IwubCheeze: DivisionByZero.620: Just because AAA devs want to push MCs on the market doesn't mean the entire gaming industry will follow suit.
-It also doesn't mean that they won't and the only reliable logic here is that business will follow the path of least resistance to gaining wealth.
avatar
DivisionByZero.620: Boycotting the scum who throw lootboxes and gacha into everything doesn't do diddly-squat to stop it, because the developers and publishers can always take the whales for granted. Even better (for the industry, and worse for us), this business model largely absolves the developers of responsibility towards the general video gaming community just because only .19% of the players will matter financially.
-I don't find the logic that they will be 'absolved' in their abuse, and public scrutiny is why in Australia we have steps taken to try to deal with gambling addiction. It's just that these steps are usually held with the providers of gambling with an equal weight so that they in their being use to exploitation do not suffer the financial harms & burdens that they place onto the weak.
Or to put simply it's not enough to picket for change you have to have force not to have the movement end up subverted and watered down by Governance that would rather the status quo in societies where placation is the average tool in their arsenal.
avatar
DivisionByZero.620: From a business perspective, every customer who needs to be kept happy is a liability, and the easiest way to make enough money while keeping these liabilities to a minimum is to prey on people predisposed to gambling addictions and ignore everyone else.
Does that really sound like a long term business strategy to you? Putting your eggs in one basket and all that. Big companies in other industries diversify their market (Samsung for example) so if one market takes a hit, the company will still survive by relying on other markets. So if a dev relies on MCs, and laws are passed banning the practice, they will be screwed. If consumers start boycotting MCs en mass, they will be screwed. If former customers get over their addiction, they will be screwed. Putting all bets on one number because of short term high pay off yet could change at any time is NOT a sound long term business strategy.
-Except when that business strategy is the new model strategy, where you generate ongoing revenue from what would otherwise be a static one time sale by ensuring the model 'goes out of date' (a.k.a iphones) with functionality deteriorating, breaking down, features being replaced, forced integrated updating, etc.
There is no reason why lootboxing cannot have 'more than one basket' the pc gaming market is not the console market is not the app market.
It only needs to be status quo for it to be unavoidable; then what's the gamers end game?
Because simply put multiplayer has taken over the majority, there have cropped up niche's (DRM free gamers) that are there because of outcry or lack of support (linux gaming), but business is about money not experiences and has always been about getting the most capital value by leveraging a percieved value over an actual value.
Even if what you say is true, watchdog groups are going to get up in arms about things like this, like they always have done. There's going to be publicity about how some guy robbed a bank to buy new skins for his favorite gun, or how a some guy took out a loan to buy some MMO character, or some kid maxing out his parents credit card on loot boxes. If it doesn't change laws, it will at the very least increase customer awareness and get people talking about it.
-Yes and the answer will be self regulation and an awareness campaign; because you have no follow through or actual strength.
If you hold onto your dollars new people will step into gaming because the need for entertainment won't go away; esports won't go away.
The Government that the cash is flowing to might feel a bit of a tax pinch, but predation is profit seeking and will self balance out to an uncomfortable proficiency in exploitation level.
In fact the best thing you can do is try to get more indie devs on board and feeling supported and thankful to have a community behind them; not wasting effort chasing regulation.
avatar
DivisionByZero.620: And while the money in lootbox games continues to flow, so will the never-ending supply of games that cater to the lowest common denominator. No matter how much you boycott, the big-budget publishers will ignore you as they have that .19% to get rich off. They've spent 2 generations of mobile games cultivating newer gamers into thinking that lootboxes and crappy freemium experiences are the norm via mobile gaming and now is the time to roll it out on other platforms.
And yet PC and console games with an upfront price tag still exist. I've already mentioned that just because the market has this hot new trend doesn't mean that the market will homogenize and follow suit. Mobile gaming has not replaced PC or console gaming and there's no reason to suggest PC or console gamers will ditch their platform for mobile games.
-You can say the same about boxed store bought games... oh wait no you cannot because the business model that steam introduced gobled up the titles and forced people buying from storefronts to instead in essence be purchasing through the digital only retailer. Hence why when you go into a store there are five farming simulator style games, 50 steam code with manual if your lucky games (though now you probably just get a web address to it) and the PC section equating to about 1/3rd if lucky of any other single brand of console section.
avatar
DivisionByZero.620: Short of demanding new legal restrictions...
-Dealt with aleady.
avatar
DivisionByZero.620: Boycotting the scum ...
it's one of the reasons GOG exists and competes with Steam. People voting with their wallets has also been putting pressure on Disney after The Last Jedi fiasco. There are other examples I'm sure but I think my point stands. I'm pretty sure MCs are here to stay, but I doubt they'll replace the entire gaming industry.
-I don't think 'competes with steam' is an accurate statement as there are clear market share differences that belieh the natural inbuilt assumption that GOG is on equal footing.
Developers are building games for steam and cutting out parts like multiplayer on other digital platforms and I shouldn't really have to reference GOG list examples for this (I really couldn't be bothered to dig through the site for them again).
Some developers have openly stated in the not too distant past that most of their revenue comes from steam and that catering to the <15% of sales from GOG isn't feasible.
Though I agree voting with your wallet does create force in the free market; but I do not believe that it is as direct as people assume it to work.
It creates a need, that need tentatively is catered to and if exploitable industry shifts to do so.
I don't believe this kind of shift is anything that you'll want.
