Games as a service

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 1. May 19, 00:59

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 30. Apr 19, 02:07
Heh, didn't we have the same discussion 10-15 years ago? WoW was so big of a success that everyone wanted a piece of that pie. And I meant literally EVERYONE, from East to West, built from very solid and large fan base. You had Final Fantasy Online, D&D, Eldescrolls, Starwars, even proven veteran like Everquest, and gene that has nothing to do with MMO like The Sims Online, and I know there are a lot more of these names that I forgot to mention. I remember amid this "hype", there were talk about how it was the death of single player, everything was gonna be MMO from now on. Honestly it made a Single player enthusiastic like me a tinny bit of worry at the time.
WoW is still a cash-cow. (See my link, above) MMOs switched from monthly subscription fees to online marketplaces and free-to-play models not only due to competitive practices, but because it was a more profitable model. Everquest is still around with a F2P model and online marketplace supporting it. (With continued expansion packs, too.) Path of Exile got picked up by TenCent last year. "MMO" style games, even if they're not competitive games, are still going fairly strong. It's the infrastructure. Back when WoW et al came out, highspeed access was not as common. Remember when having a PC didn't mean you had an internet connection? I played Ulima Online on dial-up. America Online's "Neverwinter Nights" too... America Oline. AOL... WTFI'MOLD :)
So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy.
Eeehh... Kinda, but maybe not really. Those might be "classic style MMOs" instead of today's sorts of "MMO'ish" experiences. Top Five MMO by Population (2018) (Just a quick link, not sure of 2019 yet) TES, Black Desert Online (relatively new, comparatively speaking) etc... There's still room for "traditional MMOs." The interesting thing to see would be to break down MMO players by the other sorts of games they play to see what their overall market impact is. Are they just fanatics for MMOs or do they have other "always online" influences.

And, considering user tracking, that's exactly the sorts of data that gaming companies and distributors are hunting for. But, they want the "web of influence" drawn out from this information so they know who to market to and what they want to pay for. ie:Epic Games says it doesn't use Steam data without permission - Except, it did. It downloaded users Steam friends/social lists and they apologize for doing that, stating it was basically "old code left in by mistake." Riiiight. Microsoft does it. Sony does it. I imagine Steam does it, since why the heck wouldn't it? Facebook, Youtube, everybody... It's the "getting blood out of a turnip" monetization scheme. They've finally figured out how to do it. :)
On the other hand, SP has enjoyed a Renaissance since, in fact it's in even a better shape then before. I think the "purist" find it annoying how their SP's experience is "tainted" by the tackle on online components we sometime have these day. But for me as a "moderate", I see if differently. I think SP fought a war with MMO and made MMO its bitch, and it came out with a little extra integration.
Indie developers.

There are some SP "AAA" titles, I guess. Which ones are they and do they have online components? That'd be interesting to see and also whether or not these SP titles from "AAA" devs/producers refrain from continuous monetization schemes.

My concern is purely about manipulation of the brain on the other side of the controller/keyboard. It's not hard to manipulate people if they are part of a willing audience. You can even do it and get enthusiastic supporters. Drug dealers do that every darn day.
.. I have no problem filling my libraries with tittle I wanted to play in between, so looking at the current eco system of gaming, I have very little to worry about. :)
I agree. Making a conscious choice and enjoying one's purchase is a good thing. But, its very easy to encourage a crack addict to make additional purchases. And, if there's enough of them, then a great deal of money invested in that marketplace will revolve around various means to exploit crack addicts and a few tests of monetization schemes to supplant them by creating heroin addicts.

There will still be Single Player games. As you point out, there's always going to be a market for them. But, what if the only way you can get such games is by... joining an online marketplace game-streaming service?

"In order to get this achievement and unluck fake currency to spend on our marketplace you must tag ten of your friends!" - Actual Microsoft XBox crapchievement.

Remember this? Activision patents matchmaking that encourages players to buy microtransactions Activision says it's not currently in a game...

But, this reveals the corporate mindset. This is a "back conference-room culture" reveal. This is the sort of things that planners and management discuss. Exploiting one's customer base is a common business practice and it's been around far longer than just some blacksmith who started putting his mark on swords. But, in this marketplace, you can manipulate you customer with much more than just flashy advertising and brand development. And, you get 'em young, before they have any sense, so you can get them used to being manipulated. Yes, they'll all enjoy it and have fun and feel good about giving up their money... That's how it's done. :)

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 1. May 19, 02:04

pjknibbs wrote:
Tue, 30. Apr 19, 08:44
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 30. Apr 19, 02:07
So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy.
I would add EVE Online to that list. There is a free-to-play option with it, but there is for WoW as well, and both are limited compared to the pay-per-month option.
You're right I should. That is new information for me though. Back when I played Eve is not exactly an F2P in normal sense, it was more like if you "work" in the game hard enough, you can use the ingame currency to buy game time instead of with real money. So it has a "actual" F2P option now?

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 00:59
WoW is still a cash-cow. (See my link, above) MMOs switched from monthly subscription fees to online marketplaces and free-to-play models not only due to competitive practices, but because it was a more profitable model.
That's only half correct. They switched because they have to. You don't need a cash-shop when you regular boast the 10mil subscription like WoW in its hey days. But as that # deteriorating, to a point that Blizzard decided it would stop announcing its subscription numbers, that's also when they looked at other way to make up for that lost revenue. You are half right because the current model give them more money than they would otherwise get sticking with traditional model, but it's more than that: they wouldn't be able to sustain otherwise. SW:TOR started as the next WoW, and clinged to it till the day it died ... only to be resurrected as a F2P game. The old Everquest still kicking as a niche corner, but after 10+ year of development EverQuest Next finally got canned, same story for Blizzard's attempt at a WoW successor. Elderscrolls still generate enough money as F2P to be kept around, but it's certainly wasn't a "WoW" challenge with a $15/month superscription model it was aspired to be. I think you missed the point if you think I'm suggesting MMO is going away or disappearing, I only point out that they were never as big of a threat to the single player market as a lot of people once believe it would be.
Eeehh... Kinda, but maybe not really. Those might be "classic style MMOs" instead of today's sorts of "MMO'ish" experiences. Top Five MMO by Population (2018) (Just a quick link, not sure of 2019 yet) TES, Black Desert Online (relatively new, comparatively speaking) etc... There's still room for "traditional MMOs." The interesting thing to see would be to break down MMO players by the other sorts of games they play to see what their overall market impact is. Are they just fanatics for MMOs or do they have other "always online" influences.
You're aware FF is on that list? ;)

