[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the reason its relevant is that entire point exploitation of a natural disaster is that the victims dont have a choice. A video game you dont HAVE to play.
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.
Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.
'cash shop apologists'?
seriously guys just play games that dont have it.
I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.
Bait...and...switch.
for example lets say you are watching a movie or a TV show, sure you can force the creator to make some changes but in the end you would be better off watching a show where the artist understands already because if the artist doesnt understand they will likely create a new fuck up and another one and another one and another one.
you cant force a person to be good at what they do. You can force them to do something, you cant force them to be GOOD at it.
its the argument that output is always better when the person doing it is very good at it and very engaged in it by desire. you cant force that
The entire gaming industry is moving to dubious revenue practices. First it was cash shops in MMOs, they should what the companies could get away with. Then mobiles reinforced the idea, we can milk them till the cash cows come home. Now we see this in more and more multiplayer releases of any kind. So you can't choose and avoid this.
This is not about creators, originators, artists, developers. It is about the CEO's, the marketing team, the business team. They are doing a good job, a good job of fleecing players. They are the people we are trying to make sit up and listen.
Players have won this battle for a Star Wars game to have fairer revenue methods. But we have yet to see what they will come up to replace what they have had to roll back. One victory does not win a war.
Here is where I find confusion.
I play games, I play a lot of games (less so now to be honest) and I have never in my 34 years of gaming ever had a game that had a loot box or a cash shop or at least not one I ever saw. AND...I dont even try to avoid games with lootboxes and cash shops, it just so happens that the games I like dont have them
So if I can do it without even trying why cant others do it with effort. I can help.
Naming a game where they used to have loot boxes and now they don't is a like naming a MMO that used to have a cash shop but does not now. This is one direction Sean, sure it is not everywhere now but just like cash shops took over MMOs loot boxes and other gambling systems are taking over the whole of gaming.
what?
I have never played a game that once had a loot box and now does not.
what the fuck are you talking about?
ME: Never played a game that has a loot box YOU (example): I play games with loot boxes and I hate them, I am the victim ME: want to consider games I play? YOU (example): oh hell no I dont even want to explore that path because I want to be the victim, just give me a second and I will come up with a reason as to why its hopeless and I am still the victim. but whatever I come up with, I will make sure it doesnt involve any solution.
eye roll
you would rather be the victim and complain about games you play having loot boxes instead of playing games that dont have loot boxes because they MIGHT have them in the future.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Thank god for those developers that love games and love to make them to be played by fellow gamers. Most development now is done only to make money and not to make quality FUN games that do not intrude or exclude upon content.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
As everyone screams for regulation you do not think that in the future steps will be made between companies and governments to "protect" the internet...
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
As everyone screams for regulation you do not think that in the future steps will be made between companies and governments to "protect" the internet...
lets look at this logically for a second.
The number of single player /private server games as dramatically increased in numbers from the past.
That of course means that each year there are MORE single player / private server games being released each year then in the past. MORE.
So why do we think MORE single player / private server games is evidence that games as a service will take over?
its logical (in my mind) to see that its likely to be a mixture.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
As everyone screams for regulation you do not think that in the future steps will be made between companies and governments to "protect" the internet...
lets look at this logically for a second.
The number of single player /private server games as dramatically increased in numbers from the past.
That of course means that each year there are MORE single player / private server games being released each year then in the past. MORE.
So why do we think MORE single player / private server games is evidence that games as a service will take over?
its logical (in my mind) to see that its likely to be a mixture.
You think they can not charge "service fees" for a single player game...look at the music industry. As to private servers. If you legit ones can go down just as fast as big company ones and can be out priced by companies. Illegal ones will soon be facing the same issues trading digital music did and will be taken care of by governments "protecting" people and businesses modifying their business models to make the service they provide better or safer from prosecution than the illegal sites. Wait till new laws come out that if you connect to an illegal server you can be charged with a crime.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
As everyone screams for regulation you do not think that in the future steps will be made between companies and governments to "protect" the internet...
lets look at this logically for a second.
The number of single player /private server games as dramatically increased in numbers from the past.
