Supply and demand, or worship a brand?

[E0N]

Its frankly terrifying how many PC games come out like trash. Nvidia certainly fucking it up royally with their RTX shenanigans

It's not like the solution for it is that hard. Just have a small dedicated team that will optimize the game for PC during development. But these corpos refuses to do this cause instead of $100 profit they will then profit $99 which is unthinkable for them.

 

[Antilocal123]

Until people get like Luigi Corpo-talk means jack, I doubt anyone will miss these fat fucks. /j

Edit: INB4 this gets locked lol

 

[SolemnlyDoc]

My claim is far from surface level. In all likelihood, you didn't even know the law requires shareholders to be put first, or what a public-benefit corporation is before I mentioned them; most people don't, including some anti-corporate activists. Saying "it's just greed" is a massive oversimplification that lacks depth or understanding of why people who are not personally greedy are still acting as if infinite growth is not only possible, but the only thing to work towards.

Complex problems don't have simple causes or origins. You solve nothing by oversimplify things to the point that you can just blame some unsolvable abstract instead of a system that can be potentially dismantled.

You've said nothing to support your argument beyond restating it over and over and using circular reasoning (a logical fallacy) to support it. (Basically, you are saying "greed is the problem because greed is the problem.") This is not proof of your claim nor are you going to convince anyone with that method.

If you cannot see greed as the root of the problem, then this conversation will never be productive. You don't need empirical evidence to see that greed is the source any more than I would need to provide evidence that happiness does not come from money. There are simple self-evident truths in the world and this is one of them.

To presume what I know and do not know is churlish. Proclaiming greed as the source is an oversimplification, but it is a direct answer to the question that was being asked, which had nothing to do with you. You may not like my answer, but it is categorically correct. You are not going to solve the problems of the gaming world in this thread, not even with conversations about the laws of shareholder interests.

We have a choice in this world to be kind and civil rather than loosing our indignance on someone who wasn't even speaking to us about their own beliefs. This conversation seems to have struck a nerve, but I hope we can continue to have healthy discourse elsewhere.

 

[Amag0k1]

If you cannot see greed as the root of the problem, then this conversation will never be productive. You don't need empirical evidence to see that greed is the source any more than I would need to provide evidence that happiness does not come from money. There are simple self-evident truths in the world and this is one of them.

To presume what I know and do not know is churlish. Proclaiming greed as the source is an oversimplification, but it is a direct answer to the question that was being asked, which had nothing to do with you. You may not like my answer, but it is categorically correct. You are not going to solve the problems of the gaming world in this thread, not even with conversations about the laws of shareholder interests.

We have a choice in this world to be kind and civil rather than loosing our indignance on someone who wasn't even speaking to us about their own beliefs. This conversation seems to have struck a nerve, but I hope we can continue to have healthy discourse elsewhere.

I think in the short term we cannot solve the problem for sure. But this is why conversations like this need to happen, so that continued work for the solution happens, other wise it will stagnate and nothing will change, with a new generation of abused people coming in to play who know nothing more then said abuse.

For me, they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and for the system to work (cash flow in and out of companies and people) has to be maintained, otherwise the system will erode and there will be nothing.

Money is a tool, life is a game, and the question is what the end will be, and who will make change. What is the purpose, complacency or standing up and looking actually looking at the problem?

If you think it is an over simplification, then add towards giving detail. For me i never want us to be a defeatist, as we walk before to make a path for those who walk after, and if there is a cancer, we work on how, just how to cut it out.

I mean sssssssSSSSSSS

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

Well, it's not like their servers and the storefront run and maintain themselves for free. Devs CAN sell their games online without giving Gaben a cut if they're so offended by Steam's demands.

Isn't Steam making most of its money from their free to plays and the various slot machines systems they got around them nowadays anyway? Gabe's fat 30% cut is only symbolic at this point. Just like the Apple Store.

 

[miguk]

That was in old days. Now big companies receive free money from (((THEY))) and don't need the costumer anymore.
I frankly don't care anymore. I pirate everything anyway.

You seriously just used the triple parentheses with the username WarpKaiser and the location "Deutsches Reich" in your info. You've been reported. Get out of our forum, you fucking Nazi.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 10:12 PM

If you cannot see greed as the root of the problem, then this conversation will never be productive. You don't need empirical evidence to see that greed is the source any more than I would need to provide evidence that happiness does not come from money. There are simple self-evident truths in the world and this is one of them.

