• gerryflap@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for legislation to fix scummy practices in areas where something is essential, i.e. transport, connectivity, food, etc. Or to counter predatory practices like gambling or lootboxes that prey on addicts or children. But in this case I feel like it’d be a bit too much. Nobody needs WoW, nor is it really (in my opinion) preying on addicts in the same way as gambling or lootboxes. If enough people are willing to pay such a ridiculous amount of money, then apparently this is really the value.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ‘Exploiting people over nothing important is better, actually’ is a weird take.

        ‘If it sells it can’t be wrong’ is just fucking awful.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Business model. Legislating the fucking business model.

        Jesus fuck, what is it about this industry that makes people flip out about any sort of consumer protection? You know this is fucked up. You know “just don’t buy it!” will never help. What other possible solution do you imagine, besides telling companies to just sell a product, without any exorbitant double-dipping?

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know this is fucked up.

          I don’t see the issue to be honest. It’s three days… How is it substantially different from somebody waiting 3 months for the price to go down even more? What are you protecting against?

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t see the issue to be honest.

            I think it’s fine too, for the general case of video games. If someone wants to pay some premium, several times a game’s price to get access a couple days or a week early, I mean, I sure as hell am not going to pay it, but if some people do and are willing to bear a larger portion of the development costs, fine. It’s not like I would have noticed or cared if a game’s release date was a week later. Besides, I’m going to wait for reviews to come out anyway.

            I’ll also add that I’m not gonna get “premium” editions with some plastic doodads or artbooks or whatever, but there are clearly people who are willing to do that. If a game publisher wants to make the offer and someone else is willing to accept, I mean, okay, whatever makes them happy.

            That being said, WoW is an MMO, and that does introduce different dynamics. I don’t play it, so I don’t know the specifics there. Like, a guild cannot play together if all of its members aren’t together at the same time, and maybe that puts pressure on all the members to buy early. It also sounds like there are some self-imposed challenges to try to be the first person to do various things, and I guess that there could be a pay-to-win element in that sense. Frankly, I don’t find doing that sort of thing to be much fun, but I suppose for people who do, maybe it’d be an issue. Maybe there’s something specific to WoW that makes it matter more than a typical video game there.

            I think that in general, a lot of video game players would be a lot happier if they obsessed less about getting things exactly on release dates. I mean, the patientgamers crowd waits for at least a year before they look at a game. I wouldn’t go quite that far myself, but they still have fun playing games.

            • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              WoW has historically worked on a daily limit to progression model for the endgame, so the 3 day early access is potentially a 3 day permanent boost for the people who buy it. I would imagine competitive raiders going for world first and “clearing hard difficulty versions of raids while they’re current content” achievements and their related rewards will be essentially mandated to buy it.

              As for gamers obsessing over things at launch, I wish it were different, but I think of it like movies or TV shows. If you go and watch a movie a year after it came out, nobody is gonna be talking about it anymore. And for some people, that social buzz around a new piece of media is half the fun. Playing a game and talking about it with your friends, the sense of discovery finding things out before you can just look it up on some wiki site, etc.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Runescape’s real-money transactions should absolutely be illegal.

              The fact they had to limit people to spending thousands of dollars per week - for fucking Runescape - is a giant flashing red light. In no universe is any public MMO worth ten thousand dollars per year. But that’s the kind of spending all games with real-money charges actively pursue.

              If we allow this to continue there will be nothing else.

              • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think we need laws to stop a few oil barons from risking it all in the wildy, you’re proposing such stupid overregulation lol. these are literally non issues

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A few–?!

                  This is becoming EVERY GAME. Silent Hill has a battle pass! Silent Hill does not have battles! All of that shit is just lootboxes plus excuses. People finally recognize lootboxes are abusive nonsense. But all that’s changed is how they’re presented, so people can go, well, that was bad, but this is completely different slightly!

                  And all it takes to stop that from infecting the entire industry, is - stop charging real money, inside video games. A thing that was barely conceivable, fifteen years ago, when the industry was neither small nor broke. This grift takes in billions of dollars per year. Largely from children. And if you care as little about kids as I do - it’s also fucking up the entire medium of video games. Again: this is becoming every game. Nothing modern is safe. You can’t even reliably stay away, because it gets shoved into games, after people bought them.

                  If we allow this to continue, there will be nothing else. Only legislation will fix this.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            ‘How is an order of magnitude substantially different?’ is not a question I know how to answer without vulgarity.

            • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, but presumably the order of magnitude (waiting substantially longer) would be worse but you’re arguing the opposite… Why is waiting longer for a price cut better?

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ohhh, that’s a completely different angle than I thought you were going for.

                It’s still ridiculous, though.

