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

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:58:23 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

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

>

>
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*.

>
Apparently the US goverment is having a bit of an issue with Gamepass.
Who could possibly have guessed that allowing two giant corporations
to merge /wouldn't/ result in lower prices and better products, but
just the opposite?
>
I wouldn't object to subscription models if it wasn't so obviously
what publishers wants the ENTIRE industry to become. If it were just,
"hey, you can sometimes rent a game, and other times buy it", I'd be
fine. I can actually see the appeal in a subscription as a way to
'demo' games I'm interested in, or play entire games I've some
interest in but not enough to pay full price. It's not a bad idea on
the whole.
>
But I've no trust in the publishers not to abuse the idea solely for
their own benefit. They've been frog-boiling gamers towards the idea
that the former is the One True Way of modern gaming, and it is so
obvious that once they amass a plurality of gamers they'll stop
selling games entirely.