-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
We really need to stop calling companies greedy for wanting to make money
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
- Status
The poster you are responding to understands that's the case in the status quo, they just don't agree it should be.
"If you aren't doing everything you shouldn't do anything" has literally never been a good argument and will never be a good argument.
There was a Time where I'd willingly pay full price for a lot of my games, then I'd buy the season Passes and wome of the smaller DLC bits.
Then companies started releasing GOTY with pretty much everything for up half the price of the original release. So then I started to wait for some games that I'd think were going to get GOTY editions, so long as I felt I could wait long enough to play the game, and yet I would still buy some of my game choices day one prices too.
Then all these lootboxes showed up and at first it didn't bother me, but then it got worse and worse and shittier and shittier, until in the end, these specific games I'd wait until they hit a less a £15 sale price before buying and still ignoring the loot stuff (I'm looking at you SW BF2)
Still not bought last years Assassins Creed yet, and yet Insominiacs Spider-Man I bought Day one, I'll buy the Pass and heck I'd even buy a second season pass if they released it if the quality stayed the same, and they will keep me as a customer for the future too.
Then companies started releasing GOTY with pretty much everything for up half the price of the original release. So then I started to wait for some games that I'd think were going to get GOTY editions, so long as I felt I could wait long enough to play the game, and yet I would still buy some of my game choices day one prices too.
Then all these lootboxes showed up and at first it didn't bother me, but then it got worse and worse and shittier and shittier, until in the end, these specific games I'd wait until they hit a less a £15 sale price before buying and still ignoring the loot stuff (I'm looking at you SW BF2)
Still not bought last years Assassins Creed yet, and yet Insominiacs Spider-Man I bought Day one, I'll buy the Pass and heck I'd even buy a second season pass if they released it if the quality stayed the same, and they will keep me as a customer for the future too.
You think publishers are omnivorous, so they eat both meat and plants. OK.
?
Calling them greedy and irresponsible is equal to a death threat now? I know government and lobbyists consider corporations people, but a company will not DIE if they just treat the people who buy their products with decency and hold-back on exploitative practices. Not that big of an ask, really.
How is EA and Ubisoft releasing products not maximizing their profit? If the best alternative for the funding for those projects is having the money in the bank then it is completely expected that they would take a on a project as long as the returns are there (they don't need to be anything crazy either).
Miyamoto already explained the Mario Run thingy, Nintendo thinks f2p is gonna destroy the industry like music industry was destroyed or something, they think paying for games is more sustainable in the long run that f2p so they will try and push that for their games.
But by the definition of choice and options...they are, in fact, choices and options. In fact, the first part of your post is you exercising the right of you to choose. To ignore the game or to ignore the in game store.
I would think it fair to describe a corporation according to the obvious intentions and motivation of its leadership.
But it's not actually hyperbolic. Profit maximization, for the purpose of increasing company and thus personal wealth is greedy without exageration.
Major publisher? Sure.
I say "some" in case someone decided to name me the one publisher I did not know about that doesn't use mtx to make money.
Avoiding generalizations are a bitch!
And you need to realise that:
a) The label greedy is very apt in certain scenarios and should not be replaced with something else because the company might not see it that way
b)That companies are within their right to call companies greedy if their practices are only beneficial towards themselves and harmfull towards their employees/customers/the environment.
c)If companies could do no wrong in pursuit of higher profits, why the fuck do we have rules and regulations to govern what they do in case they get.....wait for it.......it starts with a G.......Gromes I guess?
User Warned - Inflammatory Generalizations
Here's a piece of the puzzle, and it won't make me any friends here, but I'll say it anyway :
Many gamers, present company excluded I'm sure, are not particularly upstanding / hugely contributing members of society, and as such they don't have the personalities to hold down more than entry level jobs, which they lament going to, decree themselves as ABOVE, and don't make a whole lot of cash. Some do not smell particularly good, or are particularly pleasant to talk to in every day conversation.
This results in the smeer campaigns / internet bitching about any practice that seeks to monetize a game passed it's (relatively low) new price of $60. DLC / Loot boxes / season passes, you name it, if it costs extra then "gamers" almost explicitly hate it without question.