To presume what I know and do not know is churlish. Proclaiming greed as the source is an oversimplification, but it is a direct answer to the question that was being asked, which had nothing to do with you. You may not like my answer, but it is categorically correct. You are not going to solve the problems of the gaming world in this thread, not even with conversations about the laws of shareholder interests.

We have a choice in this world to be kind and civil rather than loosing our indignance on someone who wasn't even speaking to us about their own beliefs. This conversation seems to have struck a nerve, but I hope we can continue to have healthy discourse elsewhere.

This is inane. The cause of corporate corruption is not a priori knowledge. You are acting like everyone not only already agrees with you, but is supposed to simply because you assert yourself to be right. You are basically arguing "I'm right because I'm right", which is nonsense especially in the face of the information I've already provided about how publicly traded corporations work.

I'm not going to further respond to your arguments because I'm sure you're trolling at this point. You've hand-waved away every last thing I said and just said "no, you're wrong and I'm always right" along with pretentiously using random dictionary vocab to Dennis Miller Ratio the conversation.

 

[Skeetos]

Just about every company these days is shitty. Just got ripped off by Koei Tecmo recently with Rise of the Ronin, but like most of the old game companies, I like their games too much to stop buying. Even after DD2, Dead Rising Remake, and MHW, I'm still excited for Resi 9.

 

[Inkingsama]

My claim is far from surface level. In all likelihood, you didn't even know the law requires shareholders to be put first, or what a public-benefit corporation is before I mentioned them; most people don't, including some anti-corporate activists. Saying "it's just greed" is a massive oversimplification that lacks depth or understanding of why people who are not personally greedy are still acting as if infinite growth is not only possible, but the only thing to work towards.

Complex problems don't have simple causes or origins. You solve nothing by oversimplify things to the point that you can just blame some unsolvable abstract instead of a system that can be potentially dismantled.

You've said nothing to support your argument beyond restating it over and over and using circular reasoning (a logical fallacy) to support it. (Basically, you are saying "greed is the problem because greed is the problem.") This is not proof of your claim nor are you going to convince anyone with that method.

Didn't know about the legal side of this. If that's the case, it's over.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

You seriously just used the triple parentheses with the username WarpKaiser and the location "Deutsches Reich" in your info. You've been reported. Get out of our forum, you fucking Nazi.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 10:12 PM

This is inane. The cause of corporate corruption is not a priori knowledge. You are acting like everyone not only already agrees with you, but is supposed to simply because you assert yourself to be right. You are basically arguing "I'm right because I'm right", which is nonsense especially in the face of the information I've already provided about how publicly traded corporations work.

I'm not going to further respond to your arguments because I'm sure you're trolling at this point. You've hand-waved away every last thing I said and just said "no, you're wrong and I'm always right" along with pretentiously using random dictionary vocab to Dennis Miller Ratio the conversation.

I was agreeing with you for the nazi part but you lost me with your strange beliefs in your second paragraph.

Greed *is* an atavistic concept. You don't need to study corporate laws to instinctively understand the duality between competition and cooperation and how an excess of greed from some individuals can affect negatively a whole ecosystem. The cause of corporate cancerization is the same as to why bacteria on an agar dish will each and every time consume all nutrients until they die. The difference is that humans cant make spores to wait it out. Hopefully.

 

[miguk]

Didn't know about the legal side of this. If that's the case, it's over.

It's been like that forever; it's basic stock trading law. However, you can get around it by switching a corporation from being a publicly traded for-profit corporation to a publicly traded public benefit corporation. The only problem is you need to get the stockholders on board (at least ⅔ need to approve of it) and you can't do business in North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Iowa, the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Washington state (all of which don't legal allow that).

I was agreeing with you for the nazi part but you lost me with your strange beliefs in your second chapter.

Greed *is* an atavistic concept. You don't need to study corporate laws to instinctively understand the duality between competition and cooperation and how an excess of greed from some individuals can affect negatively a whole ecosystem. The cause of corporate cancerization is the same as to why bacteria on an agar dish will each and every time consume all nutrients until they die. The difference is that humans cant make spores to wait it out. Hopefully.