                Price drops exist to encourage new people to pay. People who would not otherwise buy the thing, buy the thing. But - anyone who pays an exorbitant amount up-front, for a game with a monthly subscription, three days early, was fucking obviously going to buy the thing, full-price, day-of. This is just gouging. This is seeing how little they can offer, in exchange for completely arbitrary quantities of money.

                If they offered a sliding scale where the price doubles for every extra day of early access - some addict with more money than sense may well drop tens thousand dollars, for an extra week. Which is obviously fucking nonsense. Please tell me you understand price and value are different concepts, and they can align, or they can not. Ten thousand dollars for one week of a game that costs ten dollars a month is complete absurdity, rivaled only by games charging more than the price of the entire full-price game for some stupid item inside that game.

                That exploitation of irrational decision-making doesn’t begin at ten thousand dollars. Smaller-scale abuses of it are not better… just lesser.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Try this on for size. Split them up, make them worker owned, or strip their IP and open source it. Send a message that anti consumer behavior is dangerous - that your investments could go to zero.

        Blizzard and Activision stood up there at the ftc and promised their merger would lead to better products at better prices for customers. Their customers overwhelmingly disagree. Microsoft and Activision/Blizzard said the same. It’s all worse and more expensive.

        Companies exist for people, not the other way around. They don’t have rights, they don’t have feelings, and if we do nothing everything we love will turn to shit.

        We’re in the endgame. Companies are cannibalizing themselves and each other to desperately extend their profit growth for one more quarter. Not to mention, they do that by squeezing their customers just a little harder from all sides

        We need rules and boundaries to the game, or this becomes the only workable playstyle for the board of every publicly traded corporation. We’re going to crash - we’ve colonized the whole world (or at least every place with resources highly profitable to extract). The rate of growth can’t increase - new markets and technologies will open up areas for growth now and then, but certainly not quarterly. Cannibalizing existing industries is going pretty damn fast, and either we stop it now or we stop it once everything is terrible and our technology sucks.

        Either way, we’re going to have to tackle climate change and inequality…

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem to be ranting about something else entirely, we’re talking about an announced price for a game

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure. See, im not gonna buy this game, and Im gonna still have my $90 dollars.

              Someone else who does want that early access for $90 will get what they want.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not even you voting with your wallet. That’s just you not buying a thing because it’s too expensive. That’s an example of price elasticity

                Voting with your wallet is this flawed concept that consumers can control companies through individuals boycotting their products.

                For example, I uninstalled hearthstone and quit Blizzard along with many others back when they let China censor a US esports player who commented on Hong Kong protests. But now I wouldn’t buy anyways, because their games suck and their payment schemes are obscene

                All they know is they lost n customers in that time period, and failed to recover m

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s just you not buying a thing because it’s too expensive.

                  yeah, that’s what Im doing. I am not hurt in anyway by not buying this thing, no one is making me buy it. That is an option for literally everyone, no one has to buy it. Im not a protesting activist trying to change Blizzard, Im simply not affected by this. The only people that are, are people that want to pay $90 for early access. If they dont want to, nobody is making them.

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah, that’s fine. I’m also not interested, because i don’t play wow anymore

                    But the phrase “voting with your wallet” is a term loaded with a narrative to justify everything under capitalism, from anti-consumer behaviors to blaming working people for climate change. Neoconservatives and Libertarians use the idea for how deregulation and privitization is the solution to everything

                    You don’t seem to believe in that nonsense, so I’d encourage you to not use the phrase

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So wait, are developers supposed to labor for free then? I’m not sure how that’s even close to being feasible in any scenario.

            • Chozo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You literally said “no recurring costs” (subscription) and “no up-front costs” (price). I’m not sure what other takeaway I was supposed to have from that comment.

              Either way, it still sounds like you’re expecting developers to work for free, so that you can play video games without paying for them. That’s a really weird sense of entitlement, imo.

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                No recurring costs FOR PRODUCTS.

                No up-front fees FOR SERVICES.

                Jesus! This subject invites the most aggressively poor reading comprehension of any topic on the internet.

                My entire fucking argument is JUST SELL GAMES, and people will bend over inside-out to find some way to scoff ‘you want it for free.’ Because apparently that’s the only position you’re prepared to deal with, y’might as well pretend that’s what’s happening.

                • Chozo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I really don’t understand what difference “products” or “services” is supposed to make in this argument, though. Many games these days are a service, a fact which is inherently true for an MMO like WoW. MMOs require active and ongoing development and support in order to function. That’s just the nature of that type of game.

                  If you want single-player, offline games that only require a one-time purchase, those still exist. But WoW is not that game, and has no intention to ever be, nor do the players have any expectation that it would operate in such a manner.

                  Maybe instead of getting defensive, you could just clarify wtf you’re talking about, or at least take into consideration the context of live-service games, which is what this discussion is specifically about.