And I actually played most of the MMO available on the market, after all with the information in this thread ... FF14 is the only one left standing that has only a traditional subscription model, and a significant upfront investment to start. With every other games had been reduced to F2P, if you're not adverse to the online idea, I can say the current MMO market is even a bigger treasure trove for gamer (like me at least) than the indie scene. After all, you can drop 0-$10 and end up with about 3 months worth of content to slough through. And believe it or not, most of them cater more toward SP play then actual MP play. Like I said I played the majority of them, and for the majority of time I had no problem enjoying those game solo. Again, a purist may find it annoying, but from my pepscetive like I said, SP won the war but didn't annihilate MMO, it just made MMO its bitch. :)

Indie developers.
They're part of the reason, not the main driving force. Most of the leading SP game are still from pretty big name.
There are some SP "AAA" titles, I guess. Which ones are they and do they have online components? That'd be interesting to see and also whether or not these SP titles from "AAA" devs/producers refrain from continuous monetization schemes.
Assassin Creed, Far Cry, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Some of them give some incentive to connect, but AFAIK it has no monetization purpose or impeding the experience without. The mods gonna hate me for touching this holy grail, but IMO the little online component has always meant mainly as a way to discourage piracy (and no, I'm just stating the intent, not gonna get into argument how effective it is). After all, there is no reason to try monetizing a SP game, they'll just have to sell you DLC instead, no need to force an online connection for that. Microtransction only makes sense in MMO or MOBA envinronment, which I believe if you're the type who don't like online gaming, you wouldn't go near those kind of game anyway, so that's a none issue.

The only one game I can think of that can monetizing single player is The Sims series, and that's due to its unique presentation.

My concern is purely about manipulation of the brain on the other side of the controller/keyboard.
People just need to get smarter and that'll stop being a problem. A lot of "complains" these days are really just people want others to solve their problems for them. I lack self-discipline so please make it a crime to temp me. ;)
But, its very easy to encourage a crack addict to make additional purchases.
See above ^. But again, maybe this is just me having a typical "Asian" mind set. Our culture has no issue telling people to take up responsibility even if they appear to be the victim. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Games as a service

Post by pjknibbs » Wed, 1. May 19, 07:34

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 02:04
You're right I should. That is new information for me though. Back when I played Eve is not exactly an F2P in normal sense, it was more like if you "work" in the game hard enough, you can use the ingame currency to buy game time instead of with real money. So it has a "actual" F2P option now?
https://www.eveonline.com/

Observe the "Play free" button. I don't play it myself so I don't know what the limitations are on the free play, though.

User avatar
X2-Illuminatus
Moderator (Deutsch)
Moderator (Deutsch)
Posts: 24950
Joined: Sun, 2. Apr 06, 16:38
x4

Re: Games as a service

Post by X2-Illuminatus » Wed, 1. May 19, 10:18

pjknibbs wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 07:34
...
Observe the "Play free" button. I don't play it myself so I don't know what the limitations are on the free play, though.
The usual stuff: Restricted access to ingame objects, and limited training speed and interaction possibilites. Full list here.
Nun verfügbar! X3: Farnham's Legacy - Ein neues Kapitel für einen alten Favoriten

Die komplette X-Roman-Reihe jetzt als Kindle E-Books! (Farnhams Legende, Nopileos, X3: Yoshiko, X3: Hüter der Tore, X3: Wächter der Erde)

Neuauflage der fünf X-Romane als Taschenbuch

The official X-novels Farnham's Legend, Nopileos, X3: Yoshiko as Kindle e-books!

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 1. May 19, 18:29

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 02:04
...but after 10+ year of development EverQuest Next finally got canned, same story for Blizzard's attempt at a WoW successor. Elderscrolls still generate enough money as F2P to be kept around, but it's certainly wasn't a "WoW" challenge with a $15/month superscription model it was aspired to be. I think you missed the point if you think I'm suggesting MMO is going away or disappearing, I only point out that they were never as big of a threat to the single player market as a lot of people once believe it would be.
After "EQ2" there wasn't much point continuing that particular IP. EQ-Next was a weird sort of thing, too. Blizzard's future-punk-fantasy-mishmash got some development cash, but didn't have much of a direction.

I wasn't trying to say something specific about MMOs, just that there were more that were ongoing money-makers than just Final Fantasy. :)
You're aware FF is on that list? ;)
You have mentioned it once or twice... ;)
And I actually played most of the MMO available on the market, after all with the information in this thread ... FF14 is the only one left standing that has only a traditional subscription model, and a significant upfront investment to start.
I haven't kept track of them in a long time, so don't know offhand which have subscription models available. As the article points out, though, there is a difference between markets. Eastern markets are much different than their Western MMO counterparts.
.. Like I said I played the majority of them, and for the majority of time I had no problem enjoying those game solo. Again, a purist may find it annoying, but from my pepscetive like I said, SP won the war but didn't annihilate MMO, it just made MMO its bitch. :)
I'd disagree with that. But, I wouldn't put up MMOs as we traditionally understand them. It's the "online" market that has beaten, due to cash influx, the standard, traditional, MMO model which used to be the big cash cow. And, with mechanics for games that are normally single-player, but have hamfisted shoehorned in "multiplayer/online" excuses... Those are mechanics designed to get a player to an online marketplace or otherwise act to place them in a position for future online purchases, not actually meaningful "online game mechanics" that are a true part of the game.

