5 ms·

Most of us don't care and we just want to play vidya games.

by ddtaylor 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago
You are responsible for your actions. What you fund, you encourage.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  Pretty sure then as a tax paying citizen that I'm responsible for drone assassinations etc., so by comparison the entire Blizzard drama would be pretty low on the priority list by that logic.
  - acdha 5y ago
    It’s low, sure, but also much easier to do: you’re legally required to pay taxes and political change takes years, but you can simply choose to save money.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > to save money Or to spend them elsewhere: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/. (No games there yet, but I hope they can be added.)
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    The logic remains valid, and according to your interpretation stealing a car seems "not a big deal" because it comes after a murder. (They are disconnected events, so to relate them is just a mental perspective - their gravity is independent. There is no «priority» forgiving your actions, it is no excuse).
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      > and according to your interpretation stealing a car seems "not a big deal" because it comes after a murder. In my above example I would be guilty of both murder AND stealing cars, so yeah, I think the murder part would be a much bigger deal.
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        > the murder part would be a much bigger deal Which is irrelevant, because it does not reduce the absolute value of the other crime. "Y is a much bigger deal than X" cannot produce "X is not a big deal".
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    You don't have much choice regarding taxes. Your choice to buy something is a totally different matter.
headsoup 5y ago
Yes there are a lot of good little unthinking consumers around sucking at corporate mother's teats. The future is bright.
AlwaysRock 5y ago
You are getting down voted but that is what most players care about it. It's the reason COD and every 2K or sports game gets worse every year. It's the reason Pokemon somehow continues to become more and more souless. It's the reason companies can put out shit and still print money.
- hajile 5y ago
  Doom cost $30 in 1993 ($60 today) and only had a handful of developers. By all rights, games should be costing $150-200 given the complexity and amount of human effort required. Instead, they've cut costs everywhere. When you pay your devs 50k per year while requiring 60-80hr work weeks, experienced devs aren't going to apply. Young, inexperienced devs fill the roles instead and make junior dev mistakes all over the place. Once you move to subscription models, you can update games rather than constantly hype the next version. You have more consistent revenue streams and can give incentives to your devs to stick around. Valve doesn't quite have a subscription model (they make their money from their store), but does show how long-term devs working on the same game for many years gives excellent results. As much as I dislike the idea of not owning games, I suspect it is the future, but the overall quality will go up as a result.
  - wand3r 5y ago
    Im not an expert in game development nor really a gamer but this still seems like a poor argument > Doom cost $30 in 1993 ($60 today) Again not my area. So these are observations: > there is a way bigger market than 1993 > there are different business models now > gaming engines are widely developed > software tooling has vastly improved Sure things like server/infrastructure cost now must be accounted for. I just dont think its that fair of a comparison. Doom was a packaged AAA title for $60. You can definitely produce a game for that price today and effectively the price is like $100 after online and dlc and all this other junk.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - 5y ago
baud147258 5y ago
well, you can buy the older version which can run under nearly any version and doesn't require to phone home before launching, afaik
hlbjhblbljib 5y ago
Would be nice to only play good ones. If only you could predict the experience you'd have by the developer.
- autoexec 5y ago
  You could always just wait. I'm only now working my way through the PS3 library and I could look up which games were considered the best on that platform, each title was ~$10 on average, that price often included a bunch of DLC, and every game is as patched as it's ever going to be. I'm playing Uncharted 3 right now which I picked up for $4. The box says that it includes $45 worth of DLC and on install it downloaded over 500MB of patches (which the internet tells me were very badly needed). I get all the fun and none of the frustration at a tiny fraction of the price Once I run out of PS3 games I'll pick up a PS5 and work through the PS4 games that were actually worth it.
- headsoup 5y ago
  Once upon a time we got things called 'demo discs' with our gaming mags that had a taste of the games coming out soon so we could inform ourselves. It's nice to see lately that Steam is providing more demos, which should have been a thing all along, but the logic that demos is bad (and how they disappeared largely some time ago) is only a benefit for those wanting to shovel crap out.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
I'm not even talking about the politics. Just the shit games with the crappy player-hostile business models. Blizzard used to make awesome games that were fun to play. They came up with some of the most enduring game franchises, and their games are still classics. Now, not so much. Actually, not at all. It's all just repetitive shite based on the same old tired universes.

