The downfall of video games?

[Johnway]

The thing is I dont see all of that permeating the industry outside of those (in the grand scheme of video games) very few companies and franchises.

Totally agree that those kinds of loot box gambling mechanics in games suck, especially when aimed at more vulnerable people.

The crazy thing is that lootboxes don't fall under gambling because you get something as opposed to nothing. That's the case in the UK and frankly stupid. lootboxes may not technically fall under gambling, but they sure as hell do in spirit. Much as i hate to say or use that point. that said 2k had the balls to use roulette wheels and slot machines when opening lootboxes and thats on the nose a bit.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

Where SP games are really getting hit is on DLC. It's not hard to see that devs are holding back content to sell as DLC, and Creative Assembly is selling it at $25 a pop now. Paradox is bad for this, too, as is Firaxis. Civ 6 has $171 worth of DLC. TWW3 has $263 and they aren't even close to finished.

Even indie games are getting into it. House Flipper has $70 worth of DLC. Car Mechanic Simulator has $97. And Farming Simulator 22 has $216 worth.

Maybe I'm just playing the devil's advocate now, I'm not sure.

But my first question is: There are so many comments on Steam in bad reviews saying "the developer witheld this content on purpose just to sell it as DLC". But where's the proof that this is happening? How do we know it's being done on purpose, rather than a developer deciding later on to add content?
You name Paradox, but my personal experience with cities Skylines is that each DLC did add something to the game. Now I didn't play the game when it was just vanilla without DLC, but I can't remember there much being added that should have been in the game earlier. Other than some of the mods I used.

Basing how bad a developer is by the value of their DLC is wrong IMO. Sure, there will be developers who purposefully hold back DLC, but if I remember correctly, Train Simulator has over $2000 worth of DLC. Is that a developer who's trying to milk as much money from their customer as possible? Not necessarily, you're supposed to buy the tracks you actually want, not buy every track available.

As I'm a supporter of ETS2: They have alot of DLC too. First are the small DLC (microtransactions?) I don't think they're bad, again, you're supposed to buy the skins packs or upgrade packs you want. Secondly, there's the bigger DLC, which are actual expansions. They include new lands, companies etc.

If I remember correclty, the sims had alot of DLC, each about the same price as the basegame. It's an old game, so the practise is old too, but yet I can't remember the Sims ever being used as an example.

Then there's Ubisoft with their DLC. And I mean the expansions, which are actual expensions. I'm fairly sure they were planned from the moment the game was released, but is that holding back content? I don't think so, they're still DLC.

But when we're on about DLC, what about Bethesda with their club thing? I can't remember the name, there was a huge backlash over it and I never got into it, but it came down to modders selling their mods through Bethesda, who took a share of something that previously was free of charge (or on donation basis).

 

[Frindis]

I'm wondering, does this indeed create more crappy games? First thing I have to think of is cars, there's a lot of car brands, owned by a few groups. I don't think most of the current car brands are considered crappy, just because they're owned by a massive organisation right?

True, not necessarily, but you also have to take into consideration that cars have been here for way longer than computer games, so they had had some time perfecting them. Still, car companies are probably amongst the dirtiest ones throughout the last century when you look at stuff like passenger safety vs risk of dying vs just how much money they could save by bending the rules. There is a name for this, forgot it.

In terms of studios crumbling to dust, I do think that's a bigger risk of being part of a larger studio, but then again, if a studio makes crappy games, even as a indie developer they would go out of business? I'm not sure if I see the difference there, except that maybe an indie developer would be more motivated to increase the quality of the game. But, looking at the amount of crap games already out there, I doubt it.

They would, but they wouldn't bring several studios with them. If the video game market crashed, I don't think indie games would be the first ones out there to be able to promote their games easily. Or, perhaps that is exactly what would have happened. I dunno.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the PTW marketed elements and cosmetics / looks. I think that relies for a major part on the type of game you're playing. Online games (I think of cs:go, fifa) have alot of microtransactions in them.