Competitive games making money online is not unusual, but now the market is truly "busting loose" with devs slobbering over PuBG and Fortnight Quarterly revenues. They're making more money than the darn Marvel franchise is going to make at the theater... (Probably... I dunno, wouldn't surprise me.)
Indie developers.
They're part of the reason, not the main driving force. Most of the leading SP game are still from pretty big name.
I agree - AAA SP titles are generally a big deal. But, a good many are hitching their stars to online requirements and marketplaces, too. (Red Dead Redemption 2, etc. Does the latest "Witcher" have an online marketplace?) But, it's the Indies that are providing "bulk" to the marketplace in terms of single-player gaming. That's what I think keeps us from seeing all of our personal gaming ending up with an always online connection. (Then again, maybe Egosoft will go there too one day?)
... After all, there is no reason to try monetizing a SP game, they'll just have to sell you DLC instead, no need to force an online connection for that.
The latest Spiderman lets you buy stuffs, right? And its Single-Player isn't it? That last "Mordor" game was singleplayer and you could buy powerups/etc. Path of Exile, despite being touted as a sort of MMO/Multiplayer/Diablo-Competitor has crappy multiplayer mechanics and they make a mint from selling vanity items and Stash Tabs (Extra storage for all your crap that you end up collecting) to what are primarily "Single Player PoE Players." (I played a good bit last year, but haven't touched it this year. And, I did buy some vanity outfits and stuff just caused I wanted to dress up my character so they'd look cool... :) )
Microtransction only makes sense in MMO or MOBA envinronment, which I believe if you're the type who don't like online gaming, you wouldn't go near those kind of game anyway, so that's a none issue.
It's not about "making sense" though. :) If you can get people to buy it, then it "makes sense" to sell it, right? That's the thinking of these sorts of producers/devs. It doesn't matter if it makes sense from a gameplay perspective, it matters only if you can get players to spend money on "the thing." If you can push "the thing" in their face every time they play, you're a lot more likely to get them to buy it than if you had to wait for them to come look for it.

(Online only was originally for content distribution and multiplayer stuff. Later, it was for DRM/Authentication and additional distribution, etc. These days, it has little to do with DRM. Origin plays that up pretty big, though, as their reason for mandating it. I still don't think it's proven, though. Sometimes, people don't pirate a game because it sucks... If there is a demand, it's pirated.)
The only one game I can think of that can monetizing single player is The Sims series, and that's due to its unique presentation.
I played the first one a little bit, but that was ancient history. "The Sims ##" is one of the most DLC/Expansion abusive series known to gaming and the people who play it now are basically treated like gaming crackheads... and, they're devoted fans, loving all of it. I have no idea what sort of "online marketplace" it has. I'm not sure I want to know. I've seen what some of those people are capable of enjoying and it scares me. :)
People just need to get smarter and that'll stop being a problem. A lot of "complains" these days are really just people want others to solve their problems for them. I lack self-discipline so please make it a crime to temp me. ;)
I can imagine that a large portion of human history is filled with that phrase.. "People just need to get smarter and that will stop being a problem." :) You know you've got to laugh at that, right? That's pretty darn funny. :)

People would have to stop creating ways to exploit human behavior for this to sto
But, its very easy to encourage a crack addict to make additional purchases.
See above ^. But again, maybe this is just me having a typical "Asian" mind set. Our culture has no issue telling people to take up responsibility even if they appear to be the victim. :)
I am very proud of you not mentioning Final Fantasy in your closing statement. Way to go, champ! You can beat your addiction! :)

We're both here on a gaming forum talking about games. We know what we like! Computer games are cool and fun and we can do cool and fun stuff with them. What's not to like? We want that experience.

I just worry that we're going to have our behaviors modified in ways that are not in our best interests. It's not about "playing games we like." You can literally make someone like a game if you're willing to work hard enough at it. And, if you already have people that like that sort of game, anyway? Well, then you've got half the work done for you. It's a small step from that to getting them to "like" being online and then to "like" having "cool stuff to buy" and then, the next thing you know, you've manipulated them into giving you money that really has nothing at all to do with the quality of the game or their overall satisfaction with it. Then where are we when we have no place else to go, figureatively speaking?

The microtransaction and online marketplace schemes aren't going to go away anytime soon unless there is more money to be made another way. It seems as if, for now, that's not going to happen anytime soon. I'm fine with people being happy, I'm just not fine with the ability a company has to manipulate people into making them buy things to stay happy.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 2. May 19, 02:35

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 18:29
I wasn't trying to say something specific about MMOs, just that there were more that were ongoing money-makers than just Final Fantasy. :)
...
I am very proud of you not mentioning Final Fantasy in your closing statement. Way to go, champ! You can beat your addiction! :)
I feel like you're trying to insunate something here ... probably by misunderstanding.

When I asked "you're aware FF on the list", it's simply because your original quote was kind funny, to me at least. Specifically:
Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 1. May 19, 00:59
So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy.
Eeehh... Kinda, but maybe not really. Those might be "classic style MMOs" instead of today's sorts of "MMO'ish" experiences. Top Five MMO by Population (2018) (Just a quick link, not sure of 2019 yet) TES, Black Desert Online (relatively new, comparatively speaking) etc...
The way I read it, I thought you were giving me a list without WoW or FF, but there it was ... so that was just a cheeky comment. It's like someone telling me they gonna give me a list of alternate food to replace the burger ... and then I see the burger itself is on that list. Maybe that wasn't your intention but that's how it came across to me :rofl:

Also the way I keep mentioned FF wasn't because I think it's good or praising it, it's simply to re-enforce my point of how far the MMO market had fallen since its peak. Tbh, FF probably will go F2P sometime in the next expack, I already notice pattern that indicating the developers are experimenting the idea of turning the game into microtransction model. A lot of these games wasn't F2P by design choice, they started out with big dream of being the next WoW, now they do what they must to survive.

Also I wouldn't call an MMO where I subscribed for 4-6 months in a year an addiction, since that mean you'll have to up with a different world for the real addicts. ;)

I just worry that we're going to have our behaviors modified in ways that are not in our best interests. It's not about "playing games we like." You can literally make someone like a game if you're willing to work hard enough at it. And, if you already have people that like that sort of game, anyway? Well, then you've got half the work done for you. It's a small step from that to getting them to "like" being online and then to "like" having "cool stuff to buy" and then, the next thing you know, you've manipulated them into giving you money that really has nothing at all to do with the quality of the game or their overall satisfaction with it. Then where are we when we have no place else to go, figureatively speaking?
Since you're pretty good at this, seeing how often you ask this question in other topic, let's me ask you the same question: define the problem here. And where we can draw a line.

