There are limits to this argument … at some point buying a shitty game is on gamers and they need to shop around for something else.
There aren’t that many tricks prepurchase of a whole new game publishers can use. The big one is non-refundable preorders and at this point I’d hope people have learned their lesson on that (I still do it for, e.g. Bungie, but I don’t trust many studios to that degree).
If you’ve got a refundable pre-order or you bought it post release and the game gets overwhelming negative reviews and you’re dissatisfied with your purchase, keeping the game is on you and presumably your friends that also did so. There’s plenty of other stuff out there to play, especially in the shooter space.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Doesn’t this argument assume that all gamers are equal?
Remember that gamers range across all ages, genders, and preferences of genre. There are vast quantities of gamers that will buy whatever is going to be popular at any given point, there a purists who require nothing but quality. There are nostalgists who crave what gaming once was.
Buying habits are mostly dictated by the sorts of factors
Saying rhat gamers need to vote with their wallet, or something to that effect as you have, doesn’t consider the fact that not every gamer is in it for the same reasons and capitalism will always cater for what is popular first and foremost. So if you aren’t someone who is happy to play fortnite or cod for the rest of your life without longing for change then you are likely part of a minorty. A subset of gamers who want things to get better even though that is very unlikely to happen.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 11 months ago
This argument acknowledges that we got it wrong when we started putting up “warning jumping off this cliff will hurt” signs.
If someone buys a bad game and they’re happy with it, then it’s fine, it’s not a bad game to them. If someone buys a bad game, they don’t like it, and they keep it, that’s on them.
There are so many ways to spend money here and so much competition. If someone doesn’t like the game then they just shouldn’t buy it, one shouldn’t blame Activision for making a game one doesn’t like and saying “they tricking me.”
Activision is not going to hit their numbers solely on people who are clinically lacking impulse control. Activision is going to hit their numbers on apathetic people that blame Activision for the poor purchase they decided to buy anyways.
This isn’t “the grocery store gives plastic bags and it’s on the consumer to recycle them, so therefore it’s consumers fault that plastic bags are littered.” This isn’t “the only option in town is unhealthy food so that’s why I eat poorly.” This is an expensive game, the primary product, something that exists purely to entertain. Truly if ever there was a case, this is the case where consumers needing to stop paying for junk they don’t want.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Like i said. It’s a varied market, but the companies will always follow the money.
You can deny the landscape of games we have that are made solely for the purposes of making ridiculous amounts of money from minimal effort all you want, but this is the marlet we have these days.
The fact that “gatcha games” are even a thing should be all the proof you need. You know about Diablo immortal and Diablo 4 dont you? And overwatch 2? And destiny 2? Apex? Fortnite? Fifa? Cs:go? And all those mobile games? The ones that make billions from microtransactions?
I feel like tour argument comes from a lack of research. You are standing in a storm and telling me it’s not raining.
Theres plenty of resources out there that prove the game indistry is outright manipilating its customers and its all in the name of profit.
Theres a reason so many companies were scared of Baldurs gate 3. Somehow a game with a 6 uear dwvelopment cycle with around 400 employees was able to release one of the best games of the last decade. One that is smashing records and making crazy profit but it has no microtransactions, you buy the game and you plau the qhole game. Where activision wigh a studio of more than 1000 employees spent the same amount of time developing the addition of the number 2 to the previously popular overwatch. It took 6 years to draw a number 2. Because thats all thry did. They took away features of a widely popular game, slapped a 2 on it and told us all we should give them more money for the privilege.
But people pay for it. They buy into it. And its ot because its good. Its because most people dont hold the industry to the same standard as others. And they arent the ones who complain about it being a mess.
The ones who complain are the ones who see through the bullshit.
The ones who buy into it are the ones steering the ship.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 11 months ago
You’re telling me I haven’t done enough research while not pushing anything more than your own opinion. Where’s your research and sources if your opinion is more than that? If you have sources, great, otherwise you’re just misleading people and being self indulgent about how your opinion is backed by research and mine is backed by a lack of information and understanding.
Who says there’s anything wrong with cosmetic micro transactions. I pay for them, I know others that pay for them. It’s fine, it gives me some cool looking stuff, and gives the game developer some extra cash. You’re moving the goal post going from badly reviewing games to games with microtransactions.
There are plenty of resources out there that cite manipulation in terms of loot boxes and gambling. Destiny 2 doesn’t do that, but it was in your list. Bungie is largely actually releasing content people appreciate and the game is overall very well received, as is CSGO in spite of its lootboxes.
Actually purchasing the base game of CoD, which has numerous issues, and is what we were originally talking about (at least I thought) also doesn’t involve any of those shenanigans… But people keep doing it, and that’s the biggest part I’m saying needs to change.