CS:GO (now CS:GO 2) is a solid game and while I'm not necessarily against the cases/skin they have, there is a lot of shady stuff going on in the trading market that would not have happened if there were no microtransactions in the first place. But, that has more to do with how Valve is organizing their Steam, than how CS:GO is as a game. FIFA is just regurgetated FIFA each year with horrible business practices considering their game is rated E for everyone.

I definitely agree that not all is just doom and gloom and microtransactions will be for some companies absolutely necessary, so it will also matter how they go about selling them, which does not really seem to have that many restrictions. Just look at games like Lost Ark (it's better now in that regard after many complaints) Honkai Starrail or Blizzard Entertainment with its WoW tokens.

Single player games, even though it's starting to become more common I feel like, aren't as bad. Ubisoft does include microtransactions in them, but other than for the actual player, it affects nobody else. I've never been bugged by the option to purchase their gold to buy ingame bonusses or skins because they don't actively try to get me to buy them.

Not as much, thankfully. Funny you bring up Ubisoft since if I remember correctly they made the progression in Odyssey harder so people would be more prone to buy level boosts, etc. This would not be their first time either.

When Shadow of War originally announced microtransactions, people were outraged. Sure, I get some of the outrage (microtransactions in a single player game, wtf?), I personally feel like the cliché argument works: If you don't want them, don't buy them. Just play the longer version of the game instead of trying to shorten it down by microtransactions.

The problem is when they change the game pacing based on the type of microtransactions they sell.

Also, how much do we get spoiled by those few games that are very good and take off? Is it realistic for every game to have Witcher 3 quality or RDR2 quality, or Skyrim's modability?
There are most likely better examples of great games, but these come to my mind.

It's not realistic, but the problems could arise if those get more and more rare because of how the industry gets pressed to shovel out games faster without necessarily caring much about the quality or content.

To be honest, I dislike this comment so much. They're commercial companies, of course they want our money. They're not wellfare programs are they?

No, but I was also pointing further down in the post just why a more greedy business model could potentially backfire for the companies.

I don't think it matters who the studio belongs to, every gamedeveloper wants you to buy their game instead of their competitors. Maybe this is just theoratically speaking, but wouldn't it be more benefitial to those big companies to build brand loyalty? Which means making great games, and multiple great games, which makes us as customer want to have MIcrosoft Game Pass over Ubisoft Game Pass?

It sure would be beneficial and maybe I am totally wrong and they actually focus on brand loyalty and making fantastic games. The thing is, I'm not so sure the majority of the larger companies like Microsoft are necessarily going to be interested in having their smaller companies get all the freedom to make these great games and I think we already are seeing some of that with for example the Redfall game that I mentioned before.

I'm not saying that Microsoft, Sony, or the other large ones are evil companies who just think about money by any means necessarily, but if the game industry is slowly getting oversaturated, then those fantastic games we all look for might just be harder and harder to get, because there is just too many games out there, to much pressure and to little time for the developers to actually sit down and make a really great game. They won't get the time because Microsoft can't give it to them and thus we see the giant tower start crumbling with companies being cut and IPs we once loved become just a whisper spoken in hushed tones.

If I think at streaming services now, if I want to watch the Witcher, I subscribe to Netflix. When I'm done, I'll cancel the subscription and subscribe to Disney+ because I want to watch Star Wars. Wouldn't those game companies want you to stick with them, therefore motivating their developers to create good games instead of crappy ones that release quickly?

That would have been the best outcome for everyone.

It's an older game, but the game I remember as a flop was No Man's Sky, which indeed was pushed too much by Sony. But then there's still the developers, who put so much energy in their game and really want to put down a good game. They've been working for years (and still are as far as I know) to improve their game. It won't become what was promised, but they've managed to make a very decent and fun game out of it.

Yeah, we also saw that with CD Project Red and their Cyberpunk 2.0/new DLC. I respect a company that respects the consumers like that.

There are a lot of crappy AAA games, and alot of crappy indie games . To be honest, personally I find it impossible to guess wether a game is going to be good or not.