My point is that it does not matter if the CEO is greedy or not. The publicly traded for-profit corporate system itself isn't human; it's a program that operates on the drive for increased profits at any expense. It won't matter if the CEO of a corporation is a Brian Thompson clone or a Satoru Iwata clone; the system is set up to make them prioritize profit above all. There's nothing atavistic about that unless you think corporations are people.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

It's been like that forever; it's basic stock trading law. However, you can get around it by switching a corporation from being a publicly traded for-profit corporation to a publicly traded public benefit corporation. The only problem is you need to get the stockholders on board (at least ⅔ need to approve of it) and you can't do business in North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Iowa, the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Washington state (all of which don't legal allow that).


My point is that it does not matter if the CEO is greedy or not. The publicly traded for-profit corporate system itself isn't human; it's a program that operates on the drive for increased profits at any expense. It won't matter if the CEO of a corporation is a Brian Thompson clone or a Satoru Iwata clone; the system is set up to make them prioritize profit above all. There's nothing atavistic about that unless you think corporations are people.

Yes why, you think corporations are not people? Whatever the tools they wield?

I totally agree with SolemnlyDoc that there are some basic truths that people have instinctively understood, because they almost stem from a genetic level, and that at this point it's pointless to argue about them. But maybe I'm too optimistic. Economists have polluted the very notion of Darwinism after all.

CEOs are greedy. The whole system is greedy, and it doesn't matter after all. It will all kill itself by consuming its system until starvation, like a cancer, a greedy little cell that wanted to be immortal and spectacularly failed in yet another extinction event.

 

[Amag0k1]

Didn't know about the legal side of this. If that's the case, it's over.

There are multiple factors to the problem, with the Law only playing 1 part.

The law in itself is not the problem, but how it is practiced. The point is what can be developed to tackle the problems?

Law currently depending on nation state, is developed from case law and practice, which is why there continues to be ongoing back and forth in the courts, depending on who is fighting. There was a massive loss only recently regarding games being seen as art and archiving such games within a library, which has shined a light on places such as archive.org.

We can hand wave it away or we can allow others to dominate the conversation and then do nothing and things will then pass not in our favor. We could say that the current hellscape of gaming is as a result of such attitudes.

I would urge for the conversation to continue, so that a solution can be sought and hopefully lobbied, only if se stop talking about it and stop working the problem, then we lose.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 2:50 AM

It's been like that forever; it's basic stock trading law. However, you can get around it by switching a corporation from being a publicly traded for-profit corporation to a publicly traded public benefit corporation. The only problem is you need to get the stockholders on board (at least ⅔ need to approve of it) and you can't do business in North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Iowa, the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Washington state (all of which don't legal allow that).


My point is that it does not matter if the CEO is greedy or not. The publicly traded for-profit corporate system itself isn't human; it's a program that operates on the drive for increased profits at any expense. It won't matter if the CEO of a corporation is a Brian Thompson clone or a Satoru Iwata clone; the system is set up to make them prioritize profit above all. There's nothing atavistic about that unless you think corporations are people.

I would argue that any human made company while in itself is not human, runs from human traits being made by humans, and understanding with the biggest one being greed.

The CEO, depending on figure head / face or someone with actual power, will often lead the charge, and while i agree the seeking of profits is their main goal, it is short term vs log term. And i would argue that long term is always better, better for people, better for societies and better for the company.

 

[miguk]

Yes why, you think corporations are not people? Whatever the tools they wield?

I totally agree with SolemnlyDoc that there are some basic truths that people have instinctively understood, because they almost stem from a genetic level, and that at this point it's pointless to argue about them. But maybe I'm too optimistic. Economists have polluted the very notion of Darwinism after all.

CEOs are greedy. The whole system is greedy, and it doesn't matter after all. It will all kill itself by consuming its system until starvation, like a cancer, a greedy little cell that wanted to be immortal and spectacularly failed in yet another extinction event.

Capitalism is not genetic. It's a purposely made system from the modern era. There has never been any proof that it is "human nature" because we had ages of human life and civilization before capitalism.

What do you think happens to the CEO of a publicly traded for-profit corporation who does not follow the law, but their conscience? They end up going to jail for investor fraud, and then replaced with someone who likely won't commit investor fraud.

