3 ms·

I don't think it's that simple: there was a feedback loop involved in which game (and app) developers share some of the "blame" for what has happened. A few cou

by sidlls 7y ago

I don't think it's that simple: there was a feedback loop involved in which game (and app) developers share some of the "blame" for what has happened. A few could have differentiated themselves by continuing to offer high-end gaming and app experiences at a premium, but chose short-term, easy money. I don't blame them entirely, but someone in a position of power with even reasonable patience and foresight back then could have kept enough competitive share of the market to profit well without going into the race to the bottom we've seen.

magduf 7y ago
But if there's more money in doing it the way they're doing it now (leading to you calling it "short-term, easy money"), and switching back to the old way isn't more profitable, then that's really down to the consumers, because without them there would be zero revenue for these game companies. The game companies aren't really in a position of power here; the consumers are. If they stop buying, then the entire industry goes under immediately. As I said before, games are purely a luxury, though it seems like gamers refuse to believe this. But apparently there's no shortage of people willing to throw their money at these companies and buy into these business models of buying broken games and paying extra to "unlock" content to keep playing. I have coworkers like this. They complain a lot about the state of games, about how buggy they are and how they're entirely broken when they're first released, yet they keep buying them anyway. I ask them why and they don't really have an answer. Personally, I have much better things to spend my time and money on than entertainment products that disrespect me: I can go on a hike or bike ride, I can go on a date, I can go to cultural events, I can go to the gym, I can work on one of the languages I'm learning, or if I want to kill time at home doing something "mindless" I can just watch stuff on YouTube for free, watch Netflix, or play an old video game in an emulator even. Why so many young men insist on spending all their free time playing buggy games that aren't even complete when you buy them, I have no idea; there's many other things to do with your time.
- Konnstann 7y ago
  I don't buy them. One of the many hobbies I enjoy, alongside coding, rock climbing, and a host of other activities, is gaming. You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. My complaint is that game series that I enjoy playing turn into micro-transaction-ridden garbage. Street fighter 4: great game, some netcode issues, DLC expansions released every year or two. Street fighter 5: buggy mess that didn't even work for the first 3 days after release, even after two(!) betas, with half the content locked behind a paywall, and literal advertisements put on costumes. That was probably the last AAA game I bought. I pretty much only play games from devs/publishers I respect, my problem is that list is ever-shrinking. A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. I don't watch sports at all; I think they're idiotic and mostly a waste of time. I'll make a few rare exceptions for things like winter olympics events (downhill skiing for instance). But I don't think this is a great comparison. At least with sports, when you pay the fee to watch the game, that's it: you go (or sit, if it's pay-per-view), watch the game in its entirety, and you're done. You don't suddenly get your view obstructed at half-time and are then required to pay an additional fee to watch the rest. If sports got that ridiculous, then I'd be making fun of people who continued to patronize them too. >A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people. So they're happy to support the publishers who treat them this way, and make them highly profitable. I don't really see the problem here: why shouldn't the publishers act this way then? They can treat their customers poorly, the customers happily come back for more, and they make a boatload of money. Maybe they lose a few people like you, but apparently that's not a big problem for them because they're making so much money on everyone else who refuses to abandon them. What's more, it sounds like there are some publishers who still do things the "old way" (according to your post here), but since that list is "ever-shrinking" according to you, that means this just isn't that viable a business model, because they're losing to the publishers who treat the gamers poorly. The people are speaking with their wallets, and apparently they like being treated this way, even when they actually still have alternatives!

by sidlls 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

But if there's more money in doing it the way they're doing it now (leading to you calling it "short-term, easy money"), and switching back to the old way isn't more profitable, then that's really down to the consumers, because without them there would be zero revenue for these game companies. The game companies aren't really in a position of power here; the consumers are. If they stop buying, then the entire industry goes under immediately. As I said before, games are purely a luxury, though it seems like gamers refuse to believe this. But apparently there's no shortage of people willing to throw their money at these companies and buy into these business models of buying broken games and paying extra to "unlock" content to keep playing. I have coworkers like this. They complain a lot about the state of games, about how buggy they are and how they're entirely broken when they're first released, yet they keep buying them anyway. I ask them why and they don't really have an answer. Personally, I have much better things to spend my time and money on than entertainment products that disrespect me: I can go on a hike or bike ride, I can go on a date, I can go to cultural events, I can go to the gym, I can work on one of the languages I'm learning, or if I want to kill time at home doing something "mindless" I can just watch stuff on YouTube for free, watch Netflix, or play an old video game in an emulator even. Why so many young men insist on spending all their free time playing buggy games that aren't even complete when you buy them, I have no idea; there's many other things to do with your time.

Konnstann 7y ago
I don't buy them. One of the many hobbies I enjoy, alongside coding, rock climbing, and a host of other activities, is gaming. You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. My complaint is that game series that I enjoy playing turn into micro-transaction-ridden garbage. Street fighter 4: great game, some netcode issues, DLC expansions released every year or two. Street fighter 5: buggy mess that didn't even work for the first 3 days after release, even after two(!) betas, with half the content locked behind a paywall, and literal advertisements put on costumes. That was probably the last AAA game I bought. I pretty much only play games from devs/publishers I respect, my problem is that list is ever-shrinking. A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people.
- magduf 7y ago
  >You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. I don't watch sports at all; I think they're idiotic and mostly a waste of time. I'll make a few rare exceptions for things like winter olympics events (downhill skiing for instance). But I don't think this is a great comparison. At least with sports, when you pay the fee to watch the game, that's it: you go (or sit, if it's pay-per-view), watch the game in its entirety, and you're done. You don't suddenly get your view obstructed at half-time and are then required to pay an additional fee to watch the rest. If sports got that ridiculous, then I'd be making fun of people who continued to patronize them too. >A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people. So they're happy to support the publishers who treat them this way, and make them highly profitable. I don't really see the problem here: why shouldn't the publishers act this way then? They can treat their customers poorly, the customers happily come back for more, and they make a boatload of money. Maybe they lose a few people like you, but apparently that's not a big problem for them because they're making so much money on everyone else who refuses to abandon them. What's more, it sounds like there are some publishers who still do things the "old way" (according to your post here), but since that list is "ever-shrinking" according to you, that means this just isn't that viable a business model, because they're losing to the publishers who treat the gamers poorly. The people are speaking with their wallets, and apparently they like being treated this way, even when they actually still have alternatives!