That of course means that each year there are MORE single player / private server games being released each year then in the past. MORE.
So why do we think MORE single player / private server games is evidence that games as a service will take over?
its logical (in my mind) to see that its likely to be a mixture.
You think they can not charge "service fees" for a single player game...look at the music industry. As to private servers. If you legit ones can go down just as fast as big company ones and can be out priced by companies. Illegal ones will soon be facing the same issues trading digital music did and will be taken care of by governments "protecting" people and businesses modifying their business models to make the service they provide better or safer from prosecution than the illegal sites. Wait till new laws come out that if you connect to an illegal server you can be charged with a crime.
they 'can' sure. They can also send in the army and have us all shot.
CAN is not important, what is important is to look at the patterns and try to guess what is likely without an enormous bias toward doom.
EDIT: I see what your asking, you asking me if I understand that its technically possible with single player games. I see what your getting at and my take is that single player gamers are not intrested in subscription based gaming.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
As everyone screams for regulation you do not think that in the future steps will be made between companies and governments to "protect" the internet...
lets look at this logically for a second.
The number of single player /private server games as dramatically increased in numbers from the past.
That of course means that each year there are MORE single player / private server games being released each year then in the past. MORE.
So why do we think MORE single player / private server games is evidence that games as a service will take over?
its logical (in my mind) to see that its likely to be a mixture.
You think they can not charge "service fees" for a single player game...look at the music industry. As to private servers. If you legit ones can go down just as fast as big company ones and can be out priced by companies. Illegal ones will soon be facing the same issues trading digital music did and will be taken care of by governments "protecting" people and businesses modifying their business models to make the service they provide better or safer from prosecution than the illegal sites. Wait till new laws come out that if you connect to an illegal server you can be charged with a crime.
You can listen to just about all the the music you want legally and its free.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Maybe you intend to cry about it, but I honestly don't care.
Clearly you don't understand what games as a service refers to, since you're assuming subscriptions would be the norm.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Maybe you intend to cry about it, but I honestly don't care.
Clearly you don't understand what games as a service refers to, since you're assuming subscriptions would be the norm.
ok lets review that a second
I intend to cry because I think there is more single player games now then ever before and I think the chance of gaming as a service taking over the entire industry is highly unlikely
but your the opposimist?
ok whatever
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Maybe you intend to cry about it, but I honestly don't care.
Clearly you don't understand what games as a service refers to, since you're assuming subscriptions would be the norm.
ok lets review that a second
I intend to cry because I think there is more single player games now then ever before and I think the chance of gaming as a service taking over the entire industry is highly unlikely
but your the opposimist?
ok whatever
The point is you're being dramatic about other people being dramatic.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Maybe you intend to cry about it, but I honestly don't care.
Clearly you don't understand what games as a service refers to, since you're assuming subscriptions would be the norm.
ok lets review that a second
I intend to cry because I think there is more single player games now then ever before and I think the chance of gaming as a service taking over the entire industry is highly unlikely
but your the opposimist?
ok whatever
The point is you're being dramatic about other people being dramatic.
ok well thanks for sharing!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the reason its relevant is that entire point exploitation of a natural disaster is that the victims dont have a choice. A video game you dont HAVE to play.
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
I just explained to you exactly what it meant, and that I was being facetious and now you're telling me what it meant. You are daft AF. The question is if it's on purpose or a personality flaw.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the reason its relevant is that entire point exploitation of a natural disaster is that the victims dont have a choice. A video game you dont HAVE to play.
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
I just explained to you exactly what it meant, and that I was being facetious and now you're telling me what it meant. You are daft AF. The question is if it's on purpose or a personality flaw.
the reason I highlighted your comparison is because people in a natural disaster do not have a choice. that is what makes the exploitation work.
Video games you have a choice.
the comparsion doesnt work well.
read it three times if you have to
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. This is something you never seem to be able to grasp!
It is about what the developers / publishers can get away with!
So, sure, single player gamers don't want to pay subscriptions. however, we are already at a point where single player gamers are forced to use an internet connection. We are all already tied into steam / gog / humble / xbox live / psn etc. Some of these already charge us, even if we only ever play single player games.
