573
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
573 points (97.2% liked)
Games
16409 readers
930 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Only legislation will fix this.
You were never going to shop your way out of it.
I'm all for legislation to fix scummy practices in areas where something is essential, i.e. transport, connectivity, food, etc. Or to counter predatory practices like gambling or lootboxes that prey on addicts or children. But in this case I feel like it'd be a bit too much. Nobody needs WoW, nor is it really (in my opinion) preying on addicts in the same way as gambling or lootboxes. If enough people are willing to pay such a ridiculous amount of money, then apparently this is really the value.
'Exploiting people over nothing important is better, actually' is a weird take.
'If it sells it can't be wrong' is just fucking awful.
holy shit legislating video game prices?
Business model. Legislating the fucking business model.
Jesus fuck, what is it about this industry that makes people flip out about any sort of consumer protection? You know this is fucked up. You know "just don't buy it!" will never help. What other possible solution do you imagine, besides telling companies to just sell a product, without any exorbitant double-dipping?
I don't see the issue to be honest. It's three days... How is it substantially different from somebody waiting 3 months for the price to go down even more? What are you protecting against?
I think it's fine too, for the general case of video games. If someone wants to pay some premium, several times a game's price to get access a couple days or a week early, I mean, I sure as hell am not going to pay it, but if some people do and are willing to bear a larger portion of the development costs, fine. It's not like I would have noticed or cared if a game's release date was a week later. Besides, I'm going to wait for reviews to come out anyway.
I'll also add that I'm not gonna get "premium" editions with some plastic doodads or artbooks or whatever, but there are clearly people who are willing to do that. If a game publisher wants to make the offer and someone else is willing to accept, I mean, okay, whatever makes them happy.
That being said, WoW is an MMO, and that does introduce different dynamics. I don't play it, so I don't know the specifics there. Like, a guild cannot play together if all of its members aren't together at the same time, and maybe that puts pressure on all the members to buy early. It also sounds like there are some self-imposed challenges to try to be the first person to do various things, and I guess that there could be a pay-to-win element in that sense. Frankly, I don't find doing that sort of thing to be much fun, but I suppose for people who do, maybe it'd be an issue. Maybe there's something specific to WoW that makes it matter more than a typical video game there.
I think that in general, a lot of video game players would be a lot happier if they obsessed less about getting things exactly on release dates. I mean, the patientgamers crowd waits for at least a year before they look at a game. I wouldn't go quite that far myself, but they still have fun playing games.
WoW has historically worked on a daily limit to progression model for the endgame, so the 3 day early access is potentially a 3 day permanent boost for the people who buy it. I would imagine competitive raiders going for world first and "clearing hard difficulty versions of raids while they're current content" achievements and their related rewards will be essentially mandated to buy it.
As for gamers obsessing over things at launch, I wish it were different, but I think of it like movies or TV shows. If you go and watch a movie a year after it came out, nobody is gonna be talking about it anymore. And for some people, that social buzz around a new piece of media is half the fun. Playing a game and talking about it with your friends, the sense of discovery finding things out before you can just look it up on some wiki site, etc.
'How is an order of magnitude substantially different?' is not a question I know how to answer without vulgarity.
Yes, but presumably the order of magnitude (waiting substantially longer) would be worse but you're arguing the opposite... Why is waiting longer for a price cut better?
Ohhh, that's a completely different angle than I thought you were going for.
It's still ridiculous, though.
Price drops exist to encourage new people to pay. People who would not otherwise buy the thing, buy the thing. But - anyone who pays an exorbitant amount up-front, for a game with a monthly subscription, three days early, was fucking obviously going to buy the thing, full-price, day-of. This is just gouging. This is seeing how little they can offer, in exchange for completely arbitrary quantities of money.
If they offered a sliding scale where the price doubles for every extra day of early access - some addict with more money than sense may well drop tens thousand dollars, for an extra week. Which is obviously fucking nonsense. Please tell me you understand price and value are different concepts, and they can align, or they can not. Ten thousand dollars for one week of a game that costs ten dollars a month is complete absurdity, rivaled only by games charging more than the price of the entire full-price game for some stupid item inside that game.
That exploitation of irrational decision-making doesn't begin at ten thousand dollars. Smaller-scale abuses of it are not better... just lesser.
I dont get your point about "Just don't buy it" not working.
If consumers didnt think it was a fair price, then they wouldn't buy it. People can live without a videogame, it's not like this is a big pharma company raising prices on a life-saving drug.
Profit means ethical, says newborn babe, innocent and fresh.
the business model of...charging too much money? No, I dont have any issue with this. I have a lot of issues with Blizzard, but this ain't on the list. It sounds like a smart way to alleviate expansion launch server burden, giving both a much better experience for some, and an improved launch for the rest.
... it's a subscription service! They already get a shitload of money, every single month. Don't bemoan their server costs. That's what you're already paying for!
I didnt say server costs, I said server burden. Long queue times on launch day, server crashes, very unevenly distributed server load when everyone is in the same area at the start. I remember FF14's latest expansion was so bad, they completely halted sales of it. Forget too expensive, there was no price, you could not buy it if you were late.
You dont have to pay $90, because you dont have to buy this early access. you dont have to buy the regular access. You are not entitled to this game as a human right, the developers didnt have to make this game, and they dont have to let you play it for whatever price you want. They get to decide the price.
Hair-splitting. They have your money already. Services breaking down is not a problem solved by charging more - as you point out, for FF14. Charging more than the price of an entire new game, for three fucking days of opt-in beta testing, is completely absurd.
Any form of taking your money for bullshit is reducing how much you can spend on things that matter. This ultracapitalist zeal for equating price and value only makes a lick of sense if it's rational people making informed decisions - and there's a thousand other ways we identify and forbid irrational uses of money.
Outright confidence scams have seen victims come back with more money, thinking it'll work out this time. Revenue alone absolves nothing.
Yeah, charging more is a very common way to alleviate service congestion, like amusement parks. They have the same sort of early access for more money deals. or very popular dine in restaurants, concerts, anything where capacity is a concern really.
They are not taking anything, they do not have access to your wallet or your bank account. You can choose to give them your money. No one is making you, you have all of your money to spend on things that matter. If this doesnt matter to you? Dont have to spend a cent on it. Make your own MMO and charge less for it.
Try this on for size. Split them up, make them worker owned, or strip their IP and open source it. Send a message that anti consumer behavior is dangerous - that your investments could go to zero.
Blizzard and Activision stood up there at the ftc and promised their merger would lead to better products at better prices for customers. Their customers overwhelmingly disagree. Microsoft and Activision/Blizzard said the same. It's all worse and more expensive.
Companies exist for people, not the other way around. They don't have rights, they don't have feelings, and if we do nothing everything we love will turn to shit.
We're in the endgame. Companies are cannibalizing themselves and each other to desperately extend their profit growth for one more quarter. Not to mention, they do that by squeezing their customers just a little harder from all sides
We need rules and boundaries to the game, or this becomes the only workable playstyle for the board of every publicly traded corporation. We're going to crash - we've colonized the whole world (or at least every place with resources highly profitable to extract). The rate of growth can't increase - new markets and technologies will open up areas for growth now and then, but certainly not quarterly. Cannibalizing existing industries is going pretty damn fast, and either we stop it now or we stop it once everything is terrible and our technology sucks.
Either way, we're going to have to tackle climate change and inequality...
You seem to be ranting about something else entirely, we're talking about an announced price for a game
Could you provide me an example of when voting with your wallet worked?
Could you explain to me how changing more for less is a good thing here?
What would this sort of legislation look like to you?