See, but I don’t think that they got the message, except in the broadest sense that the listed practices don’t make them as much money. The business side of game dev never gave a shit and continues not to give a shit about anything other than money. They did not learn any lesson other than some bad practices don’t make them money – for instance, it’s BAD for them to lock out players from online to try to curb the used disc market because online is where people spend more money. (Also the move towards digital continues ever onwards, so it’s less and less of an issue anyway.) Same idea: straight up buying skins you want with money is the lesser of two evils here when compared to skins being random drops from loot boxes – the latter is more exploitative and eventually makes the company more money.
The problem, though, is that with the lootbox issue, I can’t really imagine a way to actually make it so that exploitative online practices don’t make the company more money barring outside intervention (i.e., regulation). Look at games like LoL, GTA5, Overwatch, TF2, FIFA, etc. They already make so much money. SO FUCKING MUCH MONEY. And it’s not once – they keep making money for years and years and years. It is mind blowing how much money Riot must have made with League, and it’s a freaking 10 year old game that’s free to play. It tips the scales zero percent whether or not I spend money on those games, because the people who do spend money are a larger audience and it makes financial sense for the industry to target them rather than me.
This is why I don’t think that voting with your wallet works; in other words, I do not think the message (= lower sales) gets there at all 99% of the time if it is just an individual decision to spend or not spend money (Star Wars possibly being an outlier due to the intensity of the fandom). I think it is absolutely a social, political battle at this point, in the sense that concerted collective action is the only thing that will bring about change, not individual purchasing decisions. (In the event that something actually DOES lead to lower sales, whether that is correctly understood is a separate issue.)
Of course, my idea of concerted collective action does not include death threats.