Morkonan wrote: ↑Fri, 3. May 19, 05:47
"The Problem: A "gamer economy" that isn't structured around consumer demand, but instead constructed by what suppliers want to supply." - That's what I wrote.
I know, and I don't think I have been responding to anything differently?
Sure, the suppliers can always try to promote "new" stuffs, the point I'm making here is that doesn't mean the buy had no choice but to buy it. And that's not even a "gamer economy", that's just economy. Before the vacuum was invented, were there a demand specifically for a "vacumm"? But once it's out there, holy crap everyone want one. Because even if it haven't been given form or name, a desire for a piece of hardware that's functioning like a vacuum must have existed in the consumer mind. On the other hand,
the Vacuum Beauty Healmet somehow fail to achieve similar popularity.
In fact, what "isn't structured around consumer demand" even means?
If the consumers accept the product, that means there has always been a demand, maybe it haven't been tapped before, but it has to be there. Because if there isn't an actually demand exist in the first place, than a supply is completely meaningless, no? Try to find new potential market, try to find tabbed demand, try to predict the next big thing, that's just Business 101.
Morkonan wrote: ↑Fri, 3. May 19, 05:47
How much demand was there for Steam clients before... Steam? See past the obvious, here, as I'm not just talking "innovation." There were plenty of other online delivery services before and during Steam's formation. What did Steam effectively do? Well, it did everything "more betterer" than everyone else because it sold itself vigorously to
all developers. These days, you hardly ever even see a game "box" anywhere. What did we gain? What did we lose? How many great game manuals do you run across, these days, even though it's easier and cheaper to produce a .pdf than print one?
See above, this can be explained with the vacuum analogy above. But I'll add a bit more:
I feel like you're making my argument for me, because isn't that exactly what I'm saying? Why does this game capture the players, and other games doesn't why they both MMO and asked for $15/months? Why does Steam success while other had failed? I think you're trying to navigate the arguments through little technical detail, my argument is simpler: the consumer choose one service over another, that is all. I would think the valid counter argument to what I am saying is IF you can find pattern and examples
where the market are willingly to pay more for actual inferior services. Otherwise, my point about it's capable of curating itself stand. Thank you for your upstanding concern ... but I don't think it is necessary.
Not sure what your "big brother" comment means. I'm promoting gamers making a stand for or against specific things they want or don't want in video games by voting with their wallet.
And like I said, people have ALWAYS voted with their wallet. In fact, I never really understand why that statement became a thing in the first place, it's completely meaningless. Whether people buy a game or not buying a game, they castes a vote either way. It serves nothing else but a narrative of implying something that is not true. It's something specifically used by the people who want to boycott a game, but I'm asking what do they mean specifically when they say "vote with your wallet" on a forum, people ALREADY and ALWAYS votes.
But.. we can't always know that, can we? And, in some cases, detailing just how critical microtransactions are for the players experience is NOT something video game devs/producers like to give up information on, is it?
I'm not interested to know though ...
I'm saying that, given enough money and time and market segment (which they have already right now), consumers in the market will be moved to what the producers want to produce and the smart producers will know how to get them to "like it."
And I don't see that as a problem. Again, isn't Apple's motto is "they will tell you what you need before you know you need it?" And while I never buy Apple stuffs myself (because I consider them to be overprice), I'll be happy to use their product if someone give it to me for free. And the reason I classify their stuffs as overprice is sorely due to my own habit:
- I can only enjoy music when appropriately sit down in a quiet room, immersing myself in it. So something like an Ipod is fairly useless to me.
- I'm competent enough to do all I need without issue or making a mess with my PC, so there is no reason for me to pay twice the price for a MAC.
- I'm not a widget/gadget guy, so even if you give me an Ipad, I won't know exactly what I want to do it with it.
But hey, other people who are opposite to me in those regard ... if they find the asking price of Apple product ... I won't accuse them of being stupid for paying to much for a product. And my belief of them being overprice does not prevent me from admitting a lot of their invention has greatly changed modern habit. Before the Ipod was invented, nobody thought they need one, now it seems everyone have one .. but is that necessary a bad thing?
Wait, what makes that historically factual stuff? Because it's the name of the article? Before I go further though, let's me ask you this question Mork: if we're doing a post motem on why a product had failed, let's say we even put aside the question of which is "right" and which is "wrong". Whose input you think is more valuable: the consumer's opinion on why did the product fail, or the producer's reason for why the product fail?
I am a founder player of SW:TOR, basically a day one player. Do you know when I left it? I still remember it till this day, the day I pulled the plug: it was a Sunday morning that I logged in and realized I was the only player left on the entire server - Requiescat in pace. I wouldn't go as far as claiming my opinion as the absolute truth, but I can say on great authority that I knew what the game was lacking, I knew what I and thousand of die hard fans were asking to turn the game around at the time. I won't bother with the detail but ... I'll just pull out one quote from that article :
The game didn’t do as well as EA hoped because they wanted to unseat the king (WoW) with the same product instead of leaning into what BioWare was great at.”
And that is just wrong. If anything, SW:TOR was as Bioware as a MMO can possibly be, I can't recalled a single argument from back then that the game was failing because it wasn't Bioware enough, if anything it was the opposite, it was TOO Bioware for what people usually look for in an MMO. But I guess it's easier to put the blame at EA's feet. Now, I'm sure they played a part in the fail direction the game took, but what this Daniel Erickson fellow said is pretty far from the truth, or at the very least, pretty far from the opinion of the actual player based at the time believe why the game failed. In fact, after the game was resurrected as a F2P, I came back and played the shit out of it again, why? Because it's one of the best and grandest Bioware experience you can get ... and now you can have it for free!!
And even then, it doesn't matter at all, like I said, all that's really matter is the game did fail. THAT's the irrefutable historical factual part. For whatever reason it is, despite the massive investment the market passed the verdict that the game was lacking, people can be free to argue was lacking specifically, that's simply secondary concern from the market perspective.. The point I'm making was the market was fully capable of making that decision and not getting hypno into accepting an insufficient product.
I didn't say they'd succeed as long as they try, yet you presented that as my argument and then said such a statement was "a historically and factually false assumption." Well, I congratulate you on making such a massively flawed statement, then. Impressive!
Which is why I didn't completely pin it on you, I specifically left room for doubt if you had read more carefully.
But the way you're forming your argument, it almost like you suggest they will success as long as they try. Which is again, is a historically and factually false assumption.
Just like with the "You're aware FF is on that list", I can only interpret your intention as how it came across from me. And if it's not correct, perhaps you can just provide further clarification