And compare that to the CEO of a benefit corporation. Has the CEO of Patagonia had any greed-related scandals? How about Seventh Generation? Ben & Jerry's? Numi Organic Tea? BlueSky? Tofurky? The most I could find was Vita Coco made a mistake in advertising once, but that had nothing to do with the CEO.

I'm not trying to say that benefit corporations are perfect, but they do much better than the for-profit model for a good reason: they aren't forced to seek profit at the cost of everything else. By dismissing that (which I've mentioned twice already), you are ignoring actual proof against the claim that greed is an innate human quality at the root of the problem.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

Capitalism is not genetic. It's a purposely made system from the modern era. There has never been any proof that it is "human nature" because we had ages of human life and civilization before capitalism.

What do you think happens to the CEO of a publicly traded for-profit corporation who does not follow the law, but their conscience? They end up going to jail for investor fraud, and then replaced with someone who likely won't commit investor fraud.

And compare that to the CEO of a benefit corporation. Has the CEO of Patagonia had any greed-related scandals? How about Seventh Generation? Ben & Jerry's? Numi Organic Tea? BlueSky? Tofurky? The most I could find was Vita Coco made a mistake in advertising once, but that had nothing to do with the CEO.

I'm not trying to say that benefit corporations are perfect, but they do much better than the for-profit model for a good reason: they aren't forced to seek profit at the cost of everything else. By dismissing that (which I've mentioned twice already), you are ignoring actual proof against the claim that greed is an innate human quality at the root of the problem.

We had ages of civilization showing humanity's greed. Systems are people, and all systems end up being corrupted. "Live long enough to become the vilain" and all that. You just seem to be coping because you're in one, and most of all, you seem to be more interested to be "righteous" or "factual" than to discuss, which just ends up as counterproductive to your discourse, as the Doc already pointed out. So we're done here.

 

[miguk]

We had ages of civilization showing humanity's greed. Systems are people, and all systems end up being corrupted. "Live long enough to become the vilain" and all that. You just seem to be coping because you're in one, and most of all, you seem to be more interested to be "righteous" or "factual" than to discuss, which just ends up as counterproductive to your discourse, as the Doc already pointed out. So we're done here.

Wow, you end on a personal attack (logical fallacy, of course) instead of trying to support your argument. That doesn't prove your claim; it just shows you aren't even trying to support it rationally.

No, I'm not trying to cope. I think the current system is messed up and unfortunately controlled by plutocratic ideologues and gerontocracy at the top of it all. But that doesn't mean we are stuck in some doomed situation where nothing can ever be done about it. I've shown proof, and both of you have just hand-waved it away because it shows a huge gaping hole in your argument. The fact that you resort to a personal attack only further shows you really do not want to address that hole.

It's weird that I'm being accused of "coping" when the same unproven nonsense "human nature" cope is being argued here that has been thrown around by promoters of apathy for decades, often with the only result being even more of what they claim to be against. It's the cope of someone who wants the world to simply accept everything that goes wrong because they are more afraid of the idea of change than the self-comfort of things going wrong "over there" and the supposedly "theoretical" risk of things getting worse for themselves. (Said people will always scream "save us from our own mistakes" the moment the problems come home for them. Happens every time.) I've been arguing against that cope the whole time.

And don't quote Christopher Nolan to prove a real-life point. He's entertaining (when he gets the audio mixing right), but he doesn't know jack about real life.

 

[Amag0k1]

We had ages of civilization showing humanity's greed. Systems are people, and all systems end up being corrupted. "Live long enough to become the vilain" and all that. You just seem to be coping because you're in one, and most of all, you seem to be more interested to be "righteous" or "factual" than to discuss, which just ends up as counterproductive to your discourse, as the Doc already pointed out. So we're done here.

Personal attacks are unproductive, and do not help the conversation. The only one i would not see as a personal attack is cope. As this is common, as allot of people have this, and change if definitely scary.

Capitalism as it stands is not a problem, but how it is abused and gaps exploited related to game and business. I would say it needs tweaking to cover any gaps and evolve with the evolving technocracy environment, which we are heading in to with AI exploiting the gaps at pace. Models have to evolve with the changing landscapes imho.

I would vote to keep the conversation going, as another way a solution is not found, is when egos get in the way. We have to avoid having personal feelings on the matter, as it is a trap that would stop productive conversation by keeping eyes on the problem rather then making it personal.