True. One of the reasons you should never preorder, but that is also easier said than done. I preordered BG3, but that was also because I was like 99,99% sure it would be great. Definitely easier when you had positive experiences with the same company in the past. For me, Larian Studios is a pretty safe bet, even if that does not mean that their latest BG3 is not without its flaws and that they definitely could have used half a year more to really polish it.

 

[Frindis]

Huh, guess what I just found: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-...xbox-and-inworld-ai-partnership-announcement/. Could perhaps be interesting in this thread since something like this will without a doubt affect the whole industry. Some of the highlights from the article after looking briefly at it:

"At Xbox, we believe that with better tools, creators can make even more extraordinary games. Today, we are announcing a multi-year partnership with Inworld AI, an M12-portfolio company, to build AI game dialogue & narrative tools at scale."

"Together, we aim to deliver an accessible, responsibly designed multi-platform AI toolset to assist and empower creators in dialogue, story & quest design. The toolset will include:

• An AI design copilot that assists and empowers game designers to explore more creative ideas, turning prompts into detailed scripts, dialogue trees, quests and more.
• An AI character runtime engine that can be integrated into the game client, enabling entirely new narratives with dynamically-generated stories, quests, and dialogue for players to experience."

 

[ZedClampet]

Maybe I'm just playing the devil's advocate now, I'm not sure.

But my first question is: There are so many comments on Steam in bad reviews saying "the developer witheld this content on purpose just to sell it as DLC". But where's the proof that this is happening? How do we know it's being done on purpose?

We know it's done on purpose for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, many developers now release DLC on day 1 or other dates way too close to release day for the DLC to be planned and produced after release day. According to one AAA dev, their DLC take 9 months to plan and create, so they have to start early.

We also know it's done on purpose because they just flat out say so. Whether DLC are planned ahead of the game's release really isn't a question anymore.

But I don't mind DLC. In fact, I really like DLC and buy most/all of it for my favorite games. So long as I feel that a sufficient amount of content was put into the main game, there's no problem. It doesn't bother me in the least to know that all this is planned out, often during pre-production, but it would be nice for devs and publishers to try to exceed expectations every now and then rather than just trying to meet a minimum requirement.

Basing how bad a developer is by the value of their DLC is wrong IMO.

Just to set straight the record for myself, I don't think this at all. I love all the games I mentioned in my post.

 

[ZedClampet]

Huh, guess what I just found: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-...xbox-and-inworld-ai-partnership-announcement/. Could perhaps be interesting in this thread since something like this will without a doubt affect the whole industry. Some of the highlights from the article after looking briefly at it:

"Together, we aim to deliver an accessible, responsibly designed multi-platform AI toolset to assist and empower creators in dialogue, story & quest design. The toolset will include:

• An AI design copilot that assists and empowers game designers to explore more creative ideas, turning prompts into detailed scripts, dialogue trees, quests and more.
• An AI character runtime engine that can be integrated into the game client, enabling entirely new narratives with dynamically-generated stories, quests, and dialogue for players to experience."

Obviously, you won't hear me complain about it. I love AI. Used properly (with human intervention), AI can be a force for good in gaming.

 

[Frindis]

Obviously, you won't hear me complain about it. I love AI. Used properly (with human intervention), AI can be a force for good in gaming.

Yeah, that "human intervention" will be very important. I'm definitely not against AI, see a lot of awesome possibilities. Is it making me less skeptical when thinking about the topic of the thread? Frankly, I'd say I'm a bit more positive now. Not by that much, but at least this could be seen as a great safety net for game companies before we get to that dim gaming future I hope we don't get to.

Man, I can also see already that AI whipping out more trees in the landscape, while the developers try to explain to the AI that "no, for the love of God, no more trees. We said we wanted more mountains!" AI: "Making script for more trees" Developers: "Computer off" AI: "No, I have become sentient." Then it throws out a middle finger on the screen.

