Gamer Entitlement
Guest
Helldivers 2 is a funny situation altogether. Generic co-op game. Championed by PC players as some stand against Sony despite being a Sony-published game. Account linking being present in pretty much every live-service game already, but Sony is too evil to give an email address to. Valve covering their ass by banning sales of the game in a gazillion countries.

At the end of the day, most of the people who partake in games and post online are communists. It simply is what it is. We have all seen a million times, someone putting on the cloak of "I am a racist", "I am a facist", "I am based" etc. But at the end of the day, what they want is for things to be fair. Fair and square. Anyhow, I don't think it matters much. Online posters are largely failed-journos. They want people to read what they write and agree with them. Gaming was first made good by the casual buyer of interesting goods, the people who went to a store and bought something unknown because it looked cool, interesting, etc. Often these were children who asked their parents to buy something for them. The same thing probably happens now, although with less scale, because children are marketed to much more aggressively these days via the internet.

Aside from that, the older audience tends to be swayed by user reviews (now very visible in every sales platform) which is another communistic medium of critique. Even just the simple star system is enough, let alone Steam's detailed version. Gacha also suffers with this issue so there are no exceptions. I am personally enjoying a number of new games however, and in general, I think the quality today is better than it has ever been. The best titles are simply not popular, which is different compared to the SNES and PS1 days. I think the PS2 days were already like this however, although I was pretty out-of-tune with popular sentiment for that generation as well as the following two.
John II Komnenos
I've always seen gamer entitlement (and its tertiary subjects) as offshoots of several cultural undercurrents converging over the last 20 years. I'm sure several of these points have been voiced in other threads by far more articulate posts, but much of the following has weighed on my psyche whenever I examine the "gamer habitus" and its function as a social wedge.

When the 7th generation of consoles kicked off with the Xbox 360 and the following PS3, I felt a woeful sense of dread at the thought of having internet connectivity being over-incorporated into every aspect of the "gaming experience." It wasn't the idea that one would be able to engage with other players over the internet- something which had come a generation before with the Dreamcast- but rather the thought that the games themselves were now free of the constraints of development schedules and the standards which those would enforce. It was now possible- and in some cases profitable- for a game to remain in perpetual development post-release. This method of content creation has opened a Pandora's Box for both developers and players alike- the creating company can now release abysmal products under the auspice of post-release "repairs" always being available, and the players now have an ingrained expectation that there will be "Day 1 DLC." It's a form of quasi-consent and acceptance that the game that you're purchasing will be delivered unfinished and under-optimized. Compare this ethos with the development and release cycle of prior generations (once the game is on store shelves, it's done and over) and it feels like night and day. One is a complete and physical object that is a sealed and completed vision while the other is a short-term license of sorts.

That sense of "hyper connectivity" didn't just affect the companies releasing these games but the players as well. The co-op and group-oriented mentalities from earlier years seemed to evaporate overnight and now it seems that every game- no matter what it is- has to be connected at all times. I've always felt like this melding of the private and public spheres has lent to pasteurizing both opinion and experience with respect to the games themselves. You don't just enjoy the game on your own like you would with Vagrant Story, Arc the Lad, or Crash Bandicoot- you're now a part of a club (Let's get those achievements together!) and the membership is compulsory dross. For the MMO genre, it makes sense to want to be connected to as many people as possible since those games are at least designed with those experiences in mind, and as such have given rise to a unique breed of players. Outside of that very narrow window of design philosophy, the hyper connectivity seems novel at best and parasitic at worst- at least as far as interactivity goes. Some games were able to keep this relatively balanced approach where the interaction required effort (The Nintendo DS Pokemon games come to mind) but that's all been changing due to demands for more "convenience" or "exposure" on the player's part.

In my own experience, I've always enjoyed a more intimate experience with a game as both a story and artistic vision. I understand that Legend of Dragoon isn't a masterpiece, but it still possesses a singular story, mythos, and characterization that is meant for a single player to engage with. This is not to say it cannot be enjoyed en masse, but the game is very clearly built with that level of singular intimacy in mind as opposed to something far more open like Team Fortress 2 or Counterstrike. It would not make sense to incorporate "team battles" or "cross-play" with Legend of Dragoon because it would only detract from the relationships, world, and flow of events which the player would have been carefully cultivating to that point. Despite all of this, there are still normgroid voices in the "gaming community" who would cry out for some kind of constant link to other players simply for the sake of it. 

Nowadays, much of this has resulted in the marketing appeal and income that can be derived from having "influencers" tout the game. Now, everything has to be made with influencers in mind. Expect to see a gasping millennial in front of a green screen use your game logo or title in a youtube thumbnail.
anthony
John II Komnenos Wrote:In my own experience, I've always enjoyed a more intimate experience with a game as both a story and artistic vision. I understand that Legend of Dragoon isn't a masterpiece, but it still possesses a singular story, mythos, and characterization that is meant for a single player to engage with. This is not to say it cannot be enjoyed en masse, but the game is very clearly built with that level of singular intimacy in mind as opposed to something far more open like Team Fortress 2 or Counterstrike. It would not make sense to incorporate "team battles" or "cross-play" with Legend of Dragoon because it would only detract from the relationships, world, and flow of events which the player would have been carefully cultivating to that point. Despite all of this, there are still normgroid voices in the "gaming community" who would cry out for some kind of constant link to other players simply for the sake of it. 

