The poster you are responding to understands that's the case in the status quo, they just don't agree it should be.A typical corporation/board of directors in the US can be sued by shareholders for being negligent in their duty, which is to make profit for the shareholders. If social responsibility happens to be profitable, sure they'll do it, but don't think a corporation makes decisions because it's the moral choice.
"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.What's weird to me is that people are posting that they aren't buying RDR2 while wearing their favorite brand of clothes made from an overseas sweatshop or posting from their iPhone. In most cases your money is going to people who thrive on shitty practices... it's almost like an inverse catch 22 lol.
I guess to those people, exploiting workers only matter to them in their own local bubble, and not on an international level.
I agree with you, but it just seems like a losing battle when it comes to consumerism.
You think publishers are omnivorous, so they eat both meat and plants. OK.If we aren't allowed to call them Greedy, then here's some similar words I courtesy of thesaurus.com
?I mean, it would be cool if you didn't do death threats and stuff.
Wrong. Nintendo actively avoid monetising Mario run because they prefer to make money their way than making the maximum possible.
EA originals don't do shit for their profit or even their ip catalogue, but they keep funding them for some reason that's is clearly not making bank.
Every project that cost under 200k Dolllars is highlight at Ubisoft. Are those attitude of someone making the maximum amount of money possible? Why would them try to fend of vivendi grasp them, when they know how to turn profit?
And I'm using examples of companies that are considered greedy, but somehow not everything they do is for profit. And they do this while having shareholders to answer to.
Why? Because they choose to. They can always choose what is important for profit and what is not. They can always draw a line on what is too much, and what is acceptable, and calling them out helps a lot, at least the consumers. Would shadow of war receive a patch to get rid of microtransactions if we just said " well, what can we do, eh"? Would pay day 2 revert the microtransaction if the game was not review bombed?
Companies are greedy? Well, I am too and will do everything in my way to get the best bang for my buck.
I've no problem with companies wanting to make more money. They're free to try so, as I am free to avoid their products or giving them more money.
What it annoys me is the excuses they tend to use: "choice" and "options" for the player.
So...you are upset people are making poor arguments?Maybe it's not damaging, but it's a poor argument I routinely see dismantled on Era by those I disagree with, when made by people I generally do agree with
I would think it fair to describe a corporation according to the obvious intentions and motivation of its leadership.AKA the stock market, correct..
Corporations exist to maximise their profits.. I agree with the op that its reductionist, even naive, to call them greedy.. people are greedy and it's ridiculous to apply such a term to something that isn't alive.. just as calling a corporation jealous or melancholy would be.
But it's not actually hyperbolic. Profit maximization, for the purpose of increasing company and thus personal wealth is greedy without exageration.Frankly fuck getting upset about expensive computer games when people are literally sick, starving and dying in wars to feed this system.
Auto retort to "well I can complain about this too" : Fine, but be more precise with your words and save the hyperbole for things that actually matter.
Literally every major publisher in the console gaming industry does this to some degree or the other. Its not "some".
You can call them greedy, it's just not a good argument when there are many, many better arguments you can make
If you want action you need to convince people, and bad arguments are less likely to convince people
Also this.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.
Firstly, and whatever your views on capitalism are, companies want to make money. That is the entire point. It's not helpful to say a company is being greedy for wanting to make money from selling MXTs or exp boosters, but it's somehow not greedy for the same company to want to make money from selling video games in the first place
Companies want to make money, and there are several ways for companies who sell video games to make money, and none of these avenues are inherently greedy
"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.
What's weird to me is that people are posting that they aren't buying RDR2 while wearing their favorite brand of clothes made from an overseas sweatshop or posting from their iPhone. In most cases your money is going to people who thrive on shitty practices... it's almost like an inverse catch 22 lol.
I guess to those people, exploiting workers only matter to them in their own local bubble, and not on an international level.
I agree with you, but it just seems like a losing battle when it comes to consumerism.
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.
Lmao what the fuck is thisHere'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.
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 call it out
True, but that's expanding the discussion beyond the bounds of the OP.Sometimes companies can cause you harm even if you do not do business with them. So it's really not that simple.
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.
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.The problem is that the line isn't clear to everyone, nor does everyone agree on where it is. That's why complaining about it isn't the answer because there is no consensus on what is being discussed. The answer is to vote with your wallet, don't buy games that you feel cross that line, and hope enough people agree with you to do the same.
"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...."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.
Organizations are human led, so no, not really. They reflect their leadership and nothing more or less.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.
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.
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.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 obvious that mtx were neccesary for the game to be green lit in the first place, Let it Die for instance.
I don't! :-)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 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.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..
Era never fails to deliverHere'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.
Are those people really the majority though? Because I find it hard to believe that they are.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.
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.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
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?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.
I'm quite surprised I'm even making this thread as corporations don't generally need defending, however there is a lot to unpack here so if you're not planning on reading past this point your comment probably won't be relevant to the points I actually want to make
Firstly, and whatever your views on capitalism are, companies want to make money. That is the entire point. It's not helpful to say a company is being greedy for wanting to make money from selling MXTs or exp boosters, but it's somehow not greedy for the same company to want to make money from selling video games in the first place
Companies want to make money, and there are several ways for companies who sell video games to make money, and none of these avenues are inherently greedy
The reason I'm highlighting this is because it's normally those who are critical of the methods some publishers use to monitise their games that use the "greedy publisher" rhetoric (It's also prevalent among certain popular YouTubers)
The reason this isn't helpful is because every for profit company will want to make as much money as possible. There is not a threshold where a company makes enough money and anything on top of that is them being greedy. Money from direct game sales isn't noble, and money from MXTs isn't unjust, it's all just money
Calling publishers greedy is missing the point and derailing any legitimate concerns over how games are monitised. 12 years ago it was horse armour, today it's exp boosters, lootboxes, cosmetics and gems, and the chances are in another 12 years time even more aspects of video games will be being monitised. The extent to which a game is designed to allow post launch monitisation will be even greater than it is today as even greater profits are chased
I think the best thing we can do as consumers and fans, is to keep these conversations going when publishers do step over the line and do something shitty. No publisher or developer sets out to make a bad game or to ruin or undermine their game by adding in harmful monitisation models. That said, it's a balancing act and sometimes they do get it wrong
I think the next decade is going to be fascinating as we see people who have never known games not to monitise grow up, and the biggest publishers push the boat out even further with how extensively they can monitise their games. One day Battlefront 2 will probably look as tame as horse armor does now
If you call publishers greedy when this happens you're working to undermine your own argument by making your comments easy to dismiss
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.I want these companies to make money to keep re-investing in gaming so I don't even disagree. I'd rather have MTX I don't have to buy vs games being $80.
Yup. NBA2K is a prime example for me. Been playing the series for years, even before their Virtual Currency scheme. Ever since they introduced VC, it's been going down this road of pure greed, with forced grinding getting worse and worse. It's not about making the best game or best experience, it's about milking players out of money for no reason at all except to keep shareholders and the like happy. Sorry OP, but if you want to see what greed really is and how it affects gamers, look at 2K. I know most here don't play sports games, but it's a huge fucking issue that hardly anyone talks about.