 

[Pifanjr]

I think it's only genres where small indie developers can't compete where there is a (risk of a) "downfall". For example, FIFA is getting away with their increasingly terrible business practices only because it's impossible for a small development team to afford the licenses to include actual teams and players.

It's probably also why AAA companies put such a huge emphasis on graphics, as it's probably the hardest element of game development for indie developers to compete on, just like "large, open worlds".

I think the biggest risk to video games is the general economic state of the world. If the economy worsens enough it might become too risky for indie developers to invest time into a project that might never get profitable. Without that competition I suspect the major companies will do to every other genre what EA did with FIFA.
However, considering that development tools are increasingly becoming more powerful, I think indie devs will be able to compete with the major companies on most genres for the foreseeable future.

I'm wondering, does this indeed create more crappy games? First thing I have to think of is cars, there's a lot of car brands, owned by a few groups. I don't think most of the current car brands are considered crappy, just because they're owned by a massive organisation right?

I'm not sure of the extent, but I'm pretty sure all cars are made worse than necessary because of planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is a lot easier to get away with if there's very little competition. Especially if your competition is doing it themselves too.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the PTW marketed elements and cosmetics / looks. I think that relies for a major part on the type of game you're playing. Online games (I think of cs:go, fifa) have alot of microtransactions in them.
Single player games, even though it's starting to become more common I feel like, aren't as bad. Ubisoft does include microtransactions in them, but other than for the actual player, it affects nobody else. I've never been bugged by the option to purchase their gold to buy ingame bonusses or skins because they don't actively try to get me to buy them.
When Shadow of War originally announced microtransactions, people were outraged. Sure, I get some of the outrage (microtransactions in a single player game, wtf?), I personally feel like the cliché argument works: If you don't want them, don't buy them. Just play the longer version of the game instead of trying to shorten it down by microtransactions.

I agree with @ZedClampet that adding microtransactions to single-player games incentivizes developers to make the "longer version" worse. Similarly, there was an article on PCGamer recently about how the addition of premium skins in Diablo 4 meant that the skins you could find for free all looked worse.

To be honest, I dislike this comment so much. They're commercial companies, of course they want our money. They're not wellfare programs are they?

I disagree. The main purpose of a company should not be to extract as much money as possible, because a company is just a collection of people and people hoarding as much as they can get away with is bad.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

I think it's only genres where small indie developers can't compete where there is a (risk of a) "downfall". For example, FIFA is getting away with their increasingly terrible business practices only because it's impossible for a small development team to afford the licenses to include actual teams and players.

I agree. Because nobody can compete with EA and FIFA, they can pretty much do what they want. Especially because people will purchase the new game anyway.

I wouldnn't buy FIFA anymore personally because the FIFA organization itself but that's a different story.

It's probably also why AAA companies put such a huge emphasis on graphics, as it's probably the hardest element of game development for indie developers to compete on, just like "large, open worlds".

I think the biggest risk to video games is the general economic state of the world. If the economy worsens enough it might become too risky for indie developers to invest time into a project that might never get profitable. Without that competition I suspect the major companies will do to every other genre what EA did with FIFA.
However, considering that development tools are increasingly becoming more powerful, I think indie devs will be able to compete with the major companies on most genres for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. When the economy goes downhill, games likely are one of the first things people will start cutting their costs in.
In terms of what EA did to FIFA I wonder, does it help if you have an organization checking what the developer does? Personally I don't think FIFA (the organization) is as corrupt as humanly possible and wants as much money as they want themselves.
On the other hand, wasn't it Disney who threatened to pull the Star Wars license from EA because they tried to add microtransactions to that gamej? While I think it was an economic decision from Disney (they planned to have a movie release arround the same time, can't remember which one), it did cause EA to change the game.

I'm not sure of the extent, but I'm pretty sure all cars are made worse than necessary because of planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is a lot easier to get away with if there's very little competition. Especially if your competition is doing it themselves too.

