So, at what point is everyone gonna realize that trying to argue with a defeatist is more or less pointless? Once someone gives up to the degree of calling the current situation 'reality', irredeemable, and unable to change without some massive upheaval of the status quo by some powerful and influential force... then that's kinda it. Getting to that point means, to them, there is no hope left, and there is none to be gained.
It's pretty pointless because you're trying to argue against objective facts. Calling it "defeatist" for simply stating what are facts is a just a way to dismiss those facts to avoid facing the truth simply because one doesn't want to believe it. I wish that it wasn't hopeless, but every fact of the situation indicates that it is regardless of my desire otherwise. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get off their butts and take real action to make
real difference to thus prove that those facts are false or they don't have any leg to stand on.
No amount of "try and be the change you want to see" and "just put in the effort, one person becomes thousands over time" is going to reverse that.
It's not going to reverse it because years of people "being the change they want to see" and "putting in the effort, one person becomes thousands over time" not actually changing anything have proven such platitudes to be false. People in this day and age have this warped optimism that gives them hope that things can get better despite the fact that they very clearly can't. Sometimes people say things are hopeless because they genuinely are.
The very fact that this exploitative crap still exists despite a long LONG time of gamers railing against it proves just how immutable they are. It's like not only throwing someone in a lake to prove water is wet and they come out still genuinely denying that it's wet, it's like someone who all but lives in the lake water and is currently swimming in it STILL genuinely believing water isn't wet. There comes a point when something is so readily apparent that it shouldn't even need to be stated much less defended and anyone who denies it is just being unreasonable.
If someone wants change, REAL change, the first step is to acknowledge the way things
actually are, not the way you want them to be. Otherwise any efforts made are going to be completely fruitless because they're not going to actually address the issue effectively. Denying the facts of the situation does not help actually fix the problem. You can't brainstorm or act to fix a problem if you're not willing to even admit what the core of the problem is. The people who have truly given up are the ones who want a problem solved but are in denial as to why the problem exists in the first place.
Had we all adhered to your sad level of surrender, microtransactions would never have been changed for Battlefront II. We all would just have said "well, that's the way things are" and doled out the money.
Look, I get it. You bailed out of the boat and you're mad that we're not all in the cold water with you. Too bad; I intend to continue rowing away from you.
What you're doing is called "cherry picking". It's a logical fallacy where one pick the very few things that prove ones point and ignore everything else that disproves it, in almost all cases despite the latter being significantly greater. The vitriol against Battlefield II resulting in microtransations being changed didn't change the microtransations in the vast amount of video games before it that are still accessible, nor did it make the gaming industry wake up and get rid of microtransactions in the games they released afterward. When vitriol like with Battlefield II actually changing these exploitative business practices become the norm or even a large minority instead of the one in a million not to mention actually changing the industry for the better then you'll have a point that actually has ground under it.
tvtropes.org
