On 17/07/2022 16:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:33:40 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com
>> On 16/07/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Am I allowed to be enraged by them even though I never knew they existed!
>>> Well, do not consider this any sort of permission (who am I to
>>> restrict or permit your rage?) but I have no problem with such emotion
>>> focused on this sort of a money-grubbing scheme.
>> My hope is that at some point enough people will start not engaging with
>> their products (due to not just the games themselves but how these
>> companies can act) that it will make a practically drop in their
> It's my hope too, but it's an increasingly dwindling hope. Recent
> events - as a variety of my rages in this newsgroup attest too - have
> shown that gamers aren't particularly good at holding gaming companies
> accountable or doing anything that might change the behavior of the
> publishers. They'll just flock to the next game as soon as its
> announced, even if it incorporates all sorts of customer-hostile
> features, just because its new and shiny.
> Gamers aren't the only sort who do this, of course, and I can't
> entirely blame then when billions of dollars of psychology-driven
> marketing is manipulating them into that sort of behavior (it's one of
> the reasons I'm a firm believer in user reviews, since their the only
> real way to address this power imbalance between seller and
> purchaser), but it does make one worry about the future.
It's the bit I never quite understand there are tons of games out there
so why go to one that you know is set-up to try and 'encourage' people
to pay yet more money. Saying that I can understand how people can fall
for the tricks companies play but why put yourself in that position in
the first place then.
>> My fear though is though that people have slowly become
>> conditioned to accept that this is just what games are like and at best
>> you get a roll of the eyes.
> Or worse, there's a whole generation of gamers who aren't even aware
> there's an alternative to always-online, microtransaction-laden
> video-games. If you can't even imagine a game that lets you play
> anywhere and comes with all the quests and hats in the original
> package, then you can't object to a game not having it. It also sets a
> new baseline; sure, /this/ game might be a bit greedy, but it's not
> too bad compared to any /other/ game lootbox-game... it only starts
> looking /really/ bad when you compare it to games of yesteryear, that
> weren't designed to sneak every penny out of your wallet with
> excessive MTX and grind that makes the MTX look reasonable.
> It has often been said that the late 90s and early 2000s were a
> 'golden age' for PC gaming, largely in response to the release of so
> many classic games (Half Life, Diablo, Max Payne, Age of Empires,
> Civilization 2, etc., etc.). But the lack of MTX and DRM seems in
> those games seems almost as brilliant.
Ahhh, the lovely feeling of we provide you a game you're like an in
exchange you give us a one off payment. How quaint.
Fortunately for me I've managed to stick to my promise of I just won't
get into any game that has MTX with one exception, the iPad. There I
find it ok as I really use the games just to pass the time so they're
the equivalent of looking out the window on a train journey.
>> It feels similar to what seems to have
>> happened to politics in the UK over the last several years. Twenty years
>> ago even doing some fairly minor meant the politician had the choice to
>> resign or be fired. Now we've got into a position where our PM could not
>> only break the law but also lie that he had to parliament. The worse
>> thing was the number of people who defended him.
> Don't forget that - when his crimes came to light - he then had the
> gall to change the code that demanded anyone so caught should
> immediately resign.
> But what can we expect? None of us really hold any of the people in
> power accountable anymore; at most we make a bit of noise and then
> fade back into the woodwork until the next big outrage.
They've tried similar tricks before with Pritti Patel (so she bullies
her staff, is that really a problem) and Owen Patterson (yeh he did try
and influence parliament for the benefit of a company he worked for and
the standards committee said he should be temporarily be suspended but
can we just get a second opinion on that and make sure it balanced to
get the answer we want). At least with the latter the government did a
quick reverse ferret when they realised that you can push public opinion
only so far.
I'm just hoping that whoever is in charge next can at least reverse some
of the changes in behaviour but I very much doubt it as the candidates
are I think all Brexiteers and dishonesty goes hand-in-had with that
view. The UK, when it was a member of the EU, had no veto on Turkey
joining. A couple of problems there, there was no plan to let Turkey
join because of multiple non-minor issues and yes the UK did have veto
as did all other member states.
> But I guess it could be worse; it could be America.
I honestly just don't understand American politics and what goes on.
Saying that my view is formed mainly by the worse excesses as that's
what I get to see. How on earth do some of these people get elected.