I think I need to clarify here, I wasn't implying people being stupid, more like the opposite really. I was being somewhat sarcastic about it, but to put it bluntly the issue I see here is not because people are stupid, it's the assumption of stupidity on other behalf. The assumption of stupidity are often dressed up under the cloak of "protecting people's interest" while in reality is just an excuse to "impose self-interest".

As far I can see, the market are fully capable of adjusting itself. Here are a slew of examples:

- We already see it in MMO. You can't just make an MMO and ask for 15$/month just because they did it for other MMO.
- I had toured most MMO on the market, for the most part each of them provide some kind of unique experience. Mable Story has the social aspect, Tera has the best fighting system I've seen in any game, Black Desert offer hardcore grinding without the end game stuff, I think the only thing keep TOR running is its IP ...etc... The more of these aspects a game can offer in one package, the higher it is on the food chain, and sitting at the top are the games with enough quality to justify a subscription model. Most F2P are usually just one trick pony that will face instant death the moment they even try to entertain the idea of forcing a subscription.
- How long people has been clamoring a Fall Out MMO? Decades. How long it took to Fallout 76 to die? Mere moments.
- Remember the attempt of "paid modding" with Skyrim?


The point is, if companies try some unjustifiable shenanigans, the market are fully capable of pushing back. The issue here is when a new model is successful, it just means people find the associate cost is appropriate for the service render, and some people just refuse to acknowledge that. It's the same for whether it's DLC, Microtransction, subscription ...etc... if people value their money differently than you, it doesn't mean they're stupid or evil companies are scamming them. It's not that different in politic, even with disagreement, one shouldn't default to it's because you are "insert degenerative term", but we all know that exactly how many people behave.

There is a reason why you see I repeatedly say something like "if you TRULY don't like/want it, stay away from it and it's a none issue" whenever I talk about this issue. Because I know that's often not the issue at all. Speaking from experience - and by that I openly admit I'm used to be guilty about the very samething I'm about to say - the real issue at the core is: people want to have it, just not paying for it. But, saying that openly make us look selfish, and we don't like admit being selfish, so we dress up the argument under the veils of legality and morality. I sailed on that boat, and got off it. After doing that I found gaming is such a more relax and enjoyable experience, with so much more options available to choose from.

It's great, I think more people should try it. :D
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 3. May 19, 01:41

Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 2. May 19, 02:35
...Since you're pretty good at this, seeing how often you ask this question in other topic, let's me ask you the same question: define the problem here. And where we can draw a line.
The Problem: A "gamer economy" that isn't structured around consumer demand, but instead constructed by what suppliers want to supply.

Or, eg:

"I didn't know how much I wanted cocaine in my Cheese Danish until I tried it! I LOVE CHEESE DANISHES NOW!" :)
I think I need to clarify here, I wasn't implying people being stupid, more like the opposite really. I was being somewhat sarcastic about it, but to put it bluntly the issue I see here is not because people are stupid, it's the assumption of stupidity on other behalf. The assumption of stupidity are often dressed up under the cloak of "protecting people's interest" while in reality is just an excuse to "impose self-interest".
I don't think gamers/people are stupid or that you may have been saying that. Human beings are, however, easily manipulated in situations where they perceive low-risk. "Perceive" is the key term, there. If you can get someone to think that they aren't being manipulated in any way and that there is no or low risk of any dastardly deeds, the sky is the limit on how easily those people can actually be manipulated.

"Oh, that can't happen to me." <It happens> "That didn't happen to me, because it can't. So, it must have been something else." <It happens again> "No, it didn't happen, because it can't happen to me."
As far I can see, the market are fully capable of adjusting itself. Here are a slew of examples:
A "Free Market" is capable of adjusting itself. But, there are few such things as a "Free Market." Manipulating demand is, of course, the purpose of marketing. "You didn't know you needed this until we showed you that you did. Everyone needs an automatic milk-carton opener!"
- Remember the attempt of "paid modding" with Skyrim?
(Just using this as an example of "pushback" and failed attempts at changing or creating a "market" or product)

Why did it fail? It wasn't just because it was offered and there was no market for it, right? It failed because it was hastily implemented and included without hardly any feedback or input from the primary suppliers of the product. It's as if someone decided to start selling drink cups and created a marketplace that sold them, but didn't specify what size they were, who was selling them, who was going to handle the money and didn't bother with any way to authenticate who actually originally owned the cups being sold. It also didn't even bother with attempting quality controls over the cups being sold or, in fact, whether or not they were actually cups..

It also didn't even bother asking third-party cup sellers or their customers.

That is, admittedly, the most notable relatively recent attempt at breaking open a new market. And, it does't take into account the fact that they didn't try to prepare the marketplace or "set the tone." A very large number of gamers are against such a thing based upon simple principle - Mods should be free.

Every game tries to set itself up as unique or with unique experiences. By and large, they all do that well. It's just that not everyone likes the same experiences. Every MMO game, at least, seem to get a fairly dedicated fanbase. (Small or large)
The point is, if companies try some unjustifiable shenanigans, the market are fully capable of pushing back.
If the market "knows" these are unjustifiable shenanigas, though. SimCity (online) was a set of unjustifiable online shennanigans and a lot of people didn't "know" that, but argued heavily in favor of their love of the SimCity franchise. Until it was shown what a buggy, botched up, friggin mess it was with absolutely no intrinsic need of an online component. Now it's a friggin' mobile game. But, most left it because it was a buggy mess.
... if people value their money differently than you, it doesn't mean they're stupid or evil companies are scamming them. It's not that different in politic, even with disagreement, one shouldn't default to it's because you are "insert degenerative term", but we all know that exactly how many people behave.
I spent a lot of money, compared to many, for "crap" in Path of Exile. :) I bought all the stuff that wasn't a "vanity" item, too. (Stash tabs) I fully knew why PoE was selling this stuff and know why PoE gameplay is designed the way it is. (To encourage you to buy stashtabs and, when it's not causing the game to crash, to display player vanity items in public spaces so you can be induced to buy them for your own character.) So, I knew that and knew that neither of these components were an intrinsic part of gameplay, but where emphasized to encourage players to buy stuff. It's a Free to Play game and that's its monetization model and I'm fine with it.

