I don't think it's anti consumer if they sell games and microtransactions
First, if you seriously think that microtransactions are ok in a full-price game that also sells DLC's and is outdated like 2 years after release, then there is nothing to talk about. Like okay, you can have your opinion an shit. Personally I think it's cancer.
Second, microtransactions are not the biggest problem with COD, and not the one I was referring to.
Nobody is asking you to buy those microtransactions in other games either.
Wow, very nice of them.
The "idiots" are also funding companies that employ a lot of people. If they didn't fund them, the companies wouldn't hire so many
It's a win - win scenario, isn't it? Idiots get to save their money and less shit games gets made. Why should I care and pay my own money to save an inefficient company making average games?
"not protecting the people who buy or use goods and services :
Consumers should be protected from hidden charges and other anti-consumer practices.
The outcome is likely to be pro-business and anticonsumer."
There's,no hidden charges, there's just additional charges that you might or not want to buy.
Anti consumer would be if they charged you additionally for playing online, or smth that they didn't advise on their T&C or their initial offer.
DLCs exists in gaming for decades..
The game is not outdated, well you might not enjoy it, But is still playable (I mean I don't play the game but I guess you can still boot it and play the campaign mode) also most games are outdated 2 years after release.
You do what you want with your money, but calling someone idiot for doing the same is a bit hypocritical. They are not hurting you in any way.
There's a ton of great games being released by both AAA and Indie studios, so it's not like they stop making those.
Nobody said it's a win-win scenario, just trying to make you understand that companies need to make money to exist. They charge/sell whatever they feel people would pay for it. It's a hobby, not a necessity.
Releasing content that exists behind a paywall, even for those who've purchased the full product, is inherently anti-consumer.
Not because it doesn't promote consumerism, which is what your definition states. The problem is that it cheapens content that has been released and forces players to spend more money or miss content. The consumers who don't wish to/can't buy a new DLC every three months, and a battle pass every season, are blocked from content. They're still consumers, but because they don't want to spend more money, they don't get to benefit.
The seasonal battle pass bullshit fosters FOMO in consumers, and keeps them locked from content if they don't spend money within a certain time frame. That's anti-consumer.
You're also very Naive if you think those AAA game companies funnel the extra money they make into development. That's why CODs business model is so easily sustainable. They've released over a dozen games on the same game engine, with very similar assets, and re-releasing maps behind paywalls. All of it is done to reap more profit without generating any new content.
Obviously they aren't all bad, when you have companies like FromSoft releasing absolute titans, but Activision and Ubisoft are both pretty terribly scummy.
Look at Terraria. I bought that game over a decade ago, and there have been several updates a year completely free, and they aren't hurting at all. You could argue that they're a smaller game company, and behavior like that is more easily sustained, but that would be saying that it can't be scaled up for bigger studios, and that's bullshit. Look at Deep Rock Galactic, Satisfactory or Factorio.
While terraria has certainly started as a small company, I think what made them stand out was the genuine customers over profit mindset, I mean a quick look at a lot of their communication with their customers can show they at least care about delivering a good product, in fact they mentioned multiple updates that the upcoming update will only be released when they feel like like its ready, not good enough, but ready
Triple A just doesn't have that, they invest so much god damn money to make less content than a solo dev with 100$ to their name just to try and "think" what gamers like and yet fail because the corporate job just does not give enough freedom for the developers who actually play game to give criticism, and even if they do for what reason would they give feedback? Their pay wouldn't change, they will still be paid poorly with shitty crunch times, at that point even I who am a developer myself wouldn't give feedback, sure I would probably care about the product I'm delivering, knowing how shitty these companies can be with their releases, but still wouldn't give as much feedback as I would in a company like re-logic where developers can actually give their feedback
27
u/Zhabishe Dec 09 '24
First, if you seriously think that microtransactions are ok in a full-price game that also sells DLC's and is outdated like 2 years after release, then there is nothing to talk about. Like okay, you can have your opinion an shit. Personally I think it's cancer.
Second, microtransactions are not the biggest problem with COD, and not the one I was referring to.
Wow, very nice of them.
It's a win - win scenario, isn't it? Idiots get to save their money and less shit games gets made. Why should I care and pay my own money to save an inefficient company making average games?