WoW had an absurdly high recurring fee that it tried to make you renew again and again and again. Because there was no micropayment infrastructure, it didn't use "pay to throw dice", it used "pay to retain your investment". By contrast, many of the modern games don't do that and are perfectly happy with their high turnover rates.

The point is, though, it costs the same amount of money if you take one chance at winning or a hundred. A monthly recurring fee makes the devs optimize for lasting engagement, not impulsive choices. Sure, lasting engagement may be created by having mechanics that make the player feel guilty about not playing regularly but it's not the same sort of incentive as a slot machine.

It was definitely less abusive, but I think it was more malevolent - like payday loans instead of horse racing. Both prey on the destitute, but one builds itself into your life (like a need), the other is merely novelty (like opportunity).

The point I'm making of that a subscription model isn't like horse racing. Loot boxes are like horse racing - an immediate chance followed by an immediate reward or loss. Subscription models don't go for that, though. They go for long term engagement. Usually through progression mechanics. The main draw of games like WoW is levelling your character, not getting loot. It's not like a horse race.

Right. I was making the comparison that mobile games are like horse races, and WoW was like payday loans.

Now, I don't really have a solid base of experience to form these generalizations with, so a lot of it is just being judgmental. But I want to make the point that while the endorphin loop of loot boxes (or worse, time boosts) is rightly condemned, the WoW model of milking your audience for literally billions was - aside from revolutionary - malignant. It wasn't just the good old days, it was a cash cow that consumed Blizzard for a decade until they too switched to the loot box model.