This was especially shameful in the case of paid mods, which were a good idea, and because of the adverse kneejerk reaction by the internet hivemind, was dropped.
Many gamers, present company excluded I'm sure, are not particularly upstanding / hugely contributing members of society, and as such they don't have the personalities to hold down more than entry level jobs, which they lament going to, decree themselves as ABOVE, and don't make a whole lot of cash. Some do not smell particularly good, or are particularly pleasant to talk to in every day conversation.
This results in the smeer campaigns / internet bitching about any practice that seeks to monetize a game passed it's (relatively low) new price of $60. DLC / Loot boxes / season passes, you name it, if it costs extra then "gamers" almost explicitly hate it without question.
This was especially shameful in the case of paid mods, which were a good idea, and because of the adverse kneejerk reaction by the internet hivemind, was dropped.
I would like to agree to the OP. Really.
But then I see the XP boost of odissey at ten euro.
When I was child, if I wanted to cheat on my games I would search on thee games' magazines. Or search for a .ini file to modify.
They are charging now to change a value in a file.
If that it's not greedy... Then I really don't know how to call it without sounding offending
But then I see the XP boost of odissey at ten euro.
When I was child, if I wanted to cheat on my games I would search on thee games' magazines. Or search for a .ini file to modify.
They are charging now to change a value in a file.
If that it's not greedy... Then I really don't know how to call it without sounding offending
Always good to see fellow community members side with the multimillion dollar companies that totally need to be defended every now and then
Yeah I'm beside myself
But basically yeah, if you want positive change you need better arguments, most of the AC:O threads went on and on for 20 pages with people on both sides making poor arguments which fed into each other while the good and insightful posts were lost in the mire
This seems like an unnecessary issue of semantics, since most people qualify that statement to show what they mean by it. No one's denying that companies exist to turn a profit, which is a tired point by now.
The corporate shilling and constant bemoaning of anyone that doesn't welcome contemporary mtx or other types of practices like these in games on this forum disgusts me.
Also this.
This is so dumb. I feel like I'm being trolled. I don't even know where to start. What defines greed to you if not shitty business practices like lootboxes and microtransactions? Does a company need to literally come to your house and steal money from your wallet before you admit that they've crossed an ethical line?
I think it's mostly an issue with forums/internet culture. I've been on forums off and on for like 25 years and you always see people that have their pet causes and those that get outraged over some specific situation and go all gun-ho about boycotts, protests, petitions and so on. You follow their posts and there's a ton of other shit they do that is very hypocritical to that stance, like supporting other companies that are even worse (and they're just unaware as it wasn't the current outrage).
There's just a lot of soap-boxing to feel better about oneself, to fit in with the majority on activism focused boards and what not. To fit and vilify those that disagree. In reality everyone, myself included, would do a lot more good if they'd spend that time and energy doing more self examination of our lifestyles, habits and so forth and figure out what other changes we can make to reduce our negative impacts on society and the planet and increase our positive contributions. For instance, instead of a militant vegan making everyone who eats meat even occasionally feel like shit, spend time figuring out the multitude of other ways you can reduce your carbon footprint and/or chip in to make your community/neighborhood/world a better place.
Add in the futility of arguing with people online vs. spending that time/energy volunteering etc. in the real world and it just is what it is. I so regret the time I wasted on political forums back in my 20s. It was, like today, rare for anyone to give an inch in any debates and that's ours more I could have been volunteering in my community and actually doing something tangible.
Last edited:
This feels like a pretty accurate characterization of this thread.
NO.
When ppl who play games see that companies are trying to push stuff to exploit their resources further (mtx, expansions, collectors editions, etc ) they should not buy the damn games. PERIOD.
Companies only respond to financial stimuli; if you're not punishing unwanted behavior financially, you're being passive at best and a hypocrite at worst.
True, but that's expanding the discussion beyond the bounds of the OP.
Problem is that it's not enough for a $60 game to turn a healthy profit. These publishers want to squeeze more money out of players after buying their games and actively mandate their games' designs to engage in "whale hunting" like these are "free to play" style games.
Vote with your wallets they say, and vote with your wallets they did.
