That's the great thing about big corporations. When they own all the noodles, you'll like they make. And all the noodle magazines will say you're entitled and spoiled if you dare say otherwise.
Games media: Are gamers supposed to have power over game developers?
- Thread starter Chris Simon
- Start date
That's the great thing about big corporations. When they own all the noodles, you'll like they make. And all the noodle magazines will say you're entitled and spoiled if you dare say otherwise.
Your purchasing is your power. When you buy a companys product you condone and support their behavior and strategy.
In a system with a large consumer base. A single purchase won't matter much. Over time nefarious practices and poor value return will add up and hopefully sink bad companys and reward positive ones.
Times change and people change. The things young people accept today as normal are things I never would have accepted as a gamer. I have seen many of my favorites go sour and have had to bow out of many life long series I have enjoyed.
When you buy a game you support the games of tomorrow and the business behind them. Make your purchases wisely and realize who your putting money behind.
In a system with a large consumer base. A single purchase won't matter much. Over time nefarious practices and poor value return will add up and hopefully sink bad companys and reward positive ones.
Times change and people change. The things young people accept today as normal are things I never would have accepted as a gamer. I have seen many of my favorites go sour and have had to bow out of many life long series I have enjoyed.
When you buy a game you support the games of tomorrow and the business behind them. Make your purchases wisely and realize who your putting money behind.
Let the mega corps make Cantonese Dreck. Don't Care. Won't Buy.
The media may as well be reporting on telenovelas in Espanol. They're irrelevant, Don't read.
It's like pop music. It used to matter. But it really doesn't.
Not anymore. That's why the game is to own everything. Then they provide you some false choices so you think you're buying from different companies but they're really just different subsidiaries of the same company. There's a picture somewhere of the 6 corporations that already own everything else. I'm sure someone will provide it.
It were always the consumers who had the power. Not the direct power to dictate how the product is made, but ultimately the power to dictate if the product is a commercial success or a failure. This is as much valid for video games as it is for cars, houses, sweaters, laptops, mobile phones or dish washers.
You make a quality product, consumers will buy it and your product will thrive. If your product is crap, consumers won't buy it (or buy it and then complain that is bad) and your product will be forgotten. To be honest I see nothing weird in this.
You can make whatever product you want, but it's your target consumer base that will determine it's outcome. Expecting otherwise is lunacy. That's why product makers are wise to listen to their target consumer base.
You make a quality product, consumers will buy it and your product will thrive. If your product is crap, consumers won't buy it (or buy it and then complain that is bad) and your product will be forgotten. To be honest I see nothing weird in this.
You can make whatever product you want, but it's your target consumer base that will determine it's outcome. Expecting otherwise is lunacy. That's why product makers are wise to listen to their target consumer base.
Last edited:
The only think i want to say at this point is anything designed by committee is probably going to end up pretty rubbish, so from this point of view, kowtowing to players every time they make a demand is probably a very bad way to design a game.
On the other hand, when the situation kicked off with Rainbow 6 it surprised me that the devs hadn't decided simply to release two versions in the first place. Many companies have done this in order to deal with the Chinese censors and i thought it was standard practice. China doesn't demand an equal global version, it just demands whatever is released in their country conforms. Usually this is handled by having different textures or effects in their version.
On the other hand, when the situation kicked off with Rainbow 6 it surprised me that the devs hadn't decided simply to release two versions in the first place. Many companies have done this in order to deal with the Chinese censors and i thought it was standard practice. China doesn't demand an equal global version, it just demands whatever is released in their country conforms. Usually this is handled by having different textures or effects in their version.
Yeah, and China itself is big enough market to make the separate version viable. I was surprised as well.
Yeah, it was always basically advertising.
Look the simple fact is that we don't pay the games media anymore. We're not buying their magazines and for the most part none of them are behind a paywall. Their money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is mostly the games companies themselves, which buy ads but also expect the media to serve as their marketing outlet. Consequently the people who work in games media have a set of priorities which is at odds with most of their readership.
Plus most games journalists are not actually journalists with degrees or formal training, they're just frustrated freelance writers living paycheck to paycheck in Brooklyn or San Francisco and they have a general disdain for humanity as a whole.
We're not the gaming websites' customers, so they don't listen to us and they don't care about us.
We ARE the games company's customers, so they DO listen to us, even though they don't want to.
The job of the games journalists is to shout down, belittle, or dismiss any problems we have with the games companies so we'll shut up and buy stuff.
Plus most games journalists are not actually journalists with degrees or formal training, they're just frustrated freelance writers living paycheck to paycheck in Brooklyn or San Francisco and they have a general disdain for humanity as a whole.
We're not the gaming websites' customers, so they don't listen to us and they don't care about us.
We ARE the games company's customers, so they DO listen to us, even though they don't want to.
The job of the games journalists is to shout down, belittle, or dismiss any problems we have with the games companies so we'll shut up and buy stuff.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
I do agree that many gamers are too entitled. Just look at the refund expectations, or that devs should maintain online servers for free - or the disgusting backlash on these pages after the Salomé event.
Oh, I would respectfully disagree with the first sentence.
We ARE their customers. It's OUR money they're getting form the companies, it US who click on the ad banners,... Their income is very much dependent on their readers still.
It's like saying that PR department of the company doesn't have to care about their clients.
I'd agree, though I would probably use the word "some" not "many".
That's the problem of the internet. One idiot spamming hard enough can be very visible and give the wrong impression.
I agree.
It's ok if they have to change a LOCAL version of a game to fit within that societies laws and framework but it should not affect people OUTSIDE that local version of the game, at least as far as one can make it.
At the same time, should a game change it's appearance for every country that has an issue with a design, political statements or depiction of their society and military?
But if i have purchased a product at day 1 and then suddenly in day 365 they replace all the textures and models from a gritty WW2 game into a rainbowland of my little pony copies where we shoot little cute hearts at each others wide eyed ponies then I might have a serious issue about it.
...to be fair...a WW2 game involving pastel coloured ponies shooting each others sounds bizzarely awesome...
"Gamers" (what does that even mean?) are consumers of products and services; nothing more, nothing less. They can choose to consume or to stop doing so. They have the right to voice discontent at the quality of a product. There is, however, no inherent title to influence on the product.