3 ms·

>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of

>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?

hot_gril 2y ago
It has. Very few consumers care about this, otherwise LTS guarantees would be a way to boost sales, or publishers would build more of a reputation around that. If there were actually a regulation as proposed, it'd be "tyranny of the minority." A few people with a lot of time and passion forcing an industry to work the way they want.
- skeaker 2y ago
  Is it that few consumers care about this, or that the products are very good and consumers want to buy them but then are upset when the product is killed? I think the latter is more likely, given that the petition in question is being spurred on by people wanting to return to games that they enjoyed but have been arbitrarily closed down. Understand that companies have a perverse incentive to kill games that are genuinely good in their own right: People may not buy a new game if they're still playing and replaying a slightly older one.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    Of course nobody wants a game shut down, but they'll still buy online games knowing full well that they won't last forever. It's not much of a consideration.
    - skeaker 2y ago
      I'd argue that it is a consideration, but other factors still cause the purchase. Things aren't black and white in real life as they are in an economic theory. People can financially support something for a plethora of reasons: Their friends are on there, they're psychologically affected by the FOMO that the game studio has hired psychologists to maximize (this really happens), the game itself is outstandingly fun (all the more reason to not want it killed arbitrarily). It may seem counter intuitive, but giving money to something does not necessarily mean that you support every facet of it unquestioningly. I think it's totally fine to say you enjoy a game but hate that it's going to be killed, then still buy it so you can at least enjoy it before it gets killed. Doubly so in this case where the perverse incentive to kill games that game studios have doesn't depend on how well a game does. They have every incentive to kill every old game they make regardless of how well it does because they always want to sell you their new game no matter what. Not buying a game won't make it not die.
      - hot_gril 2y ago
        Right, you consider the pros and cons and buy it. Everyone will always want every pro, but when tradeoffs have to be made, which features get the axe? I think they're already making the best tradeoffs. The video game industry is quite competitive, LTS would cost money, and they need to make money somehow, so this is the gotcha they chose instead of subscriptions or higher prices. It's also a totally unnecessary entertainment product, so the fact that people keep buying it shows they're happy enough with it.
        skeaker 2y ago
        >I think they're already making the best tradeoffs. This is self-evidently false, given that people are upset enough about it to make this petition... Unless you meant "best" in a different sense? Not sure what you mean by this. To me it's obvious that killing a game and making it unplayable forever is perhaps the worst possible tradeoff.
        hot_gril 2y ago
        "Best" for the most customers, even if it ticks off some relatively small group of people. They kill old games so they can make new ones and not have to outright do subscription models. Signing a petition doesn't cost anything, so it's not meaningful. Also, I was always in that group, refusing to pay upfront for an online-only game, but I acknowledge most people don't really care.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Exactly what I do: Don't buy online games unless I accept that it may be gone next month. Meaning I'm very picky and focus either on studios with good reputations or games that otherwise seem to have enough commitment to assure me. Market would correct itself and start advertising LAN hosting or guaranted offline play to bring people back. But given current trends, I'm inclined to simply think a lot of people don't mind that risk. So I'm simply a minority in the matter, as usual. If they don't care, why should I (who's already mostly walked away) care?

>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?

hot_gril 2y ago

It has. Very few consumers care about this, otherwise LTS guarantees would be a way to boost sales, or publishers would build more of a reputation around that. If there were actually a regulation as proposed, it'd be "tyranny of the minority." A few people with a lot of time and passion forcing an industry to work the way they want.

skeaker 2y ago
Is it that few consumers care about this, or that the products are very good and consumers want to buy them but then are upset when the product is killed? I think the latter is more likely, given that the petition in question is being spurred on by people wanting to return to games that they enjoyed but have been arbitrarily closed down. Understand that companies have a perverse incentive to kill games that are genuinely good in their own right: People may not buy a new game if they're still playing and replaying a slightly older one.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Of course nobody wants a game shut down, but they'll still buy online games knowing full well that they won't last forever. It's not much of a consideration.
  - skeaker 2y ago
    I'd argue that it is a consideration, but other factors still cause the purchase. Things aren't black and white in real life as they are in an economic theory. People can financially support something for a plethora of reasons: Their friends are on there, they're psychologically affected by the FOMO that the game studio has hired psychologists to maximize (this really happens), the game itself is outstandingly fun (all the more reason to not want it killed arbitrarily). It may seem counter intuitive, but giving money to something does not necessarily mean that you support every facet of it unquestioningly. I think it's totally fine to say you enjoy a game but hate that it's going to be killed, then still buy it so you can at least enjoy it before it gets killed. Doubly so in this case where the perverse incentive to kill games that game studios have doesn't depend on how well a game does. They have every incentive to kill every old game they make regardless of how well it does because they always want to sell you their new game no matter what. Not buying a game won't make it not die.
    - hot_gril 2y ago
      Right, you consider the pros and cons and buy it. Everyone will always want every pro, but when tradeoffs have to be made, which features get the axe? I think they're already making the best tradeoffs. The video game industry is quite competitive, LTS would cost money, and they need to make money somehow, so this is the gotcha they chose instead of subscriptions or higher prices. It's also a totally unnecessary entertainment product, so the fact that people keep buying it shows they're happy enough with it.
      - skeaker 2y ago
        >I think they're already making the best tradeoffs. This is self-evidently false, given that people are upset enough about it to make this petition... Unless you meant "best" in a different sense? Not sure what you mean by this. To me it's obvious that killing a game and making it unplayable forever is perhaps the worst possible tradeoff.
        hot_gril 2y ago
        "Best" for the most customers, even if it ticks off some relatively small group of people. They kill old games so they can make new ones and not have to outright do subscription models. Signing a petition doesn't cost anything, so it's not meaningful. Also, I was always in that group, refusing to pay upfront for an online-only game, but I acknowledge most people don't really care.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Exactly what I do: Don't buy online games unless I accept that it may be gone next month. Meaning I'm very picky and focus either on studios with good reputations or games that otherwise seem to have enough commitment to assure me. Market would correct itself and start advertising LAN hosting or guaranted offline play to bring people back. But given current trends, I'm inclined to simply think a lot of people don't mind that risk. So I'm simply a minority in the matter, as usual. If they don't care, why should I (who's already mostly walked away) care?