Really, blame the consumers for asking for this and not the business for being smart enough to see a business opportunity. It's like how everyone rags on COD and then when October comes everyone buys it anyway.
Really, blame the consumers for asking for this and not the business for being smart enough to see a business opportunity. It's like how everyone rags on COD and then when October comes everyone buys it anyway.
I was presuming we're talking about big listed companies here .. in which case the board's job is to maximise profits this year for the shareholders.. that's it..
Again, assigning human emotions to such organisations is asinine... Believe me I work for one.
I think the line is pretty clear when we have laws forming around these subjects. You don't see any lawmakers coming out against Dead or Alive 5's dlcs. The ball only got rolling with this subject due to the complaints leveled against Battlefront 2 and similiar titles. Complaining has an undeniable tangible effect. Not always of course, but the squeaky wheel at least some times gets the greese.
I think it's a given that companies need to make money or they wouldn't be in business, but i think what we collectively in the gaming community have issues with is how they do things to get more money is where we see them as being "Greedy". If a dev adds completely cosmetic DLC, I find that totally fine. The option is there if you want to buy and make your character look cool etc. However, it is an issue where being able to succeed in a game is behind an additional paywall that should've already been paid buying the game already. Having game DLC, but it's already on the disc feels kinda nasty. Why would we be charged additionally for something that's already there/been ready to go in most cases?
Again, it's how some companies go about trying to get more money from us that can be seen as greedy. There are ways that a company can propose us giving them more money in a respectable fashion, but there are less sleazy ways to go about it is generally what I'm certain people do have issues with for valid reason. When i pay money for something, last thing I assumed anyone would want to feel that I've been slighted doing so. Those particular practices are prone to doing so.
Again, it's how some companies go about trying to get more money from us that can be seen as greedy. There are ways that a company can propose us giving them more money in a respectable fashion, but there are less sleazy ways to go about it is generally what I'm certain people do have issues with for valid reason. When i pay money for something, last thing I assumed anyone would want to feel that I've been slighted doing so. Those particular practices are prone to doing so.
"I don't know how much the rest of you know about gamer culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it...."
Organizations are human led, so no, not really. They reflect their leadership and nothing more or less.
Coming from someone else also working for a large corp.
IMO the leading cause of people complaining about monetization is that they didn't have much of an interest in the product to begin with, and they latch onto microtransactions as a form of confirmation bias. And when said complainer is actually a fan of the franchise in question they will typically buy the game and find that the microtransactions end up having little to no impact on their enjoyment. Sometimes the game is potentially worse for it, but occasionally it's also obvious that mtx were neccesary for the game to be green lit in the first place, Let it Die for instance.
Or, they aren't looking at the issue on a purely individual level, but taking into account the people that are being targeted with such practices.
Also, Let it Die is free. The biggest bullet point with all of these arguments is a "full-priced" game including additional microtransactions. And the fact they are games coming from huge publishers with multiple studios working on multiple projects.
I see this point a lot here, but single-player/story expansions tend not to get "hate" as far as I can tell, and the conversation around them usually centers on content/lore, hours and price.
Unless you introduce MTX or online passes or whatever the current flavor is into the mix.
You know what, after reading a lot of your replies I've changed my mind
My main issue was that we need better arguments to convince people change is needed or kick back against certain practices is needed
I've seen people on Era argue it's down to greed and other posters have been able to dismantle this argument so I read this to be a bad argument as per the OP
However really this is just semantics, and it can be applicable when you put things in context
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read the OP and counter it respectfully, you are what make this place such an enjoyable forum
My main issue was that we need better arguments to convince people change is needed or kick back against certain practices is needed
I've seen people on Era argue it's down to greed and other posters have been able to dismantle this argument so I read this to be a bad argument as per the OP
However really this is just semantics, and it can be applicable when you put things in context
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read the OP and counter it respectfully, you are what make this place such an enjoyable forum
Are those people really the majority though? Because I find it hard to believe that they are.
OK, I agree people should make better arguments. I don't think using the term greedy gets in the way of that, and I don't think you've made a good argument for why it does.
Edit: Saw your other post, makes sense.
