-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
We really need to stop calling companies greedy for wanting to make money
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
- Status
On the other hand; feel free to assign negative humans emotions to shitty organisations, because their feelings can't get hurt.
How did you make the words only appear at the correct moment? Whenever I do a gif the words are just stuck there.
-------
I think some behave more greedily than others. It's not like all publishers are guilty of the same behavior. That's part of the reason some pubs and devs are respected more than others.
Mosr people don't read the OP outside of the first few sentences dude.
Try making a youtube video and something something start up a patreon and make 6 figures and whine about shit and then somebody will post a thread video link and people will complain why Oni-link gets his own thread. But maybe people will watch the full video that way.
If the ea original turn profitable, all the profit and the IP goes to the developer. Makes no difference for EA. Releasing small games can be profitable, but not the maximum profit possible that op stated.
And if Nintendo is doing for the industry, so it's not maximum profit either.
I disagree but that isn't really my point.. picking out 'bad' corporations infers there are 'good' ones and all we need to do is stop patronising the bad ones and they'll change their behaviour.. that's demonstrably not true (and never could be for something like the arms industry for example)..
It's atomising the problem rather than stepping back and seeing the structural issues that can only be addressed by laws and regulations .. loot boxes being a perfect example of this in the games business.
Of course this is all dirty socialist talk so let's stick with bad actors and 'ethical' capitalism, right?
This is certainly how it appears:
If MTX sales don't meet expectations, try to emphasize them more in the next title.
If MTX sell gangbusters, emphasize them more in the next title.
1. Public companies literally exist to serve as capital pools for blind investors to just pump money in and demand that more money come out.
2. Capitalism shows us that it is far, far easier to make money by being a scheming shithead (corner-cutting, abusing your employees, lobbying, fucking over the other guy, destroying the environment, etc.) than by actually innovating and progressing technology and/or our standard of living.
Then again, it's a 50/50 share of the blame between these kinds of entities and the dumbass consumers who gobble it up.
Wolves and sheep, man.
2. Capitalism shows us that it is far, far easier to make money by being a scheming shithead (corner-cutting, abusing your employees, lobbying, fucking over the other guy, destroying the environment, etc.) than by actually innovating and progressing technology and/or our standard of living.
Then again, it's a 50/50 share of the blame between these kinds of entities and the dumbass consumers who gobble it up.
Wolves and sheep, man.
I agree completely. A company's purpose is to maximize profit (whether in the short or long run), and not every decision will be one that you necessarily like because of it.
Often, the decisions that are disliked are made because the average consumer responds to them, such as free to play games, which as a format only exists because it has shown to be what the average consumers appreciates, on the account of it making billions for many games, on mobile and on other platforms.
Phrases like "holding content hostage", etc, that is often used for small things when the brunt of it is available just seems overly exaggerated to me.
Often, the decisions that are disliked are made because the average consumer responds to them, such as free to play games, which as a format only exists because it has shown to be what the average consumers appreciates, on the account of it making billions for many games, on mobile and on other platforms.
Phrases like "holding content hostage", etc, that is often used for small things when the brunt of it is available just seems overly exaggerated to me.
The market decides. If a monetization method works, of course companies will continue to use it. Because for every gamer ranting about greedy anti-consumer practices there are a thousand consumers freely spending money because they want what's on offer.
When you take proven concepts and modify them to exploit those who are vulnerable, it's greed that cannot be justified with your argument. Companies should be able to make money, but they should not be allowed to exploit the weak in their quest to do so.
Companies certainly can (and do) act in ways in the pursuit of financial gain that should be criticized. Some implementations of micro-transactions, for example, are designed in a consumer unfriendly way to prey upon susceptible individuals.
I would say that some have become a bit quick to damn corporate actions that we just don't like as "anti-consumer" or "greedy." For example, I saw some labeling the pricing of DKC: TF for Switch as "anti-consumer," but it's not. You know exactly what's in the package, and Nintendo is offering it for a flat $60. You might think that's too high, but then you just shouldn't buy it. It's not "anti-consumer" to have a product people want and charge an industry-standard price for it.
I would say that some have become a bit quick to damn corporate actions that we just don't like as "anti-consumer" or "greedy." For example, I saw some labeling the pricing of DKC: TF for Switch as "anti-consumer," but it's not. You know exactly what's in the package, and Nintendo is offering it for a flat $60. You might think that's too high, but then you just shouldn't buy it. It's not "anti-consumer" to have a product people want and charge an industry-standard price for it.