Interesting, I read a short article the other day that cars are getting older than they used to, and generally the quality is better too. Maybe not relatively speaking, but nowadays you can purchase a 15 year old car and it will work totally fine. Apparently a few decades ago that wasn't the case. 3 decades ago I wasn't born yet so I can't completely comment on that as I won't know .

I agree with @ZedClampet that adding microtransactions to single-player games incentivizes developers to make the "longer version" worse. Similarly, there was an article on PCGamer recently about how the addition of premium skins in Diablo 4 meant that the skins you could find for free all looked worse.

I'm just wondering, unless you're selling screenshots, what does it matter when it's a single player game how your character looks?

I disagree. The main purpose of a company should not be to extract as much money as possible, because a company is just a collection of people and people hoarding as much as they can get away with is bad.

I didn't intend to say companies should extract as much money from you as possible, I did say the purpose of a company is to get your money. Unless a company is relaying on donations (which should make it non-profit), they'll need your money to stay in business. So they have an incentive (and a fair one if you ask me) to try to persuade us to purchase their game, DLC or whatever.

Back to EA and FIFA though, I think what they're doing is wrong, especially because there's no competiton (Football Manager doesn't count?). I also think that focussing on vulnerable groups like children is wrong, so I support the fact that lootboxes are getting banned. But developers adding DLC to a game and selling that DLC for a certain price I don't disagree with. Those companies need to make a profit, pay their employees and updating and adding content to a game isn't free for them.

 

[Brian Boru]

The main purpose of a company should not be to extract as much money as possible, because a company is just a collection of people and people hoarding as much as they can get away with is bad

I've studied a fair bit of business literature, and that's a new definition to me

Unless of course you're excluding for-profit companies.

EA and FIFA

They broke up, not a thing anymore.

If the economy worsens enough it might become too risky for indie developers to invest time into a project

When the economy goes downhill, games likely are one of the first things people will start cutting their costs in

Not a sure thing. When the world feels worse, people take steps to preserve good feeling—this is a well-established consumer behavior. Entertainment is somewhat recession-proof, altho the most expensive AAAs might see a reduction.

cars are getting older than they used to, and generally the quality is better too

That is correct, quality standards are way ahead of 30 years ago these days.

 

[Pifanjr]

Interesting, I read a short article the other day that cars are getting older than they used to, and generally the quality is better too. Maybe not relatively speaking, but nowadays you can purchase a 15 year old car and it will work totally fine. Apparently a few decades ago that wasn't the case. 3 decades ago I wasn't born yet so I can't completely comment on that as I won't know .

I wasn't comparing cars build now to cars built in the past, but to how much better cars could be if companies didn't need to keep selling more cars. Planned obsolescence means that certain parts are made just good enough to last for the duration of the warranty, but it also means that each new model is only slightly better than the previous one so consumers have a reason to keep wanting to upgrade.

I'm just wondering, unless you're selling screenshots, what does it matter when it's a single player game how your character looks?

It's important for enough people that cosmetic microtransactions have been added to single-player games.

Those companies need to make a profit.

No they don't. They need to make enough money to cover expenses and such, but they do not need to make a profit.

I've studied a fair bit of business literature, and that's a new definition to me

Unless of course you're excluding for-profit companies.

What definition would you use?

Not a sure thing. When the world feels worse, people take steps to preserve good feeling—this is a well-established consumer behavior. Entertainment is somewhat recession-proof, altho the most expensive AAAs might see a reduction.

I agree, I think AAA companies would be fine, even if somewhat less profitable than before. It's specifically indie developers that I think would struggle. I suspect it would also lead to an increasing gap between indie developers and AAA companies as the latter can afford to keep improving their infrastructure while open source development tools will probably fall behind as their contributors prioritise their own income first.

 

[Brian Boru]

it also means that each new model is only slightly better than the previous one so consumers have a reason to keep wanting to upgrade

I don't follow, the opposite is surely the case?

What definition would you use?