How can not to turn profit it it not fail? If not even assassins creed don't turn healthy profit, what are they doing games for? Charity for gamers?
I agree with a lot of what you have to say OP
I don't know if the bulk of users discussing it by labeling it as "greedy", "Anti-Consumer" and a lot of times "gambling" have as much experience or background in corporate businesses (well really any business) but they miss the point.
It is perfectly fit to call out something if you don't like it. Lets say you don't like that you/another play can purchase XP booster for instance, that's a design and gameplay system choice. When companies look for feedback on there titles, if all a user or random youtuber34848 just says " ____ Company is greedy, look they charge for micro-transactions for products. You can buy things to make you better" they will not take your feedback seriously because that person just described what a business does, it provides a product that is somehow supposed to enhance the user. Extra content is normally marketed day 1 with the product because thats when the bulk of marketing is noticed by a user. The extra content was always planned to be developed and released later but the marketing isn't as effective 4 months after release.
You don't have to have some advance degree to make a similar comment such as " I dropped the game within the first week of playing because the grind to keep my player/team competitive was to much/overwhelming". Without even having to go into great detail that same company could look at it two different ways (and maybe combine them both) into
- The user dropped the game because it takes to long to stay "competitive". (Everyone and there mother in the industry has research for how many hours and in what markets the average player spends gaming a week, this is easy to look into if the average user spends 10 hours a week and your game has a 30 hour a week system)
- And/Or
- Matchmaking for players at the same level is not balanced correctly.
Now if you have items locked behind levels than you can look into how does that impact gameplay. If ___ gun for example is only unlocked once hitting level 50 AND that gun has stats that are higher/bring a player who has boosted through purchases closer/even to a player that has gained that level through regular play AND that player can be matched with players that are multiple levels below them, they have an advantage then and that is a gameplay flaw. For online shooters, there normally is some good weapons unlocked on the higher tiers but for each class normally there is a weapon that is just as/or very close usability level as one unlocked later in the game. I can't remember if its older COD's, TF2 or another shooter off the top of my head but you normally get some guns at level 15-20 that are just as viable for a level 50 player.
Micro-transactions, and additional content are here to say even if we like it or not in the industry as a whole.
User's on this forum have gathered some great threads such as the Top 100 RPG's & Top 50 Horror games. There are titles in there I had never heard of before. Companies want you to spend more time with the product you got in any industry. Buying horse armor in a game, buying maintenance on your new washing machine, monthly charges to a streaming service. Run rate money provides safety nets to keep businesses afloat and healthy.
Personally I don't mind MX, and I don't buy them. While some of the more annual titles are using them more heavily even for a primarily single player gamer like myself there are a lot of titles being released that fit your needs. I have been playing games my entire life and if there isn't something in Month 10 of this year that is catching my eye I buy a game for an older system and play that instead because I have missed games (Either knew of or unheard of before), thats how I have played 54 different titles this year (At least 50 of of them single player) . Just because you want a certain title released now to fit your game standards, if it doesn't play something else. We have more developers than ever before and can play titles from AAA to indie very easily. There is something out there for everyone and gaming forums like Era have gathered great discussions for titles already released such as the Top 101 RPGS or Top 51 Horror games on Era. Just today I was reading a great discussion post on Reddit (r/Nintendo) for some of the best titles on the DS, a console I didn't own when it was out but can play on my 2DS
This post got way to long....
TL;DR -
If someone is calling a company "greedy" without substance it is normally the case they
- Don't fully understand how to give constructive feedback
- To lazy to write out the full reason they don't like aspect or whole game
- Want everything to cater to their needs (Which doesn't in any industry so there is disappointment everywhere for them)
The additional money they make on MTX is directly relative to the amount of MTX they plug into the next game. There hasn't been an example where because MTX were successful the next game in the series did not "need" them. It's an upward trend in implementation.
This right here. When a company wants to limit my character's progression by limiting the amount of XP (or in 2K's case, virtual currency) I get from playing normally only to then charge me to progress faster in a game that I've already paid full price for, that is greed in my book. Grind or pay us more to not grind is a disgusting tactic. That has nothing to do with companies wanting to make money. They just want to make even more of it.
- Status