5 ms·

I think "effective rebranding for marketing purposes of database technologies" alone justify all the fuss, business wise. I'm working in gaming, and in pc gami

by GaelFG 4y ago

I think "effective rebranding for marketing purposes of database technologies" alone justify all the fuss, business wise. I'm working in gaming, and in pc gaming today, when you ask 5$ pretax and preplatform fee, customers think you own them to dedicate your entire company to support the product fot the next 10 years for no additional fee, you will never heard of 90% of your customers, 5% will insult you on your steam page for any trouble they encountered, 4% will insult you and your game on youtube and social media for entertainement and self promotion, and maybe 1% will have positive feedback. Meanwhile with a good marketing, you can potentially sell low effort proceduraly generated random png 30$ to 3000$ piece in blockchain collection/games and each of your customer will probably actually spend time promoting your game even if he disliked it, if nothing to resell that it bought or earn interests. Of course i'm greatly exaggerating, but no wonder gaming company dream to develop the market. And I think video game market today is awfull. Every one want everything for free and no one want to actually pay. It's probaly a big part of why VR market is nearly empty : investing what is required to make good content is probably nearly impossible to recover on sales. It need a way to reinvent itself and allow content maker to make profits, and it may be the blockchain where it's 'normal' to pay around 100$ to try a new game and be ready to see it fail more often than not. The fact it's purely psychological is irrelevant marketing and business wise. I even think today the console market exist for purely commercial reasons. Console player accept to spend more on video game than computer players. Then developping for console make sense, even if probably today you could probably have exactly the same game on a same price range computer.

libertine 4y ago
>Meanwhile with a good marketing, you can potentially sell low effort proceduraly generated random png 30$ to 3000$ piece in blockchain collection/games and each of your customer will probably actually spend time promoting your game even if he disliked it, if nothing to resell that it bought or earn interests. This mechanic works because people have something to gain from promoting the thing, because the mindset is that this "lottery" only works if people hop on their train. It's gambling on steroids: your perceived odds of success increase with how many players are playing the game. So you better hype it. >Every one want everything for free and no one want to actually pay. I think it has always been like that, only now you found ways to monetize on players that wouldn't otherwise play your games. Back in my days it was people that used piracy to play games, because they couldn't afford it. Now with micro-transactions, kids can make purchases that wouldn't make in the past. The problem might be rooted further down, like the cult of getting rich and famous easy and quickly, even while playing games (imagine).
- GaelFG 4y ago
  I also think the 'client side' mechanic is bad, but why does it should mater for investors and companies ? Is it morally so different than say an Apple fan (I pick a random exemple of more expensive products than average where not everyone would agree they are technically superior, whoever may be right) who will argue the brand is worth the value, because if he don't, that mean he is an idiot ? (you may say at least here there is a physical good, but in gaming, nft are technically nothing more than DLC). You are probably right about no one never did wanted to pay, and that's natural. The thing is companies want (and need) you to pay. Making people pay for games is hard and mainly a thing of the past, no wonder they try new things in case they catch up no ?
  - libertine 4y ago
    The morality isn't about the perceived value, or the utility, but rather the motivation behind the purchase: When you buy an Apple product, you aren't speculating on the value of it in the future (unless you're a scalper) - you're not buying it because you'll be able to sell it for more, or because of it's rarity and you'll get some sort of social boost. You buy the product, and you use it, that's your motivation (could be a tool for work, could be for self expression, you could even choose it because you want to be one of the cool guys as well). When it comes to NFTs, or some trading card games, or even scratch off tickets with prizes, you're buying it because you're expecting to bank on it later, and you hope what you get is extremely rare... the problem is that the majority of this stuff is "rare" for the sake of being "rare", that has no value. A Black Lotus is rare and valuable because the kids that were playing the game 20+ years ago, now have buying power and can finally get a piece of nostalgia, the problem is that there aren't that many around because people used/wore off/destroyed the card. There's an organic process in this that sustained itself for decades -> that's valuable, it's a cultural artifact. Now they want to shorten the length of this organic process to some weeks. How is that sustainable? >You are probably right about no one never did wanted to pay, and that's natural. I didn't say people didn't want to pay, I think they simply couldn't afford it. But there's still value in that: if I didn't get a pirate copy for GTA Vice City I would have never become a fan of the series. There's brand value in that, don't you think? Why not offset the "cost of piracy" as part of the marketing budget :) ?

by GaelFG 4y ago

libertine 4y ago

>Meanwhile with a good marketing, you can potentially sell low effort proceduraly generated random png 30$ to 3000$ piece in blockchain collection/games and each of your customer will probably actually spend time promoting your game even if he disliked it, if nothing to resell that it bought or earn interests. This mechanic works because people have something to gain from promoting the thing, because the mindset is that this "lottery" only works if people hop on their train. It's gambling on steroids: your perceived odds of success increase with how many players are playing the game. So you better hype it. >Every one want everything for free and no one want to actually pay. I think it has always been like that, only now you found ways to monetize on players that wouldn't otherwise play your games. Back in my days it was people that used piracy to play games, because they couldn't afford it. Now with micro-transactions, kids can make purchases that wouldn't make in the past. The problem might be rooted further down, like the cult of getting rich and famous easy and quickly, even while playing games (imagine).

GaelFG 4y ago
I also think the 'client side' mechanic is bad, but why does it should mater for investors and companies ? Is it morally so different than say an Apple fan (I pick a random exemple of more expensive products than average where not everyone would agree they are technically superior, whoever may be right) who will argue the brand is worth the value, because if he don't, that mean he is an idiot ? (you may say at least here there is a physical good, but in gaming, nft are technically nothing more than DLC). You are probably right about no one never did wanted to pay, and that's natural. The thing is companies want (and need) you to pay. Making people pay for games is hard and mainly a thing of the past, no wonder they try new things in case they catch up no ?
- libertine 4y ago
  The morality isn't about the perceived value, or the utility, but rather the motivation behind the purchase: When you buy an Apple product, you aren't speculating on the value of it in the future (unless you're a scalper) - you're not buying it because you'll be able to sell it for more, or because of it's rarity and you'll get some sort of social boost. You buy the product, and you use it, that's your motivation (could be a tool for work, could be for self expression, you could even choose it because you want to be one of the cool guys as well). When it comes to NFTs, or some trading card games, or even scratch off tickets with prizes, you're buying it because you're expecting to bank on it later, and you hope what you get is extremely rare... the problem is that the majority of this stuff is "rare" for the sake of being "rare", that has no value. A Black Lotus is rare and valuable because the kids that were playing the game 20+ years ago, now have buying power and can finally get a piece of nostalgia, the problem is that there aren't that many around because people used/wore off/destroyed the card. There's an organic process in this that sustained itself for decades -> that's valuable, it's a cultural artifact. Now they want to shorten the length of this organic process to some weeks. How is that sustainable? >You are probably right about no one never did wanted to pay, and that's natural. I didn't say people didn't want to pay, I think they simply couldn't afford it. But there's still value in that: if I didn't get a pirate copy for GTA Vice City I would have never become a fan of the series. There's brand value in that, don't you think? Why not offset the "cost of piracy" as part of the marketing budget :) ?