AAA game companies are just sanctioned corporate "drug" cartels
AAA game companies are just sanctioned corporate "drug" cartels
- they want repeat players (users)
- they repeat a formula that sells
- when it doesn't, they look to "adjust" it with something new and preferably cheap
- they give free samples to spread word of mouth
- they try to lock people into their environment
- they always want people to chase the next high
- looking for ways to keep you hooked on something for as long as possible
- they try to use their formula in all their products
You're viewing a single thread.
How is that different from, say, movie studios? All of your points fit for them too. In fact most of your points are just how companies work under capitalism:
- Acquire repeat customers
- Repeat successful strategy
- Adjust strategy to make it more successful
- Inspire free advertising with good will campaign
- Try to get people to your business and not your competition's
- Continue to provide new products and services to grow your business
- Find ways to keep people coming back for as long as possible
- Apply successful strategy to your entire operation
I will be say I wasn't thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)
- Was thinking how the idea of games-as-a-service and subscriptions are considered a priority
- how samey a lot of AAA games seems to feel (like it is consoldated on a "formula")
- a desire to manipulate towards the idea to spend more on the original product
- supply enough of a product to get a player invested and once hooked - try to maintain that investment over a period of time
- the product is seldom as good as advertised
- the quality of the product, in general, feels like it is being degraded in an effort to more easily manipulate
- games are seen as something as means to an end - and in that vein, it is targeted to be able to draw in people according to metrics and less a expression of creativity
By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.
Doesn't mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the "big games companies" are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like "drug dealers" trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a "brand" of gaming and once they can "control" what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.
Again most of your points also fit movie studios and their streaming platforms
Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie's case it is a pay per experience.
With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won't be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience
It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying "hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it" or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes
Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more "easy" money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem "fresh and new") and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to "encourage" one to spend more on the original purchase.
The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere
They are trying to get people to become "addicted" to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial "junkie")
It's OK. This is a shower thought. It doesn't need to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.
Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.
It is like they are trying to find that "magic addictive formula" and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.
Have you heard of "engagement optimised match making"? Have a look on YouTube.
Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the "magic addictive formula"
They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to "addictive habits" and attempts to "encourage" a habit that leans towards an addiction.