Comment on The end of Stop Killing Games [Accursed Farms]
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 day agoPeople can (and shouldn’t) be nasty about anything. Part of a community manager’s responsibility would be to convey what customers are asking for, and…yeah, games should have listen servers and offline modes and do what they can to prevent cheating. Those are all things that some segment of their customers or potential customers care about. And at the same time, plenty of devs want to make their games live forever but don’t have the ability to make it so. It’s not inherently adversarial, nor does it inherently shift blame toward developers. We all know why we don’t have these things: microtransactions. The people mandating those are the ones with a profit share incentive, which aren’t typically the boots on the ground actually building the game.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
No. But “stop killing games” is an inherently adversarial statement. Hell, even a lot of PUBLISHERS would rather keep their games running forever. Let alone the devs who have put their blood, sweat, and tears into it.
And here we get to the crux of things. And the good news is that we already fucking went through all of this.
“Nobody should have to put up with harassment. But, really, it is your job to deal with that and we have our demands. So give me what I want and this all goes away”. Am I talking about “Stop killing games and give us an offline server for your MMO” or am I talking about “Fire that bitch and stop talking about woke games because I care about ethics in games journalism”?
And we saw the exact same responses from the dev side (and the smarter/older influencers). Either completely ignoring it because they don’t want to get doxxed or “Yeah… there are parts of that I really like. But I don’t know enough to really comment too much. Anyway, back to talking about the new Silent Hill game”.
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe 1 day ago
This is such a shit take that publishers want games running forever. The whole reason they get shut down is because they don’t make a profit and if something that’s not earning them money might as well be something that’s going to take gamers away from their new game. So they’ll of course shut it down. It’s in their incentive.
Your arguments seem very disingenuous.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Harassment is not an inherent part of Stop Killing Games. If publishers (or really, whoever the financiers are for a given game) wanted their game to live forever, they had the power at the start and opted not to.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Yet again, your response was “if they didn’t want to get harassed by the people who totally aren’t with us, they shouldn’t have crossed us”
Yet again, we lived through all this shit with gamergate.
pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafe 1 day ago
“stop stabbing me”
“Oh, you are very adversarial! How dare you ask me to stop stabbing you? This is how I make my money!”
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Neither time was that my response. I have asked developers via social media for LAN or listen servers or offline modes, and I’ve never been nasty about it. Being doxxed or getting hate campaigns is not okay. Customers asking for features for a video game that are important to them are not harassment, and listening to requests for those features is part of the job. If everyone at a company wanted their game to live forever, from the bottom all the way to the top, and it didn’t launch with an offline mode, then I don’t believe they wanted it to live forever; it simply didn’t make their list of priorities.