3 ms·

yeah, you're missing the potential on-paper profits to be made from making video games more accessible to a wider audience by sanitizing them and their communit

yeah, you're missing the potential on-paper profits to be made from making video games more accessible to a wider audience by sanitizing them and their communities. whether this change is is a good idea in the long run or not can be debated, but that's where the last decade or so of rhetoric against "toxic gamer culture" is coming from, regardless of what is said. could any of the downvoters please tell me how I'm wrong?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Having been a gamer for over 30 years now I can assure you that "toxic gamer culture" is very much a thing. You think swatting people is something a healthy culture of good-natured ribbing does?
- adamrezich 5y ago
  I didn't say it wasn't a thing, and taking things to that extreme isn't really having a good-faith discussion. I said that "toxic gamer culture" has always been a thing, until these large corporations realized that sanitizing it could, in theory, lead to more people playing their AAA games, thus resulting in higher profits. what's controversial about this statement?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    The way you start by questioning weather or not making things less toxic is a good idea and put quotes around "toxic gaming culture" sure makes your post read like you were brushing off the whole thing as some kind of overly-woke-brigade cancel-fest or something.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      well that sure sounds a lot like building a strawman out of some random debris but ok. I do question whether making gaming communities less toxic is a "good" thing. of course, anyone is welcome to do anything they want to their communities, and if they think making them less toxic is some combination of altruistically good, potentially profitable, and plain ol' good PR, then good for them. however, not everyone who plays games wants to play their games in a sanitized environment, and not everyone takes everything said in anger to pseudononomous handles on the Internet personally. when Call of Duty 4 Remastered was made free on PS+, I wholly unironically had a lot of fun having the CoD4 online experience for the first time in years, complete with epithets and bong rip sounds in my headset. I kind of miss the days of 360-era Xbox Live vocal toxicity; I always found it amusing. of course I understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally I find experiencing raw competitive energy in online games to be kind of weirdly exhilarating. Dota 2 wouldn't be the same without the Russians and Latin Americans cursing at each other as well as me, in incomprehensible abbreviations of their native tongue. so again I have no issue with companies sanitizing their online communities, except that I take issue with the idea that said sanitization is somehow morally, altruistically good, as though preventing someone from calling someone else—whose sexual orientation they're more than likely entirely unfamiliar with—a "faggot," will cause them to somehow reevaluate their life and linguistic choices going forward, thus making the world an objectively better place in the process. this seems absurd on its face, yet it seems like people actually believe it implicitly. sure, it might make your game more friendly to more people (again, increasing your company's profits), but, like, c'mon. not only is the idea that the actions of a corporation that coincidentally theoretically increases their profits could be a form of altruistic moral do-goodism hilarious on its face, but also, it raises the question of whether or not the "toxic" core audience that fell in love with your franchise in the first place will continue to buy future installments. (again, it's up to the corporations to make this value judgement—maybe they'll get enough new, toxicity-adverse people to play (and keep playing) their games, enough to more than cancel out the toxic boys leaving!) but pretending it's an act of justice or something is just silly.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Having been a gamer for over 30 years now I can assure you that "toxic gamer culture" is very much a thing. You think swatting people is something a healthy culture of good-natured ribbing does?

adamrezich 5y ago
I didn't say it wasn't a thing, and taking things to that extreme isn't really having a good-faith discussion. I said that "toxic gamer culture" has always been a thing, until these large corporations realized that sanitizing it could, in theory, lead to more people playing their AAA games, thus resulting in higher profits. what's controversial about this statement?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The way you start by questioning weather or not making things less toxic is a good idea and put quotes around "toxic gaming culture" sure makes your post read like you were brushing off the whole thing as some kind of overly-woke-brigade cancel-fest or something.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    well that sure sounds a lot like building a strawman out of some random debris but ok. I do question whether making gaming communities less toxic is a "good" thing. of course, anyone is welcome to do anything they want to their communities, and if they think making them less toxic is some combination of altruistically good, potentially profitable, and plain ol' good PR, then good for them. however, not everyone who plays games wants to play their games in a sanitized environment, and not everyone takes everything said in anger to pseudononomous handles on the Internet personally. when Call of Duty 4 Remastered was made free on PS+, I wholly unironically had a lot of fun having the CoD4 online experience for the first time in years, complete with epithets and bong rip sounds in my headset. I kind of miss the days of 360-era Xbox Live vocal toxicity; I always found it amusing. of course I understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally I find experiencing raw competitive energy in online games to be kind of weirdly exhilarating. Dota 2 wouldn't be the same without the Russians and Latin Americans cursing at each other as well as me, in incomprehensible abbreviations of their native tongue. so again I have no issue with companies sanitizing their online communities, except that I take issue with the idea that said sanitization is somehow morally, altruistically good, as though preventing someone from calling someone else—whose sexual orientation they're more than likely entirely unfamiliar with—a "faggot," will cause them to somehow reevaluate their life and linguistic choices going forward, thus making the world an objectively better place in the process. this seems absurd on its face, yet it seems like people actually believe it implicitly. sure, it might make your game more friendly to more people (again, increasing your company's profits), but, like, c'mon. not only is the idea that the actions of a corporation that coincidentally theoretically increases their profits could be a form of altruistic moral do-goodism hilarious on its face, but also, it raises the question of whether or not the "toxic" core audience that fell in love with your franchise in the first place will continue to buy future installments. (again, it's up to the corporations to make this value judgement—maybe they'll get enough new, toxicity-adverse people to play (and keep playing) their games, enough to more than cancel out the toxic boys leaving!) but pretending it's an act of justice or something is just silly.