The next step is subscriptions that give you access to a library of games. EA already offer this through EA Access and I'm sure there are other services out there. Pay EA $4.99pm and you can play 50 games from them without having to buy them.
The following step is software as a service - the gaming equivalent of netflix. So, hand over a subscription and get access to tons of games, but this time you don't need to download and install, you just stream over the net. Again, this has already been tried on a few occasions (http://onlive.com/) but hasn't yet been successful for a variety of reasons.
Now, there will always be an appetite for games that you install on a physical machine. PC gamers like spending money on top rigs, they like modding games, they like being in control. But, if enough people switch to a streaming service then dedicated games will become an endangered species.
I can easily envisage a future where your TV does everything. No more xboxs, playstations or gaming PCs. You buy a 4k smart TV that comes installed with netflix, amazon prime, hulu, plus whatever game streaming apps become successful. Connect your wireless mouse and keyboard, sign in to your services and off you go. No more buying games, no more waiting for downloads and installs. All entertainment instantly on demand.
I'm completely ambivalent about such a future. On the one hand, I love the idea of all my entertainment being instantly available on demand. I'm already there with music (thanks spotify) and I'm already there with tv/films (thanks netflix and amazon). Getting there with games is a natural next step, and part of me could do without the hassle of fiddling with graphics options to reach optimum performance, or getting angry when I have to download an update. I could also do without the expense of upgrading my PC!
On the other hand, I am a PC gamer at heart. Whilst I hate the expense, I love building new rigs and seeing the improved performance. I enjoy modding games. I like the exclusivity of certain PC games. I also love the choice - as long as I can run the game, I'm free to buy it and play it. A switch to streaming games will curtail some of these activities - like, what if the service I subscribe to doesn't include GTAV? Or what if the only way to play XCOM 2 was to subscribe to a particular service?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the reason its relevant is that entire point exploitation of a natural disaster is that the victims dont have a choice. A video game you dont HAVE to play.
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
I just explained to you exactly what it meant, and that I was being facetious and now you're telling me what it meant. You are daft AF. The question is if it's on purpose or a personality flaw.
the reason I highlighted your comparison is because people in a natural disaster do not have a choice. that is what makes the exploitation work.
Video games you have a choice.
the comparsion doesnt work well.
read it three times if you have to
Again. You are either trolling or mentally inept. It was outlined what was meant to circumvent further miscommunication. Continuing to harp on natural disaster vs loot box is you either being a simpleton or troll, more likely a little bit of both. Last word is yours.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the reason its relevant is that entire point exploitation of a natural disaster is that the victims dont have a choice. A video game you dont HAVE to play.
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
I just explained to you exactly what it meant, and that I was being facetious and now you're telling me what it meant. You are daft AF. The question is if it's on purpose or a personality flaw.
the reason I highlighted your comparison is because people in a natural disaster do not have a choice. that is what makes the exploitation work.
Video games you have a choice.
the comparsion doesnt work well.
read it three times if you have to
Again. You are either trolling or mentally inept. It was outlined what was meant to circumvent further miscommunication. Continuing to harp on natural disaster vs loot box is you either being a simpleton or troll, more likely a little bit of both. Last word is yours.
my last word is this:
The comparision is not a good one BECAUSE of the fact that exploitation during a natural disaster only works for one reason...those being exploted do not have a choice. that is the entire foundation of how that works.
Nobody is forcing you to use a lootbox in a video game
that is why the comparssion sucks donkey balls.
are we done now?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
So the comparison makes it look like people have no choice other than to buy a loot box, like they are forced to do it, they are not forced to do it.
That is where the real comparison is...face palm
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I have never played a game that once had a loot box and now does not.
what the fuck are you talking about?
ME: Never played a game that has a loot box
YOU (example): I play games with loot boxes and I hate them, I am the victim
ME: want to consider games I play?
YOU (example): oh hell no I dont even want to explore that path because I want to be the victim, just give me a second and I will come up with a reason as to why its hopeless and I am still the victim. but whatever I come up with, I will make sure it doesnt involve any solution.
eye roll
you would rather be the victim and complain about games you play having loot boxes instead of playing games that dont have loot boxes because they MIGHT have them in the future.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years.
Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Let's party like it is 1863!
The number of single player /private server games as dramatically increased in numbers from the past.
That of course means that each year there are MORE single player / private server games being released each year then in the past. MORE.
So why do we think MORE single player / private server games is evidence that games as a service will take over?
its logical (in my mind) to see that its likely to be a mixture.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You think they can not charge "service fees" for a single player game...look at the music industry. As to private servers. If you legit ones can go down just as fast as big company ones and can be out priced by companies. Illegal ones will soon be facing the same issues trading digital music did and will be taken care of by governments "protecting" people and businesses modifying their business models to make the service they provide better or safer from prosecution than the illegal sites. Wait till new laws come out that if you connect to an illegal server you can be charged with a crime.
CAN is not important, what is important is to look at the patterns and try to guess what is likely without an enormous bias toward doom.
EDIT: I see what your asking, you asking me if I understand that its technically possible with single player games. I see what your getting at and my take is that single player gamers are not intrested in subscription based gaming.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's called youtube
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Maybe you intend to cry about it, but I honestly don't care.
Clearly you don't understand what games as a service refers to, since you're assuming subscriptions would be the norm.
I intend to cry because I think there is more single player games now then ever before and I think the chance of gaming as a service taking over the entire industry is highly unlikely
but your the opposimist?
ok whatever
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Video games you have a choice.
the comparsion doesnt work well.
read it three times if you have to
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It is about what the developers / publishers can get away with!
So, sure, single player gamers don't want to pay subscriptions. however, we are already at a point where single player gamers are forced to use an internet connection. We are all already tied into steam / gog / humble / xbox live / psn etc. Some of these already charge us, even if we only ever play single player games.
The next step is subscriptions that give you access to a library of games. EA already offer this through EA Access and I'm sure there are other services out there. Pay EA $4.99pm and you can play 50 games from them without having to buy them.
The following step is software as a service - the gaming equivalent of netflix. So, hand over a subscription and get access to tons of games, but this time you don't need to download and install, you just stream over the net. Again, this has already been tried on a few occasions (http://onlive.com/) but hasn't yet been successful for a variety of reasons.
Now, there will always be an appetite for games that you install on a physical machine. PC gamers like spending money on top rigs, they like modding games, they like being in control. But, if enough people switch to a streaming service then dedicated games will become an endangered species.
I can easily envisage a future where your TV does everything. No more xboxs, playstations or gaming PCs. You buy a 4k smart TV that comes installed with netflix, amazon prime, hulu, plus whatever game streaming apps become successful. Connect your wireless mouse and keyboard, sign in to your services and off you go. No more buying games, no more waiting for downloads and installs. All entertainment instantly on demand.
I'm completely ambivalent about such a future. On the one hand, I love the idea of all my entertainment being instantly available on demand. I'm already there with music (thanks spotify) and I'm already there with tv/films (thanks netflix and amazon). Getting there with games is a natural next step, and part of me could do without the hassle of fiddling with graphics options to reach optimum performance, or getting angry when I have to download an update. I could also do without the expense of upgrading my PC!
On the other hand, I am a PC gamer at heart. Whilst I hate the expense, I love building new rigs and seeing the improved performance. I enjoy modding games. I like the exclusivity of certain PC games. I also love the choice - as long as I can run the game, I'm free to buy it and play it. A switch to streaming games will curtail some of these activities - like, what if the service I subscribe to doesn't include GTAV? Or what if the only way to play XCOM 2 was to subscribe to a particular service?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It was outlined what was meant to circumvent further miscommunication.
Continuing to harp on natural disaster vs loot box is you either being a simpleton or troll, more likely a little bit of both.
Last word is yours.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The comparision is not a good one BECAUSE of the fact that exploitation during a natural disaster only works for one reason...those being exploted do not have a choice. that is the entire foundation of how that works.
Nobody is forcing you to use a lootbox in a video game
that is why the comparssion sucks donkey balls.
are we done now?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me