The problem is bigger then ussssss, so we need to keep eyessss on the problem.

Put feelings to one sssssside.

 

[Leon]

My Nudge today:

Just heading out to work, but before i do, i wanted to ask this question.
When is it a good time for a company to abuse their consumers?

For me, it is never a good time, and it should not happen, but it does! Buying and selling should be a relationship build on trust, with the supplier garnering trust and pride in the quality of their work.

Some examples:

-From software
-Capcom (recent days, in the past even they have taken the p*ss (on disk dlc you pay for))
-Namco Bandai (also had a back and forth)

What are your feelings on this? Feel free to name some companys who have abused and some who have stayed true and perhaps too pure for this world...

I'll point to nvidia, 90% market share, charges 1000$+ for most of their cards.

This is slowly killing the pc industry, though this could all be prevented if they just took a moment to step back and not need to make a new gpu every year.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 6:54 PM

Piracy tends to boost sales down the line which is ironic.

Piracy disdain is about greed for every red cent, which is insane, exponential growth eternally leads to disaster when eventually, that growth stops.

 

[Amag0k1]

I'll point to nvidia, 90% market share, charges 1000$+ for most of their cards.

This is slowly killing the pc industry, though this could all be prevented if they just took a moment to step back and not need to make a new gpu every year.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 6:54 PM

Piracy disdain is about greed for every red cent, which is insane, exponential growth eternally leads to disaster when eventually, that growth stops.

Regarding Nvidia, would AMD not be able to cover the gaps? As Nvidia alone is not the pc industry surely.

The reason i think Nvidia is having a hard time producing cards, is related to the change in market related to AI and Data processing units, which just happen to be from the same chips which are used in GPUs, as the GPUs traditionally used in AI data processing, so they change their production model to focus on a more of a booming market which is AI.

I am one of there certified AI engineers, although i have not been able to get a work with the certification yet....

 

[Leon]

Regarding Nvidia, would AMD not be able to cover the gaps? As Nvidia alone is not the pc industry surely.

The reason i think Nvidia is having a hard time producing cards, is related to the change in market related to AI and Data processing units, which just happen to be from the same chips which are used in GPUs, as the GPUs traditionally used in AI data processing, so they change their production model to focus on a more of a booming market which is AI.

I am one of there certified AI engineers, although i have not been able to get a work with the certification yet....

No there are multiple reasons, AI is actually where most of their cards go to, they just stick it to the gaming side because since ai is the new hotness, gamers get boned once more, however nvidia isn't the only one responsible, but they could fix it if they wanted to.
First is gaming and consumer space is a afterthought to nvidia at this point.
Second nvidia's insistence on using GDDR7 for their gaming line, which some estimates put it at as high as 100$ a vram chip, is stupid.
Third is TSMC, as they have a mostly monopoly on the 3nm node, they've been increasing the cost of their chip wafers each generation, but this is also effecting amd so that's only part of it.
Fourth, nvidia refuses to rein in it's board partners overcharging for cards, because it benefits nvidia's reference designs to let them burn good will so that they can sell more of their inhouse made cards.

Tarriffs are going to increase costs, but that hasn't gone into effect yet and won't until april i believe.

As for amd, yes amd and intel could cover the gaps, but amd's newest gpu is 600$ msrp and that's considered a deal, it might be but the fact we're at this point when for accounting for inflation, the 1080ti was around 800$ equivalent when it released, there's a problem, especially since while no one wants to admit it, the world is in a global economic recession, possibly depression.

The problem here is they keep releasing a gpu every year and technology is not keeping up with demand, logically the thing to do would be to keep say, the 50xx series gpu's on the market for a few years without a new gpu each year and do some long term R&D to reduce costs while improving performance, add to that the fact we are dangerously close to the 2nm wall, this push for things like fake frames and ai learning to make up the difference will only lead to a crash in the market, look at modern gaming, most people aren't playing the newest games anymore, they are playing games from 5+ years ago, the power to performance is not there yet the costs keep increasing because we need a new gpu every year and that let's them get away without optimizing their games.

I firmly believe that gpu's need to last periods about half of a console cycle's life, the constant push forward will only lead us to disaster.