I'm not saying players are stupid. I don't know where you get that. But, if I say that people are easily manipulated and its not difficult at all to manipulate a gamer into doing something or wanting something or enjoying something that they may not be proud of if they more fully understood how they were being manipulated, I'm stating a fact. A professionally rendered fact with formal education behind it. It's a "fact" that most learned people understand even without formal education.

I'm also not saying that all game companies are "evil." But, note, for instance, the link that I included concerning EA and it's patent on a process that would encourage players to purchase microtransactions by adjusting the player population in an online competitive game to motivate them to emulate other players with certain items. Is that "evil" to very blatantly use such underhanded (hidden and seflish) tricks to try to convince a player to buy something? Maybe... Could it be evil to try to convince someone to do something that gives you a reward if you did not at least inform them that you were doing this? What if you gave that player the impression that this sort of manipulation wasn't being done at all? That's... kind of evil, isn't it?
...It's great, I think more people should try it. :D
People do like getting something they like at no cost. I don't particularly care that much about "games" and how much they may cost me or whether or not something I like will require me to make a purchase of it. I will also indulge myself from time to time for little reason other than indulging myself. But, then again, I'm easy to keep happy - I think going out and getting a Mocha Capuccino is a "treat" for myself. Browsing the bookstore is an "indulgence." Playing a decade-old video game is a "treat." I am hopelessly boring in that respect. Going to an old used bookstore full of moldy pages and finding an old out-of-plublication Fantasy or Science-Fiction book I wanted to read is Morkonon having a "high time" and results in me doing a happy dance and excitedly telling the cashier how awesome their store is... :)

I can sum it up this way - Will you be happy, today, if every game you own requires a constant online connection and has online components, justifiable or not, and also includes a mandatory inclusion of any Friend's List you have? Today? Would that make you happy today? Well, tomorrow, that's the way it's going to be and I'm telling you, today, that you will be made to be happy about that tomorrow. :) Well, at least that's the case if we don't exercise some judgement today and vote with our wallets. Even so, it's hard to defeat multi-bajilion-dollar monetization schemes that already have the money to construct ways to convince gamers that their way is best.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 3. May 19, 03:35

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 3. May 19, 01:41
The Problem: A "gamer economy" that isn't structured around consumer demand, but instead constructed by what suppliers want to supply.
Uhm no ? That's just your own conjecture, and I have to say, quite a ridiculous one at that. A very simple counter to this is, once again, the state of the MMO market. 10 years ago the market were flooded with that supply, and I wasn't lieing when I said people thought SP's day was number, I was one of those people. And look at what happens now. So yeah, sorry, but that is just a capital B of an argument :P

A "Free Market" is capable of adjusting itself. But, there are few such things as a "Free Market." Manipulating demand is, of course, the purpose of marketing. "You didn't know you needed this until we showed you that you did. Everyone needs an automatic milk-carton opener!"
Not sure what you're trying to say here ... but isn't that what Apple's business motto? And it's manipulating only if you want to spin it as such. Calling it "innovation" and it suddenly sound a lot better. I don't want to argue the narrative, just the objective fact. And the objective fact here is the market are cabable of curating the content, and it has "historically" proven.

Why did it fail?
What matter most is it did fail.
If the market "knows" these are unjustifiable shenanigas, though. SimCity (online) was a set of unjustifiable online shennanigans and a lot of people didn't "know" that, but argued heavily in favor of their love of the SimCity franchise. Until it was shown what a buggy, botched up, friggin mess it was with absolutely no intrinsic need of an online component. Now it's a friggin' mobile game. But, most left it because it was a buggy mess.
Just like above, what matter is it did fail. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue here tbh. The point is regardless of the reason, a product can only survive if the consumers decide it's worth their money, and it will die otherwise. What I'm argue is "historically", there are plenty of proof to prove consumers by large, can decide that on their own without big brother doing it on their behaft. That's my argument, and like I said I can't still figure out what yours is. If you have concrete, solid evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it, but with two condition: it has to be an objective fact and not personal conjecture, and it can be established as the rule rather than the exception.

I can sum it up this way - Will you be happy, today, if every game you own requires a constant online connection and has online components, justifiable or not, and also includes a mandatory inclusion of any Friend's List you have? Today? Would that make you happy today? Well, tomorrow, that's the way it's going to be and I'm telling you, today, that you will be made to be happy about that tomorrow. :) Well, at least that's the case if we don't exercise some judgement today and vote with our wallets. Even so, it's hard to defeat multi-bajilion-dollar monetization schemes that already have the money to construct ways to convince gamers that their way is best.

And as I said sometime earlier, that's a very one dimensional way to look at it. In this case particular you already have your answer, you pick one particular object that you feel strongly about and weight it against anything else, but that's you.

- You don't like online component, so it's a deal breaker for you. I'm neutral toward it.
- Will it make me happy? That depend. If the game asks me to be online while providing the appropriate return, then I can be happy. If it ask me to be online just for no other reason but to inconvenience me, then it can piss right off. Again, I'm speaking base on the back of real evidence here, not personal conjecture. The evolution of Ubisoft/Uplay in the last 10 years is proof that it is the player who control and direct the flow, not the developers. You may want to deny that, but the fact does not stand behind you.
- People ARE voting with their wallets, they just don't happen to cast the vote that you want. that doesn't mean they didn't vote, or vote wrongly. If you buy it, it's a vote for, if you don't, it's a vote against, they are both equally valid as a vote. I always find it's funny whenever this particular argument come up, the narrative always make it sound like the only people who don't buy the game are the only one voting ... uhm no, the people who bought, played, and enjoyed it voted too. :P
- SW:TOR is the best example against your last personal conjecture. It has the largest budget in its time, it has the biggest marketing campaign for a video game (in fact I think it still hold that record as of today), and at that time it has no lack of love in term of for the IP (SW), the developer (Bioware), or the gerne (MMORPG) . Yet, despite all that, it took less than 2 years for the game to fail, almost completely.