I agree that toning down the language when we talk about corporations is a good idea for critics of said corporations. Under the current economic environment, making as much money as possible by exploiting labor and putting veiled slot machines in their products is a rational choice of action for corporations and the people that run them. We've been letting them do it. We still buy their games and "hit the lever." Why should they stop if the consumers still support their favorite IP and the government doesn't regulate them? There's no rational reason to do so if the individuals in charge don't care about the ethical concerns.
However, we as consumers can also make a difference perhaps in slow and small ways. We can encourage developers to unionize if their employer is working them to near death and their prospects for finding work where their experience is valued are bad (Full disclosure, I have no idea what the job market is like for developers). We can convince all of our friends to not buy lootboxes and other crappy digital items. If a lot of people played a small part, maybe something big could happen. Just be careful how you phrase things when you criticize a company people like a lot.
However, we as consumers can also make a difference perhaps in slow and small ways. We can encourage developers to unionize if their employer is working them to near death and their prospects for finding work where their experience is valued are bad (Full disclosure, I have no idea what the job market is like for developers). We can convince all of our friends to not buy lootboxes and other crappy digital items. If a lot of people played a small part, maybe something big could happen. Just be careful how you phrase things when you criticize a company people like a lot.
Best example is the Mordor sequel (and Battelfront 2?). Pushback happened and sales suffered and sure enough they ripped that shit out, but uh-oh...
Tell that to Rockstar. Or Amazon. Or Apple. Or any clothing manufacturer in China. Businesses will exploit people and resources as far as they can as long as they can get away with it.
When businesses don't care, it has to be people and governments holding them to account.
This line makes the whole thing semantic argument seem like it stems from being burned in an argument about capitalism and needing to retaliate any time anyone points out that seeking unlimited acquisition through questionable methods is greedy.
Is it enabled through the fundamental concepts of capitalism? Yes.
Does that make it any less greedy? No.
I bet people know what is meant when you call a company greedy. It isn't merely a matter of them making money.
I mean, a fundamental idea in capitalism is that if someone can make a lot of money doing something, then more actors will enter the market and do the same, pushing prices down, until nobody is making much profit - but just enough to make the activity worthwhile obviously.
Of course in lots of markets that is not what happens, but if we want to be good capitalism supporters, it ought to be the best thing we can hope for. High profit might indicate the market is broken.
Anyway, I dont have an issue with companies making money. Nor making lots of money. But I fail to see what it has to do with people not liking companies making money on stuff they dont like, whether it is microtransactions or something else. Whether they make money on it is nearly irrelevant.
In the end the only long-term way to fight bad behaviour on the market is through laws and regulation. Consumers complaining or "voting with your wallet" only gets you so far.
In a capitalist system, isn't the answer to this question always supposed to be "as little as possible".
I mean, a fundamental idea in capitalism is that if someone can make a lot of money doing something, then more actors will enter the market and do the same, pushing prices down, until nobody is making much profit - but just enough to make the activity worthwhile obviously.
Of course in lots of markets that is not what happens, but if we want to be good capitalism supporters, it ought to be the best thing we can hope for. High profit might indicate the market is broken.
Anyway, I dont have an issue with companies making money. Nor making lots of money. But I fail to see what it has to do with people not liking companies making money on stuff they dont like, whether it is microtransactions or something else. Whether they make money on it is nearly irrelevant.
Isn't that exactly what people are doing? People have different opinions on what is shitty of course.
Indeed. The issues is how companies behave, not why.
In the end the only long-term way to fight bad behaviour on the market is through laws and regulation. Consumers complaining or "voting with your wallet" only gets you so far.
All you can do is vote with your wallet. Don't like a company's practices but still want to play a game? Buy it used from a small mom & pop store. This is what I do with all Rockstar, Ubisoft, and EA releases. Support small business!
As a working adult I really feel like I've to draw a line between people who know what a ripoff is and people who buy everything on sale and feel entitled to get the best pixels best graphics best orchestra best gameplay zero bugs zero load screens best animations best acting best script best everything and call devs liars for removing puddles.
Altering the creator/customer interaction, not to maintain but to have record profits, seems like greed to me. An expected corporate greed, but greed all the same. And micro-transactions alter that interaction.
If a restaurant decides to charge you for napkins you call them greedy.
If a restaurant decides to charge you for napkins you call them greedy.
- Status