3 ms·
That probably involves more of a corporate marketing vanguard that picks winners more so than it organicly finds them.
by antifa 2y ago
That probably involves more of a corporate marketing vanguard that picks winners more so than it organicly finds them.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoAnd you think Games are different?
- antifa 2y agoThe corporate marketing vanguard that picks winners in the gaming industry is almost entirely dedicated to microtransactions, pay to win, pay walls, subscriptions, and battle passes. Inorganicly chosen winners is a problem, but in the music industry, the end product itself doesn't exploit the listener beyond just that.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSure they are now, that's simply where the money is nowadays. 5 years ago it was battle passes 5 years before that it was an attempt to recoup costs with used game. 5 years prior to that it was experimenting with DLC types and seeing what would stick. And 5 years before that it was trying to have long term subscription attachments to a game. Games are ultimately tech. And games grew along with the internet. It was inherently going to be run more like a tech company than a media conglomerate for that reason. I see it less as games being exploitative than a double edged sword, like the internet itself. It can be a lot more exploitative. But it also opened up entire mediums of ideas and arguably tore down world borders.