I find it important to able to distinguish two thing: what they may attempt, and whether it success. People mix up these two too often, I'm not arguing that they are not trying on the first count, heck they should, I would even go as far as saying it's not necessary a bad thing. But the way you're forming your argument, it almost like you suggest they will success as long as they try. Which is again, is a historically and factually false assumption.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 3. May 19, 05:47

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 3. May 19, 03:35
Uhm no ? That's just your own conjecture, and I have to say, quite a ridiculous one at that. A very simple counter to this is, once again, the state of the MMO market. 10 years ago the market were flooded with that supply, and I wasn't lieing when I said people thought SP's day was number, I was one of those people. And look at what happens now. So yeah, sorry, but that is just a capital B of an argument :P
Yeah, well, like, that's just your own opinion, man...

I think you may be overstating "flooded with that supply" if you're comparing it to today's MMO market.

And, I am not arguing what you're implying that I am arguing with that statement. It says exactly what I wanted it to say, not the "capital "B"" argument you're presenting. :P

"The Problem: A "gamer economy" that isn't structured around consumer demand, but instead constructed by what suppliers want to supply." - That's what I wrote.
Not sure what you're trying to say here ... but isn't that what Apple's business motto? And it's manipulating only if you want to spin it as such. Calling it "innovation" and it suddenly sound a lot better. I don't want to argue the narrative, just the objective fact. And the objective fact here is the market are cabable of curating the content, and it has "historically" proven.
That's only true given that "all other things are equal" sort of stuff. We all know you can't create demand in a capitalist market system. Unless, of course, you can exert control over that market.

How much demand was there for Steam clients before... Steam? See past the obvious, here, as I'm not just talking "innovation." There were plenty of other online delivery services before and during Steam's formation. What did Steam effectively do? Well, it did everything "more betterer" than everyone else because it sold itself vigorously to all developers. These days, you hardly ever even see a game "box" anywhere. What did we gain? What did we lose? How many great game manuals do you run across, these days, even though it's easier and cheaper to produce a .pdf than print one?
...the point is regardless of the reason, a product can only survive if the consumers decide it's worth their money, and it will die otherwise
And, what if you provide that choice, but add in things that you want in there as a supplier? They get their game, you get the keys to their car, nude pics of their wife and a full download of all their collected pro0n, just 'cause you want it?

How many social media sites don't sell their user lists? How many of those will still be around in three years?
What I'm argue is "historically", there are plenty of proof to prove consumers by large, can decide that on their own without big brother doing it on their behaft. That's my argument, and like I said I can't still figure out what yours is. If you have concrete, solid evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it, but with two condition: it has to be an objective fact and not personal conjecture, and it can be established as the rule rather than the exception.
Not sure what your "big brother" comment means. I'm promoting gamers making a stand for or against specific things they want or don't want in video games by voting with their wallet. In particular, for myself, I don't want video games that try to pose as a game, but are really only constructed to promote microtransactions. I don't care how enthusiastic I may have been for a video game IP or one that I was otherwise interested in - If I perceive it does this, I won't buy it. But.. we can't always know that, can we? And, in some cases, detailing just how critical microtransactions are for the players experience is NOT something video game devs/producers like to give up information on, is it?

And as I said sometime earlier, that's a very one dimensional way to look at it. In this case particular you already have your answer, you pick one particular object that you feel strongly about and weight it against anything else, but that's you.
I'm saying that, given enough money and time and market segment (which they have already right now), consumers in the market will be moved to what the producers want to produce and the smart producers will know how to get them to "like it."
- You don't like online component, so it's a deal breaker for you. I'm neutral toward it.
- Will it make me happy? That depend. If the game asks me to be online while providing the appropriate return, then I can be happy. If it ask me to be online just for no other reason but to inconvenience me, then it can piss right off. Again, I'm speaking base on the back of real evidence here, not personal conjecture. The evolution of Ubisoft/Uplay in the last 10 years is proof that it is the player who control and direct the flow, not the developers. You may want to deny that, but the fact does not stand behind you.
- People ARE voting with their wallets, they just don't happen to cast the vote that you want. that doesn't mean they didn't vote, or vote wrongly. If you buy it, it's a vote for, if you don't, it's a vote against, they are both equally valid as a vote. I always find it's funny whenever this particular argument come up, the narrative always make it sound like the only people who don't buy the game are the only one voting ... uhm no, the people who bought, played, and enjoyed it voted too. :P
- SW:TOR is the best example against your last personal conjecture. It has the largest budget in its time, it has the biggest marketing campaign for a video game (in fact I think it still hold that record as of today), and at that time it has no lack of love in term of for the IP (SW), the developer (Bioware), or the gerne (MMORPG) . Yet, despite all that, it took less than 2 years for the game to fail, almost completely.
I don't mind online components if they make sense for the game. I don't even mind an online marketplace and microtransactions if they make sense and continually spending money is not required for me to enjoy the game I bought.

I also support a gamer's right not not give a crap about any of that and to spend their money and time on what they want. I do, however, encourage them to do it sensibly and appropriately armed with information. That information, though, may be increasingly more difficult to obtain. That is, as you're fond of saying,"historically factual." Look at the last, big, pushbacks and how they weren't known until players started digging around in the game or were able to play it long enough, far past any "return" period, to discover it. Star Wars Battleground II (The latest one) and it's stupid "powerup" fiasco and the controversy around ME:Shadow of War and its microtransaction system.

That changes were forced on these titles and the companies banking on them does not mean that they did not first attempt to do these things to gamers. In fact, they BANKED, literally, on being able to take advantage of these microtransaction mechanics and designed their games around the fact that obtaining these microtransaction items through in-game activity would be very difficult or nearly impossible for a normal gamer, practically guaranteeing the sale of these items for players who had been "gently guided" into desiring them... by the very same designs that the entire game was built around.

All.. historically factual stuff.