 

[Amag0k1]

No there are multiple reasons, AI is actually where most of their cards go to, they just stick it to the gaming side because since ai is the new hotness, gamers get boned once more, however nvidia isn't the only one responsible, but they could fix it if they wanted to.
First is gaming and consumer space is a afterthought to nvidia at this point.
Second nvidia's insistence on using GDDR7 for their gaming line, which some estimates put it at as high as 100$ a vram chip, is stupid.
Third is TSMC, as they have a mostly monopoly on the 3nm node, they've been increasing the cost of their chip wafers each generation, but this is also effecting amd so that's only part of it.
Fourth, nvidia refuses to rein in it's board partners overcharging for cards, because it benefits nvidia's reference designs to let them burn good will so that they can sell more of their inhouse made cards.

Tarriffs are going to increase costs, but that hasn't gone into effect yet and won't until april i believe.

As for amd, yes amd and intel could cover the gaps, but amd's newest gpu is 600$ msrp and that's considered a deal, it might be but the fact we're at this point when for accounting for inflation, the 1080ti was around 800$ equivalent when it released, there's a problem, especially since while no one wants to admit it, the world is in a global economic recession, possibly depression.

The problem here is they keep releasing a gpu every year and technology is not keeping up with demand, logically the thing to do would be to keep say, the 50xx series gpu's on the market for a few years without a new gpu each year and do some long term R&D to reduce costs while improving performance, add to that the fact we are dangerously close to the 2nm wall, this push for things like fake frames and ai learning to make up the difference will only lead to a crash in the market, look at modern gaming, most people aren't playing the newest games anymore, they are playing games from 5+ years ago, the power to performance is not there yet the costs keep increasing because we need a new gpu every year and that let's them get away without optimizing their games.

I firmly believe that gpu's need to last periods about half of a console cycle's life, the constant push forward will only lead us to disaster.

Oh for sure i agree with you regarding GPUs lasting longer, and heck when i got a card, i would keep it clean and try to get as much use out of it as possible.

Regarding your comments and the overarching problem. Again agreed, we are in a rescission, and companies are not adjusting to it, instead aiming for where the profit is and not adjusting to existing market trends related to older customers.

Tricks like artificial scarcity comes to mind here, in that you keep demand up if you limit supply, but that only effects people who buy year on year. Another problem i see is the inflation of false data metrics related to company rep, as data analytics is supposed to show truth in things ("the data does not lie"), but this is a fallacy, as all too often companies pay lobbyists to penetrate forums and social media to do just that thing, and spur peoples opinion to assure company rep and value to some extent, and this does nothing by cause pollution in quality of data, as noted.

Again good points, we need more people chiming in from all qualities of life to give their perspectives here, we need to continue to work this problem!

 

[Graves Ruinwalker]

I liked , loved and hated companies but i ever made me depending on them .
I understood early that fanboying is absolutly stupid but you cant be neutral to everything because when theres passion , there are emotions attached to it and we getting defensive of our favourite stuff .

But abusing the customer has always its limits and can lead into a turbo-demises . Look at Ubisoft for example.

While the trend-chasing brought its positives in the gaming industry to push many improvements and made franchises into huge household names , nowadays its not working anymore with its FOMO while going back into the beginnings that small successes and niche-ideas are the main-focus to establish fresh and new ideas which its the actual name of the game again . We need and almost are forced to have more variation in genres , game-designs and IPs that pushes the gameplay forward instead of generic formulas and superficially gimmicky concepts that we are called as " woke/ness " in the game-design .

The FOMO-grapple is ineffective now , we see every move they make crystal-clear and companies will learn the hard way or even vanish because of their collected backlog made out of their own failures , their ignorance and incompetence that made themselves shoot their own foot with 100% precision .

I could cheer for it while praising the videogame-crash as if its christmas on cocaine tuesday but i think this is actually a natural cause of the free-market and we should learn about it . Its not self-explanatory and we should get our priorities straight again what gaming was mainly aboutand what made us passionate towards our hobby/entertaiment . This whole phenomena isnt just the fault of the companies alone but even for the customers to let themselves slide in this whole debacle too .

We deserved the industry we get . Its never a one-sided thing .

 

[Amag0k1]

I liked , loved and hated companies but i ever made me depending on them .
I understood early that fanboying is absolutly stupid but you cant be neutral to everything because when theres passion , there are emotions attached to it and we getting defensive of our favourite stuff .