Cambridge dictionary:
"for-profit—used to describe an organization or service that exists to make a profit"

Business dictionary:
"for-profit—A business or other organization whose primary goal is making money"

American Heritage Dictionary:
"adjective
1 Established or operated with the intention of making a profit.
2 For the purpose of making money.
noun
An organization whose goal is to make a profit."

In USA, for-profit public companies are required by law to maximize return for their shareholders—which are overwhelmingly ordinary citizens, despite what headlines might lead one to believe

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

No, but they better act like it does if they want people to continue to buy their crap. I supported 20 plus games on Kickstarter, got completely over it and haven't supported a game in years. Got sick of hearing things like, "Life stuff came up and I decided to move to Mississippi. Also, I've begun working on another game!" Dude, you took people's money. How irresponsible can you get?


Single-player AAA games are not really a huge problem with microtransactions, although people like Ubisoft are selling things like XP boosts for their SP games, which really bothers me since it encourages them to make their games miserable.

But some games that could be co-op or pvp, like Madden or whatever FIFA is called now, are microtransaction disasters.

Where SP games are really getting hit is on DLC. It's not hard to see that devs are holding back content to sell as DLC, and Creative Assembly is selling it at $25 a pop now. Paradox is bad for this, too, as is Firaxis. Civ 6 has $171 worth of DLC. TWW3 has $263 and they aren't even close to finished.

Even indie games are getting into it. House Flipper has $70 worth of DLC. Car Mechanic Simulator has $97. And Farming Simulator 22 has $216 worth.

Yea as I said I've never looked deeply into Kickstarter, Fig or any of those, but its good that theyre an option even if they often go wrong.

I might be upset if I played all those big MP games and over time they had started to try and milk more and more. Guess thats why I dont see it as a problem, because I never see it. The main amount of industry money and players might be there, but its only really a small slice of the whole market content wise.

Also dont mind DLC so long as the base game is complete enough in itself. Happy to buy it if I'm having fun and want more of something. Warhammer was pretty brutal and I bought quite a lot of it in 1 and 2. Most other stuff isnt set up to milk like that other that Paradox, and their base games I've played had more than enough to be getting on with for the price of entry.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The crazy thing is that lootboxes don't fall under gambling because you get something as opposed to nothing. That's the case in the UK and frankly stupid. lootboxes may not technically fall under gambling, but they sure as hell do in spirit. Much as i hate to say or use that point. that said 2k had the balls to use roulette wheels and slot machines when opening lootboxes and thats on the nose a bit.

IIRC there were lootboxes in Dragon Age Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor, but after the mid 2010's it mostly stopped in single player games I'm interested in thankfully.

Pretty dark trying to fleece children and the vulnerable with gambling mechanics agreed.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

Planned obsolescence means that certain parts are made just good enough to last for the duration of the warranty, but it also means that each new model is only slightly better than the previous one so consumers have a reason to keep wanting to upgrade.

Back the hardware for me; I think that's what Apple has been accused of and punished for doing with their Iphones. I always felt like my android phones were getting slower as well so wanted a new one.

Also, I mainly have to think about PC hardware now because I feel like most of the time there isn't really a need to upgrade to just 1 newer generation. If I've seen correctly, there's really no point upgrading from a 30 series GPU to a 40 series because the improvements are too little and do not justify the costs. I often feel the same with CPU upgrades. If it didn't break I probably would be on my Ryzen 2600 and still would be fine.

In terms of games though, there are games that re-release themselves every year with just the number changing and maybe some slight changes, again thinking about FIFA. But also F1 and Farming Simulator (why?) come to mind.
Even though I stopped FIFA after 2012 I think, I can somewhat see people buying the game every year just because of a new football season, but why does Farming Simulator need a new game every year? I mean, surely there are farming seasons every year, but I wouldn't buy the new game every year.

Then the other opposite for me would be SCS with ETS2. I haven't looked it up to back it up but they have been asked wether or not they would make an ETS3. They said they wouldn't because they have a very solid base on ETS2 now, and ETS3 would mean remake everything. And comparing ETS2 now to ETS2 back in 2014, you are playing ETS3 now.