On SW:ToR - Why ST:TOR Failed

For the future, remember - They tried to do this and failed. Why did they fail? A combination of existing sentiment and the fact that they did not integrate such a thing into their gameplay so that it was transparent. They designed the "game first, microtransactions second" in some cases and that doesn't work. Where they did the opposite, it also failed. Next up - Tandem development.
I find it important to able to distinguish two thing: what they may attempt, and whether it success. People mix up these two too often, I'm not arguing that they are not trying on the first count, heck they should, I would even go as far as saying it's not necessary a bad thing. But the way you're forming your argument, it almost like you suggest they will success as long as they try. Which is again, is a historically and factually false assumption.
I didn't say they'd succeed as long as they try, yet you presented that as my argument and then said such a statement was "a historically and factually false assumption." Well, I congratulate you on making such a massively flawed statement, then. Impressive! :) ;)

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 3. May 19, 08:29

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 3. May 19, 05:47
"The Problem: A "gamer economy" that isn't structured around consumer demand, but instead constructed by what suppliers want to supply." - That's what I wrote.
I know, and I don't think I have been responding to anything differently? :?

Sure, the suppliers can always try to promote "new" stuffs, the point I'm making here is that doesn't mean the buy had no choice but to buy it. And that's not even a "gamer economy", that's just economy. Before the vacuum was invented, were there a demand specifically for a "vacumm"? But once it's out there, holy crap everyone want one. Because even if it haven't been given form or name, a desire for a piece of hardware that's functioning like a vacuum must have existed in the consumer mind. On the other hand, the Vacuum Beauty Healmet somehow fail to achieve similar popularity.

In fact, what "isn't structured around consumer demand" even means? :? If the consumers accept the product, that means there has always been a demand, maybe it haven't been tapped before, but it has to be there. Because if there isn't an actually demand exist in the first place, than a supply is completely meaningless, no? Try to find new potential market, try to find tabbed demand, try to predict the next big thing, that's just Business 101.

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 3. May 19, 05:47
How much demand was there for Steam clients before... Steam? See past the obvious, here, as I'm not just talking "innovation." There were plenty of other online delivery services before and during Steam's formation. What did Steam effectively do? Well, it did everything "more betterer" than everyone else because it sold itself vigorously to all developers. These days, you hardly ever even see a game "box" anywhere. What did we gain? What did we lose? How many great game manuals do you run across, these days, even though it's easier and cheaper to produce a .pdf than print one?
See above, this can be explained with the vacuum analogy above. But I'll add a bit more:

I feel like you're making my argument for me, because isn't that exactly what I'm saying? Why does this game capture the players, and other games doesn't why they both MMO and asked for $15/months? Why does Steam success while other had failed? I think you're trying to navigate the arguments through little technical detail, my argument is simpler: the consumer choose one service over another, that is all. I would think the valid counter argument to what I am saying is IF you can find pattern and examples where the market are willingly to pay more for actual inferior services. Otherwise, my point about it's capable of curating itself stand. Thank you for your upstanding concern ... but I don't think it is necessary.

Not sure what your "big brother" comment means. I'm promoting gamers making a stand for or against specific things they want or don't want in video games by voting with their wallet.
And like I said, people have ALWAYS voted with their wallet. In fact, I never really understand why that statement became a thing in the first place, it's completely meaningless. Whether people buy a game or not buying a game, they castes a vote either way. It serves nothing else but a narrative of implying something that is not true. It's something specifically used by the people who want to boycott a game, but I'm asking what do they mean specifically when they say "vote with your wallet" on a forum, people ALREADY and ALWAYS votes.

But.. we can't always know that, can we? And, in some cases, detailing just how critical microtransactions are for the players experience is NOT something video game devs/producers like to give up information on, is it?
I'm not interested to know though ...
I'm saying that, given enough money and time and market segment (which they have already right now), consumers in the market will be moved to what the producers want to produce and the smart producers will know how to get them to "like it."
And I don't see that as a problem. Again, isn't Apple's motto is "they will tell you what you need before you know you need it?" And while I never buy Apple stuffs myself (because I consider them to be overprice), I'll be happy to use their product if someone give it to me for free. And the reason I classify their stuffs as overprice is sorely due to my own habit:
- I can only enjoy music when appropriately sit down in a quiet room, immersing myself in it. So something like an Ipod is fairly useless to me.
- I'm competent enough to do all I need without issue or making a mess with my PC, so there is no reason for me to pay twice the price for a MAC.
- I'm not a widget/gadget guy, so even if you give me an Ipad, I won't know exactly what I want to do it with it.

But hey, other people who are opposite to me in those regard ... if they find the asking price of Apple product ... I won't accuse them of being stupid for paying to much for a product. And my belief of them being overprice does not prevent me from admitting a lot of their invention has greatly changed modern habit. Before the Ipod was invented, nobody thought they need one, now it seems everyone have one .. but is that necessary a bad thing?
All.. historically factual stuff.

On SW:ToR - Why ST:TOR Failed
Wait, what makes that historically factual stuff? Because it's the name of the article? Before I go further though, let's me ask you this question Mork: if we're doing a post motem on why a product had failed, let's say we even put aside the question of which is "right" and which is "wrong". Whose input you think is more valuable: the consumer's opinion on why did the product fail, or the producer's reason for why the product fail?

I am a founder player of SW:TOR, basically a day one player. Do you know when I left it? I still remember it till this day, the day I pulled the plug: it was a Sunday morning that I logged in and realized I was the only player left on the entire server - Requiescat in pace. I wouldn't go as far as claiming my opinion as the absolute truth, but I can say on great authority that I knew what the game was lacking, I knew what I and thousand of die hard fans were asking to turn the game around at the time. I won't bother with the detail but ... I'll just pull out one quote from that article :
The game didn’t do as well as EA hoped because they wanted to unseat the king (WoW) with the same product instead of leaning into what BioWare was great at.
And that is just wrong. If anything, SW:TOR was as Bioware as a MMO can possibly be, I can't recalled a single argument from back then that the game was failing because it wasn't Bioware enough, if anything it was the opposite, it was TOO Bioware for what people usually look for in an MMO. But I guess it's easier to put the blame at EA's feet. Now, I'm sure they played a part in the fail direction the game took, but what this Daniel Erickson fellow said is pretty far from the truth, or at the very least, pretty far from the opinion of the actual player based at the time believe why the game failed. In fact, after the game was resurrected as a F2P, I came back and played the shit out of it again, why? Because it's one of the best and grandest Bioware experience you can get ... and now you can have it for free!! :D

