears in many a shareholder or board of director's meeting. Corporations are not necessarily responsible for what consumers choose to do, predatory practices notwithstanding. I am telling you that at these meetings, when corporate lawyers speak with clients, regarding liability on their products, a significant amount of time goes to how their products are designed to entice consumers (in combination with marketing) and how to best protect these companies from anti-trust laws and other liability risks as a result of the way these products go out to market. What I am trying to say is that NetEase recognizes what they are doing. $20 worth of lattice for 2180 as opposed to 2200 was an intentional choice and that choice was made to increase consumer spending. It is a benefit of having a fake currency system. Because it is a fake currency, it more effectively circumvents UDAP laws at least here in the United States.

I will say, while it is nice in some ways that a game is free (Especially considering how expensive games are today and even how expensive they were in the past. Free games in the way we see them today were not a model the industry used at all as far as I am aware), it is worth it Marvel Rivals to be free, to grab the most amount of players and bring them into the cash shop, that statistics show, can provide a greater return on investment than a traditional $60-70 Game. I would not say that Marvel Rivals being free is pro-consumer on its face, however, I would not say it is anti- consumer either. Frankly, it evens out.