Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: JAB <noway@nochance.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: It looks like gambling, feels like gambling, pays out (almost)
 like gambling... but it's not gambling
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:58:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <v7nrbh$14iba$2@dont-email.me>
References: <qaut9j1r0vqb92ujtajoadl6plvugfo2bh@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:58:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef1b8318d18938e98e30eb1204775d23";
	logging-data="1198442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18u/ft0yGOjfgP8SvUafwuU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rPdi3z0dngrMlPz05fjsT0wj7as=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <qaut9j1r0vqb92ujtajoadl6plvugfo2bh@4ax.com>
Bytes: 4093

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*.