Most of us don't care and we just want to play vidya games.

mdp2021 5y ago

You are responsible for your actions. What you fund, you encourage.

ddtaylor 5y ago
Pretty sure then as a tax paying citizen that I'm responsible for drone assassinations etc., so by comparison the entire Blizzard drama would be pretty low on the priority list by that logic.
- acdha 5y ago
  It’s low, sure, but also much easier to do: you’re legally required to pay taxes and political change takes years, but you can simply choose to save money.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > to save money Or to spend them elsewhere: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/. (No games there yet, but I hope they can be added.)
- mdp2021 5y ago
  The logic remains valid, and according to your interpretation stealing a car seems "not a big deal" because it comes after a murder. (They are disconnected events, so to relate them is just a mental perspective - their gravity is independent. There is no «priority» forgiving your actions, it is no excuse).
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    > and according to your interpretation stealing a car seems "not a big deal" because it comes after a murder. In my above example I would be guilty of both murder AND stealing cars, so yeah, I think the murder part would be a much bigger deal.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > the murder part would be a much bigger deal Which is irrelevant, because it does not reduce the absolute value of the other crime. "Y is a much bigger deal than X" cannot produce "X is not a big deal".
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  You don't have much choice regarding taxes. Your choice to buy something is a totally different matter.

headsoup 5y ago

Yes there are a lot of good little unthinking consumers around sucking at corporate mother's teats. The future is bright.

AlwaysRock 5y ago

You are getting down voted but that is what most players care about it. It's the reason COD and every 2K or sports game gets worse every year. It's the reason Pokemon somehow continues to become more and more souless. It's the reason companies can put out shit and still print money.

hajile 5y ago
Doom cost $30 in 1993 ($60 today) and only had a handful of developers. By all rights, games should be costing $150-200 given the complexity and amount of human effort required. Instead, they've cut costs everywhere. When you pay your devs 50k per year while requiring 60-80hr work weeks, experienced devs aren't going to apply. Young, inexperienced devs fill the roles instead and make junior dev mistakes all over the place. Once you move to subscription models, you can update games rather than constantly hype the next version. You have more consistent revenue streams and can give incentives to your devs to stick around. Valve doesn't quite have a subscription model (they make their money from their store), but does show how long-term devs working on the same game for many years gives excellent results. As much as I dislike the idea of not owning games, I suspect it is the future, but the overall quality will go up as a result.
- wand3r 5y ago
  Im not an expert in game development nor really a gamer but this still seems like a poor argument > Doom cost $30 in 1993 ($60 today) Again not my area. So these are observations: > there is a way bigger market than 1993 > there are different business models now > gaming engines are widely developed > software tooling has vastly improved Sure things like server/infrastructure cost now must be accounted for. I just dont think its that fair of a comparison. Doom was a packaged AAA title for $60. You can definitely produce a game for that price today and effectively the price is like $100 after online and dlc and all this other junk.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 5y ago

baud147258 5y ago

well, you can buy the older version which can run under nearly any version and doesn't require to phone home before launching, afaik

hlbjhblbljib 5y ago

Would be nice to only play good ones. If only you could predict the experience you'd have by the developer.

autoexec 5y ago
You could always just wait. I'm only now working my way through the PS3 library and I could look up which games were considered the best on that platform, each title was ~$10 on average, that price often included a bunch of DLC, and every game is as patched as it's ever going to be. I'm playing Uncharted 3 right now which I picked up for $4. The box says that it includes $45 worth of DLC and on install it downloaded over 500MB of patches (which the internet tells me were very badly needed). I get all the fun and none of the frustration at a tiny fraction of the price Once I run out of PS3 games I'll pick up a PS5 and work through the PS4 games that were actually worth it.
headsoup 5y ago
Once upon a time we got things called 'demo discs' with our gaming mags that had a taste of the games coming out soon so we could inform ourselves. It's nice to see lately that Steam is providing more demos, which should have been a thing all along, but the logic that demos is bad (and how they disappeared largely some time ago) is only a benefit for those wanting to shovel crap out.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

I'm not even talking about the politics. Just the shit games with the crappy player-hostile business models. Blizzard used to make awesome games that were fun to play. They came up with some of the most enduring game franchises, and their games are still classics. Now, not so much. Actually, not at all. It's all just repetitive shite based on the same old tired universes.