And even then, it doesn't matter at all, like I said, all that's really matter is the game did fail. THAT's the irrefutable historical factual part. For whatever reason it is, despite the massive investment the market passed the verdict that the game was lacking, people can be free to argue was lacking specifically, that's simply secondary concern from the market perspective.. The point I'm making was the market was fully capable of making that decision and not getting hypno into accepting an insufficient product.
I didn't say they'd succeed as long as they try, yet you presented that as my argument and then said such a statement was "a historically and factually false assumption." Well, I congratulate you on making such a massively flawed statement, then. Impressive! :) ;)
Which is why I didn't completely pin it on you, I specifically left room for doubt if you had read more carefully.
But the way you're forming your argument, it almost like you suggest they will success as long as they try. Which is again, is a historically and factually false assumption.
Just like with the "You're aware FF is on that list", I can only interpret your intention as how it came across from me. And if it's not correct, perhaps you can just provide further clarification ;)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Games as a service

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 3. May 19, 23:12

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 3. May 19, 08:29
...<important stuff, to be sure, but...>...
Let me just try to sum this up, OK?

What I am concerned about is the gradual migration of game format and distribution from the way it is now, which I'm barely comfortable with at best, to a format and distribution method this designed more to benefit continued revenue streams for developers with little or no continued benefits for consumers.

We can and do "vote" with out wallets for games we "like" to purchase and play.

But, if that game has a wrapper on it that not only provides the "game we like" but couples that with shady data collection policies, direct manipulation of the user's experience to promote microtransactions, continued enhancement for "ease of access" to online marketplaces hawking wares that are not only promoted by the game's designers, but have been specifically targeted to be favored for purchase by the game's design, itself, then things are getting far out of hand.

As was illustrated by that patent, the intent is already there to exploit the developer's access to the consumer's "brain" using classic manipulation techniques to encourage them to give the developer more money. It's not a "sale" that they're going for, it's the purposeful design of a game to manipulate a consumer into what would have otherwise been, in a sensibly constructed atmosphere, a non-purchase.

In the case of Star Wars: Battlefront, again we see the "intent" behind the design and the manipulation of the consumer who truly likes the franchise, but may be susceptible to certain design practices that target spontaneous purchasing behavior.

Not all gamers are so naive, thank goodness. The Gamer Community pushback resulted in severe penalties for these unethical infractions. Producers have taken note of this.

In the latest fiascos, Activision-Blizzard has received a ton of negative press over their "mobile only" Diablo 4'ish release. Though, it's not really intended for the Western Marketplace as the sort of mobile gaming they have targeted is much more popular elsewhere. In point of fact, the title was released to expand their franchise to those markets and the huge revenue streams they can generate.

EA, the whipping-boy of every favorite gamer, has taken large hits due to their manipulative practices. That's good. It shows that, right now, the gamer community is still effective in some capacity. SW:BII was forced to drop its gorrilla-marketing-compulsory-purchase model in favor of one that produces much less than the projected profits they had planned for.

But, we have seen "intent" in other actions that are much more subtle making their way into the "PC Gaming Market." With EpicGames we saw the remnants of code designed to collect third-party data from user's private account information. That was their intent. And, that intent was not clearly addressed to consumers. One also must question the excuse of "legacy code left in by accident" in a launcher that was meant to be the vanguard of a multi-billion-dollar "Steam Killer" endeavor...

Picture the next upcoming "Greatest Game Ever I Want To Buy." It could be "X5: The Terrans Attack!" Ooooh, boy, I'd be all over it! (Provided I had a machine that could run it...) So, I jump into buying it and find out it has a launcher. "OK, no problem, lemme play teh game!" Then, I'm taken to the "X5: The Terrans Attack" Community Page. On it, behind the scenes, and entirely for "my convenience" are all the social media web bugs and trackers so my "Friends" can see my progress and so I can Share my game with them. OK, fine, whatever, I just "want to play the game." So, I start playing and there's a button in the game I can click that takes me to a "Uber Awesome Exclusive Just For You Storefront Tailored to Your Profile." Uh... OK.. <click>

Now I see all my friends are buying the Super-Duper-Star-Destroyer for $1.00. As I'm staring at the storefront screen, I see a notice that says "Mightysword has purchased the Uber-Awesome-Destructomatic-Doomsday-Device!" Wow, OK, I guess he wanted that. What's so special about it? And, I read the description, see that it's very hard to get in-game because it takes fifty-bajillion e-cells and I'd have to do ten full playthroughs of The Hub mission in order to finally get the credits to purchase it in-game...

That's the kind of "gaming" I don't want to see.

I don't want to see us evolve the gaming market to push gaming from an "activity for fun" to one modeled on the practices of Zynga.

Yes, sure, the gamer can and will still "vote with their wallet." But, at some point, the concern about game quality needs to be taken as more of a holistic approach with careful attention being paid to what the developer has done in terms of attempting to generate continued revenue streams. And, if we, as gamers, don't recognize these mechanisms, and they are not always easy to see, and if we casually disregard them then we will be doing so to our own detriment.

There will always be a competitive market, but even the "competition" will soon be able to take advantage of the same sorts of strategies their larger opponents are using today. As the game industry continues to expand to unknown heights, the "money grabbing" will continue to expand as well. There are few, if any, "regulations" that anyone is willing to bring to the table to help prevent this kind of exploitation.

That's my primary concern no matter what else we may have discussed. It's my opinon. That's all it is. In a few years, three or more at least, we'll see how it bears out. But, now that EpicGames is challenging Steam, the "War" is going to start and there are only so many avenues of attack available for e-distributors. What happens when Steam, in a competitive effort to justify its larger take, offers an in-game Storefront API for all its carried developers? "Free of charge, just pay shipping and handling... " Steam isn't a platform for "The Gamers." It's a e-distribution platform for producers and developers. What will their "intent" be and how will that be realized?

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”