But abusing the customer has always its limits and can lead into a turbo-demises . Look at Ubisoft for example.

While the trend-chasing brought its positives in the gaming industry to push many improvements and made franchises into huge household names , nowadays its not working anymore with its FOMO while going back into the beginnings that small successes and niche-ideas are the main-focus to establish fresh and new ideas which its the actual name of the game again . We need and almost are forced to have more variation in genres , game-designs and IPs that pushes the gameplay forward instead of generic formulas and superficially gimmicky concepts that we are called as " woke/ness " in the game-design .

The FOMO-grapple is ineffective now , we see every move they make crystal-clear and companies will learn the hard way or even vanish because of their collected backlog made out of their own failures , their ignorance and incompetence that made themselves shoot their own foot with 100% precision .

I could cheer for it while praising the videogame-crash as if its christmas on cocaine tuesday but i think this is actually a natural cause of the free-market and we should learn about it . Its not self-explanatory and we should get our priorities straight again what gaming was mainly aboutand what made us passionate towards our hobby/entertaiment . This whole phenomena isnt just the fault of the companies alone but even for the customers to let themselves slide in this whole debacle too .

We deserved the industry we get . Its never a one-sided thing .

Totally agree, as consumers 100% have a part to play, but part of this is education and people being able to reflect on more then their likes alone.

We can enjoy things, we are allowed to, but we should know the inherent cost related to said enjoyment.

In the case of the consumer, it is a tug of war, a relationship of give and take with companies, that if we accept abuse, we will only get that. As the company as stated before, has incentive to get as much money as possible, and if consumers accept the abuse, then that is all we will receive.

So when do we put our food down?

When do we say enough is enough? We are already seeing changes in the market, with people out right boycotting companies and not spending as a way of voting, regardless of what review sites and new sites talk about, as that is the ultimate vote, to vote with ones wallet.

The problem, the market is evolving to counter this, and we need to continue the conversation and be active to counter act it, otherwise the technocracy will continue to evolve to further abuse, again with AI at pace, as this is what is being taught to AI in the marketing and business sector of companies to replace the workers that are within these sectors.

So while the gaming market in it's current form is definitely dieing, we need to feed in to rebuilding from the ashes and continue to work this problem.

Lets keep the conversation going, all welcome. Lets work this problem!

 

[miguk]

So when do we put our food down?

When do we say enough is enough?

Likely when we can't afford to pay for games anymore. That'll be soon enough, and not because of anything the gaming industry did (at least, not directly).

 

[Amag0k1]

Edit: meant foot not food, sorry for the typo.

Likely when we can't afford to pay for games anymore. That'll be soon enough, and not because of anything the gaming industry did (at least, not directly).

Would you say that will be when the market will end? When things get completely burnt down in it's current state?

I know part of this is energy demands on things like AI and machine learning, which is pushing cost of energy up. And while related, a topic for another time potentially.

If this happens, i know there will be marketers who state piracy is the problem, but i always see piracy as an access issue, and it does nothing for the bottom line, if said IP is no longer being traded, unless the IP value is the aim, but then that could be a conversion about Intellectual Property hording? But then we can bring this back and look at the scalper argument.

This is good, this is opening it up more, lets keep it going! We can find a solution, we just have to keep working this.

 

[miguk]

Edit: meant foot not food, sorry for the typo.


Would you say that will be when the market will end? When things get completely burnt down in it's current state?

If this happens, i know there will be marketers who state piracy is the problem, but i always see piracy as an access issue, and it does nothing for the bottom line, if said IP is no longer being traded, unless the IP value is the aim, but then that could be a conversion about Intellectual Property hording? But then we can bring this back and look at the scalper argument.

This is good, this is opening it up more, lets keep it going! We can find a solution, we just have to keep working this.

Eh, we'll be putting our food down soon enough, too.

No, nobody with half a brain is going to blame piracy. Economists and business analysts have already said that the Switch 2 is likely to fail in the US because the price of all electronics are going to balloon before it launches. Everyone in the industry knows this, everyone paying attention knows this, and its been in the news so much that only lunatics will blame piracy. And the rest of the gaming industry will suffer along with Nintendo with the possible exception of Steam.

Can't really comment on that further, as per forum rules. But if you do anything that involves purchasing electronics and the like, you should know that this is what is projected to happen soon.