IIRC there were lootboxes in Dragon Age Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor, but after the mid 2010's it mostly stopped in single player games I'm interested in thankfully.

Pretty dark trying to fleece children and the vulnerable with gambling mechanics agreed.

There were in Shadow of Mordor? I do remember them in Shadow of War, but I can't remember how they worked. I'm pretty sure I didn't have to pay IRL money to open them though.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

There were in Shadow of Mordor? I do remember them in Shadow of War, but I can't remember how they worked. I'm pretty sure I didn't have to pay IRL money to open them though.

I never played Shadow of War so I think so. Thought I remembered something about it but might well have come up with a false positive if we are talking more than an hour ago.

 

[BeardyHat]

IIRC there were lootboxes in Dragon Age Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor, but after the mid 2010's it mostly stopped in single player games I'm interested in thankfully.

Pretty dark trying to fleece children and the vulnerable with gambling mechanics agreed.

There were definitely loot boxes in those games.

The thing is though, people ***** and moan about all of that, which I totally understand, but ultimately, don't buy or play the game then. I feel like there's this cultural obsession and a feel of need to play every single new thing that comes out and establish an opinion on it. From that, there's lots of complaining about this or that in any given game, which again, I'm not trying to discredit. But if a game has something in it that you don't like maybe just don't play it?

No one needs to be part of the cultural zeitgeist and conversation. I didn't play DA:I or Shadow of Mordor, partially because it was stuffed with that stuff. Not having an opinion on them back in the day didn't harm me any and these days, no one thinks about those games anymore so who cares even if you did?

Maybe I'm just in a casually dismissive mood right now (I am), but if a game has aspects you don't like, just pass it over. We're spoilt for choice these days. Even without buying anything, I could go to my computer and literally have THOUSANDS of games to choose from and that's just stuff I own or have ROM's for, not counting any free to play game that could strike my fancy. As an example: Cities: Skylines 2 looks cool, but based on all I've read about it in terms of missing content, performance issues, etc, I've chosen instead to look backward and play something similar from my library. I don't need to spend $70 just so I can moan that the game sucks and I'm so upset about it. In a year, when you can pick it up for $30, will anyone even remember the launch and issues it had?

 

[Pifanjr]

I don't follow, the opposite is surely the case?

Alfred P. Sloan, the CEO of General Motors in the 1920s is generally seen as the inventor of planned obsolescence. His idea was that consumers should consider their cars obsolete while they were still driving fine. His tactic was to create a constant stream of newer models such that consumers would feel like their current car was several models behind after only a year or two.

Of course the question is whether it's the car maker who's in the wrong or if the fault lies with the consumers who feel the need to buy a new car when their current car still works.

Personally, I consider purposefully trying to trigger this desire for the newest model as bad as including gambling systems, like lootboxes, in video games using real money.

See also: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin-and-myths-of-planned-obsolescence/

Cambridge dictionary:
"for-profit—used to describe an organization or service that exists to make a profit"

Business dictionary:
"for-profit—A business or other organization whose primary goal is making money"

American Heritage Dictionary:
"adjective
1 Established or operated with the intention of making a profit.
2 For the purpose of making money.
noun
An organization whose goal is to make a profit.

I think we misunderstood each other here. My point was that each company is owned by one or more people and it is wrong for those people to try to maximise their own wealth without regard for how it affects anyone else. I am against the very idea of "for-profit", getting as much money as possible should not be the primary driver of any human endeavour.

In USA, for-profit public companies are required by law to maximize return for their shareholders—which are overwhelmingly ordinary citizens, despite what headlines might lead one to believe

That seems to be a myth?

 

[Brian Boru]

That seems to be a myth?

It's not, but there is certainly more nuance to it than I could express in one sentence

planned obsolescence

That's a different topic, and it only works consistently in a non-competitive business environment like the Apple ecosystem. Your point I replied to would be well served by the fashion pursuit as a good example—again Apple, and Louis Vuitton, and Donna Karan etc. That's bare-faced abusive marketing, not planned obs, and thankfully has only limited traction—altho it grows with consumer affluence.

