Re: It looks like gambling, feels like gambling, pays out (almost) like gambling... but it's not gambling

On 23/07/2024 01:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

My favorite bit from the article was EA Senior VP Kerry Hopkins
valiantly trying to defend the practice, claiming it was the only way
they could afford to keep deliving new content for the game year after
year. Except... the games only have a one-year lifespan before they
expect you to buy the next edition. MAYBE he'd have an argument if the
base games were free... except the lastest version costs $70USD.
Players are already paying for that new content, jackass!
 And, of course, any MTX from the old game don't carry over.
 

You got to feel sorry for them as they really are living on a pay cheque to pay cheque existence when a game like Fifa only sells 10 to 20 million copies at $50 to £70 pounds. I mean some of them can't afford to buy a super yacht but instead have to go with a luxury yacht instead and the social stigma that entails.
Think of the CEO's!
It reminds me of our recent prime minister, Rushi Sunak, when he was asked what financial hardships he had suffered in his life and the best he could give was they didn't have a Sky TV subscription when he was young. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to a private school where the fees are now £40,000+ a year you could afford that. Obviously people where very understanding and didn't create loads of memes about it.

Meanwhile, a (former) executive producer at Bungie tried claiming**
that the entire live service model in fact offered more benefits for
players than traditional 'pay once and you get the whole game' method.
I mean, I'm sure it's better for the publishers, but I've never met
any player who preferred this nickle-and-diming that too many games
force upon us. We endure it, and sometimes enjoy some of the goodies
it gets us, but everyone I've talked to would prefer if games returned
to the sales model of the early 2000s; get a full, complete game with
lots of hidden bonuses that you can only unlock through gameplay. It
rewards the skilled and persistent, and not the ones with deep pockets
and poor impulse control.

They'd have a point if it was a case of you're going to be playing this game for 10yrs+ and for us to provide new content to maintain your interest we do need to generate a reasonable ongoing revenue to do that. The reality is nothing like that though, we'll sell you a full price game and then try and squeeze every penny out of you even though we realise that some of this is exploiting those with undesirable traits. Oh and if it's not generating enough profits we'll just stick the middle finger up to our customers and close the service down. Trebles all around!
Like you I'd prefer that we returned to the old model of how games make money and I don't even have a problem with subscription models if they act reasonable in changes to what you get and prices *coughs* Microsoft Gamepass *coughs*.