4 ms·

I find that to be an odd opinion. More competition tends to work out in the consumer's favor, doesn't it? I think what we're missing is curation. In the hard

by Zikes 11y ago

I find that to be an odd opinion. More competition tends to work out in the consumer's favor, doesn't it? I think what we're missing is curation. In the hardware world, there are companies like Alienware and Apple that whittle down those choices into fairly straightforward options (though for a hefty premium, usually). For gaming, Steam is working on a Curators[1] feature that seems to be an alright start, but still needs a lot of work. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/curators/ http://store.steampowered.com/curators/

ChuckMcM 11y ago
Yes and no, more choices add cognitive load to the choice. So up to a point its a good thing, beyond that point it becomes a more difficult thing. In a generally commoditized market such as computer games or laptops, curation is a good helper, doesn't completely solve the problem though because there is the question of how much like the curator the buyer is (some movie critics for example will pan movies that I find enjoyable so I have to calibrate my opinions with the critic's opinions) Back in the day I got three different computer games magazines and could reliably buy the games that got high scores in all three, knowing I would get enough enjoyment out of them to feel they had good value. My Andriod and iOS game experience has been spotty at best.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I agree that relying on reviews/critics work best for similar tastes, but a responsible consumer should be aware of a (modest) variety of sources for that information to account for unavoidable biases. Metacritic tries to do that by aggregating reviews, but apart from the extremes it just winds up rating everything as "average", which I suppose is accurate, but not really informative. Other than a variety of sources providing a variety of perspectives on any given game, though, how else could consumers make an informed decision? Your suggestion that price correlates to quality doesn't add up particularly where games are concerned, as there have been several very high-dollar flops and disappointments in recent years. It also sounds like you're suggesting creating artificially higher barriers to entry to get there, which I disagree with philosophically.

by Zikes 11y ago

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Yes and no, more choices add cognitive load to the choice. So up to a point its a good thing, beyond that point it becomes a more difficult thing. In a generally commoditized market such as computer games or laptops, curation is a good helper, doesn't completely solve the problem though because there is the question of how much like the curator the buyer is (some movie critics for example will pan movies that I find enjoyable so I have to calibrate my opinions with the critic's opinions) Back in the day I got three different computer games magazines and could reliably buy the games that got high scores in all three, knowing I would get enough enjoyment out of them to feel they had good value. My Andriod and iOS game experience has been spotty at best.

Zikes 11y ago
I agree that relying on reviews/critics work best for similar tastes, but a responsible consumer should be aware of a (modest) variety of sources for that information to account for unavoidable biases. Metacritic tries to do that by aggregating reviews, but apart from the extremes it just winds up rating everything as "average", which I suppose is accurate, but not really informative. Other than a variety of sources providing a variety of perspectives on any given game, though, how else could consumers make an informed decision? Your suggestion that price correlates to quality doesn't add up particularly where games are concerned, as there have been several very high-dollar flops and disappointments in recent years. It also sounds like you're suggesting creating artificially higher barriers to entry to get there, which I disagree with philosophically.