3 ms·

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.

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.

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.