No. No no no no no no no. Please go back and restate your point without insulting someone for having a different opinion from you.bloodmage2 said:
Do gamers have the balls to force a crash???
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I mostly play indies these days or just buy stuff off Steam sales. I'm not sure who's actually buying all the launch date AAA crap any more, but it ain't me.
I don't exactly agree with the OP, but the constant appeal of "what about the jobs!" is starting to really piss me off. You can use this reasoning to justify practically anything - and that's precisely what horribly greedy and destructive corporations do on a daily basis. We can't drill for oil in the middle of this nature preserve? What about the jobs! You won't give us a billion dollars of tax payer money for a stadium? What about the jobs! You want us to dismantle profit-driven healthcare because it provides crap care for exorbitant prices? What about the jobs!
We shouldn't prop up bullshit business models and/or industries solely for the sake of preserving jobs. Down that road lies unbound waste and wealth disparity. If something is simply bad or stupid, it should go away. The money spent on it will be spent elsewhere. The jobs it created will be created by said "elsewhere". If this happens to employ or empower a different set of people, maybe it is their turn to be employed/empowered. If your particular society doesn't offer adequate support and safety nets for people transitioning from one job or field to another, that's on your particular society.
Or we could all just continue racing right to the bottom because we need them damn jobs!
For every person who creates a forum thread against microtransactions, or other negative things in the game industry like standardisation of genres (abundance of call of duty clones), or suggests a boycott, there about 10 people who will buy consoles, buy games like CoD and FIFA and Forza, and pay tens of pounds/dollars in microtransactions for extra players and guns/maps and cars and tracks, and really not give a shit.
There is no chance with the current state of video games at the moment of a market crash, even with some big "gamer movement" because the CoD/Fifa casuals are here to stay.
Oh and I've seen a couple of comments on this thread suggesting that PC doesn't have the microtransaction bullshit. That's stupid. PC is where is thrives most. Look at fee-to-play games. There's loads of them. The most popular of those currently being MOBAs.
Feel free not to support any practices that you find unacceptable. I don't support DRM without an offline mode. Just don't be so naive to think that there's any chance of a games market crash. Remember, for every 1 'hardcore gamer', there's 10 'filthy casuals'.
There is no chance with the current state of video games at the moment of a market crash, even with some big "gamer movement" because the CoD/Fifa casuals are here to stay.
Oh and I've seen a couple of comments on this thread suggesting that PC doesn't have the microtransaction bullshit. That's stupid. PC is where is thrives most. Look at fee-to-play games. There's loads of them. The most popular of those currently being MOBAs.
Feel free not to support any practices that you find unacceptable. I don't support DRM without an offline mode. Just don't be so naive to think that there's any chance of a games market crash. Remember, for every 1 'hardcore gamer', there's 10 'filthy casuals'.
I think we could win the war against microtransanctions without a crash. We'd be much better off buying the hell out of games that don't use them than impossibly banding together and not buying games at all.
Also, as noted, the latter option is impossible.
Also, as noted, the latter option is impossible.
You speak as if gamers are some oppressed underclass. They're not. If anything, a lot of games are underpriced due to spiralling costs and longer development processes. If at launch, you want a full game with immersive open-world, top of the line graphics, you have no choice but to save up for it. Perhaps you can't buy new games by the bucketload anymore.Fonejackerjon said:
I think this is just another case of trying to have your cake, and eat it. Games development is not what it was 10 years ago. You have alternatives to shelling out £40 for a brand new console game, no-one is forcing you to buy it, or the DLC. And this ultimately results in more content. I have never had a problem with legitimate DLC.
Causing an industry crash on purpose would be the stupidest, most juvenile thing that "gamers" as a whole could do. It would send out the wrong message about the games industry. It would put off potential new developers, sending talent elsewhere, perhaps to develop for social networking and mobiles. You have plenty of choice. Choice to play indie games, choice to play from a backlog of games (gog.com); choice not to buy DLC, choice to play free to play games.
You get what you pay for. Complaining about games being carved into little DLC chunks? When was the last time an AAA game asked for the full price up front and then said you couldn't progress any further without paying money?
Another point.
If you look at the factors of the crash, a lot of it can be attributed to the unique circumstances of the gaming market in 1983. It was still a new market. For companies, it was a gold rush. A lot of companies wanted a slice of the pie, and over-saturated with their iterations of the games console. Video games were still a kind of children's toy, you have to understand.
It was much easier to crash a new, untested medium.
It was a perfect storm, and for something on that scale to happen again, there would have to be a serious market fault, perhaps an externality which impacts upon the equilibrium in the market. Not everyone cares about any of that stuff you mentioned. Most don't, in fact. The CoD-playing, Madden/Fifa-buying masses will keep on buying in their hordes. So will a lot of people who are into slightly less mainstream games, but don't care about game politics or the industry. Gamers are not one monolithic voting bloc anymore, but we can count on loyal cash cows to keep buying that yearly shoot em up. Not going to effect change that way, I'm afraid. That will just have the opposite effect.
If you look at the factors of the crash, a lot of it can be attributed to the unique circumstances of the gaming market in 1983. It was still a new market. For companies, it was a gold rush. A lot of companies wanted a slice of the pie, and over-saturated with their iterations of the games console. Video games were still a kind of children's toy, you have to understand.
It was much easier to crash a new, untested medium.
It was a perfect storm, and for something on that scale to happen again, there would have to be a serious market fault, perhaps an externality which impacts upon the equilibrium in the market. Not everyone cares about any of that stuff you mentioned. Most don't, in fact. The CoD-playing, Madden/Fifa-buying masses will keep on buying in their hordes. So will a lot of people who are into slightly less mainstream games, but don't care about game politics or the industry. Gamers are not one monolithic voting bloc anymore, but we can count on loyal cash cows to keep buying that yearly shoot em up. Not going to effect change that way, I'm afraid. That will just have the opposite effect.
Considering how I'm currently studying to eventually join this industry, I'd really rather try to avoid a big crash, as that might not be very beneficial to my job security. I think, as others have said, the best way to handle this is to avoid games with micro-transactions and all that unpleasantness and stick to games from developers that don't do these things (although in most cases it's probably the publisher who forced them into the game). Over the past few years, I've taken to buying about 3 or 4 indie games for every major title and so far I really love it. It has introduced me to a whole host of new concepts and ideas and it's hardly common to see quick cash-grabs there.