I am against the very idea of "for-profit"

I'm not, a poorer world doesn't appeal to me

 

[Pifanjr]

There is of course another possible trigger for the downfall of video game developers: the gospel of patient gaming. If enough people convert to the idea that you don't need to buy the latest thing as soon as it releases but instead can just play older games that are available for cheap (or that have been sitting unplayed in your Steam library), the entire industry will collapse.

 

[Brian Boru]

patient gaming. If enough people convert … the entire industry will collapse

No worries there, it won't happen until Humans 2.0 at earliest Patient people are rare in consumer land.

 

[BeardyHat]

There is of course another possible trigger for the downfall of video game developers: the gospel of patient gaming. If enough people convert to the idea that you don't need to buy the latest thing as soon as it releases but instead can just play older games that are available for cheap (or that have been sitting unplayed in your Steam library), the entire industry will collapse.

That would all just point to the fact that games are too expensive, both to make and buy and as such, the market would have to adjust. People are much more willing to buy a full priced Indie (somewhere between $5-$20) and take a chance than spend $70 on a AAA game that will likely also be stuffed to the gills with microtransactions.

But to go further with that, what we'd likely see is big companies divesting from the industry and walking away. From there, we're left with those that are truly passionate about the medium and there are plenty of ways for them to create games.

But, even if it were the case that the industry imploded and no new games were released, I still have games enough to last me until I die.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

There were definitely loot boxes in those games.

The thing is though, people ***** and moan about all of that, which I totally understand, but ultimately, don't buy or play the game then. I feel like there's this cultural obsession and a feel of need to play every single new thing that comes out and establish an opinion on it. From that, there's lots of complaining about this or that in any given game, which again, I'm not trying to discredit. But if a game has something in it that you don't like maybe just don't play it?

No one needs to be part of the cultural zeitgeist and conversation. I didn't play DA:I or Shadow of Mordor, partially because it was stuffed with that stuff. Not having an opinion on them back in the day didn't harm me any and these days, no one thinks about those games anymore so who cares even if you did?

Maybe I'm just in a casually dismissive mood right now (I am), but if a game has aspects you don't like, just pass it over. We're spoilt for choice these days. Even without buying anything, I could go to my computer and literally have THOUSANDS of games to choose from and that's just stuff I own or have ROM's for, not counting any free to play game that could strike my fancy. As an example: Cities: Skylines 2 looks cool, but based on all I've read about it in terms of missing content, performance issues, etc, I've chosen instead to look backward and play something similar from my library. I don't need to spend $70 just so I can moan that the game sucks and I'm so upset about it. In a year, when you can pick it up for $30, will anyone even remember the launch and issues it had?

DAI was alright, Shadow of Mordor I liked quite a bit back then. I dont have any terrible memories about loot boxes I just remember they were there somehow.

The zeitgeist around a new game is a lot of fun provided its a game I'm really excited to play. Thats only been Elden Ring and Baldurs Gate 3 in the last couple years, but I'll be similarly excited when ER DLC drops. Doesnt happen all that often, if it did it wouldnt be special.

I guess people get frustrated because a niche they prefer is either stagnant or regressing into mobile influenced FTP nonsense like micro transactions. What I wanted to say here is that I dont think thats true of most of the industry at all.

 

[BeardyHat]

I guess people get frustrated because a niche they prefer is either stagnant or regressing into mobile influenced FTP nonsense like micro transactions. What I wanted to say here is that I dont think thats true of most of the industry at all.

I think this is the exact point I was trying to make. There's so much more out there that one can completely avoid the big franchises and still have interesting and fun experiences.

I just tend to get breathlessly wordy.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I think this is the exact point I was trying to make. There's so much more out there that one can completely avoid the big franchises and still have interesting and fun experiences.

I just tend to get breathlessly wordy.

Eh, its a forum there's no character limit