3 ms·
> There will definitely be economic harm, and games companies will have to figure something out to fill the monetary gap. Regulation painted as 'economic harm'
by Jedd 8y ago
> There will definitely be economic harm, and games companies will have to figure something out to fill the monetary gap.
Regulation painted as 'economic harm' is hard to defend in an industry that's been around a long time without these kinds of practices being so widespread, and so user-hostile, that regulators are actually starting to care.
Games companies long ago figured out how to fill the monetary gap -- sell a game for money. The transaction is straightforward, transparent, and aligned with the expectations most people have for most goods and services exchanges.
What that kind of traditional transaction does not lend itself to is changing the contractual arrangement after the exchange (to the purchaser's disadvantage), or to orchestrate a situation where the vendor can continually identify, manipulate, and abuse the weaknesses of the purchaser.
- GhostVII 8y agoI think the difference with games now is that the expectations are much higher - games cost far more to produce than they used to, and are much more complex and have better graphics, so it is harder to recoupe development costs by selling a game at an upfront cost, especially when the expectation is that a game should cost $60 or less. Maybe we need to change our expectations of how much a good game should be worth.