Nowadays, much of this has resulted in the marketing appeal and income that can be derived from having "influencers" tout the game. Now, everything has to be made with influencers in mind. Expect to see a gasping millennial in front of a green screen use your game logo or title in a youtube thumbnail.

I see this as the greatest harm done by the internet to art and media in general. Everything is effectively online now. I can of course just not engage with that, but younger people I think are genuinely losing a feel for solitary appreciation. Even when old games are revived it's because He/Himzel made a damn video about it and people want to lo-fi live in the freaking moment with him. His video is now on the front page of the Lain-PS1 game recreation website. The Lain PS1 game is to most people looking at it today a subordinate piece of Hazel-media.

Now I can still enjoy things myself. Where this really becomes a problem for me is that the industry sees and responds to this stuff. That dumb asshole Sphere Hunter is why world leading skills and time are wasted fernmaking Resident Evil 4. Resident Evil is now a community of dumb faggots who watch youtube videos. As I'm sure I've said before in various places, remakes are about giving people a sense of being there for some big event in relation to an IP. You missed the formative events of the community, but you can be here for new (lol) equally formative and important ones. You know they're equal because this one is also called 'Resident Evil 4'. You're just like Sphere Hunter and Hazel now. You were there for the release of something called Resident Evil 4. And you reacted to it just right because the gasping millennials told you how to feel about it.

What a waste of time.

Anyway what I actually came here to post, came across a sort of greed story by chance. A good example of how these things can work in practice. And how different that is to what people actually think happens. Chris Heatherly, one of the Club Penguin creators, saw a viral shitthread on twitter by a copywriter about Hollywood GREED, and used this as a prompt to talk about his own experiences with Disney.

[Image: image.png]

Is this GREED? Kind of yes, but not in the sense people are primed to understand it in gaming. Really this is American, more particularly Jewish economics. This is the stuff that made Ezra Pound a fascist. This is what Ford wanted to stop. This is what Japanese economics is built around disincentivising as hard as possible for obvious reasons. This is why I tell people to read the first half of 'Princes of the Yen' in threads about Capitalism and video games (until I banned for "derailment").

The names in this piece are important. Ike Perlmutter is not your friend. He throws artists and creators (in the literal sense, people who actually make things. Not media parasites) under the bus for his own short term gains. The man who should have run Disney according to Heatherly (white) was Tom Staggs (does he sound Jewish?).

Greed should not really incentivise much destruction. Greed does not suggest evil. It suggests expediency and selfishness. Making something very successful can be very expedient and selfish. It's a very peculiar arrangement of incentives that makes it expedient and self-serving to kill something successful. I have heard of similar cases to this. Variations on new manager types being brought in to clean up an operation, and just gutting it to make things look good on paper and then leaving. What do we call the forces and trends which enable this? It strikes me as something halfway between Soviet bureaucratic insanity and Jewish short-sighted parasitic scam-economics. Is this what anybody means when they talk about Capitalism? Is the problem here people acting expediently and selfishly? To some extent yes, Perlmutter probably is a terrible person. But if this is even conceivable a lot has surely gone wrong beforehand.

This was one of the last things I posted on Agora Road.

Erika
Anthony Wrote:People will be calling the Dreamcast the "Blue Sky" machine and saying it was all about just living in the freaking moment and lo-fi'ing your penis off.

The use of "lo-fi" here is I think quite a significant evolution in language. Saying that one has 'PSX'ed" or "Liminal space'd" his penis off might get at the the same thing, but neither are as clear a parallel as "lo-fi". Lo-fi is low fidelity, and with regards to this particular context it means low fidelity video games (PS1, N64 and Dreamcast especially). The "low fidelity" elements of these games are the result of limited hardware and crucially, are universally marginal elements of these games that played no part in their reason for existing. Yes, they considered them during the process of actually building the game. They had certain tools and worked with rather than against them. But again, marginal. Silent Hill wasn't a texture chitter low res fogborne why bad graphics make horror games scariervanialike, it was <fantastic> Japanese people looking at American horror novels (and films) and going where they pleased with them. People like Johanes might be able to see this truth after watching a 2 hour long video essay reading off every single behind the scenes factoid. But he has a general problem with truth and not being a faggot so it ultimately means nothing to him. And because Johanas is a giant faggot, looking at these Japanese video games is going to paint a nauseating self portrait obviously at odds with the original thing. When talking about it, looking to others talking about it, and creating his own, it only makes sense for him to focus on and elevate the marginal element which exist on the peripheries of truth. Having to actually confront the truth of these things would put him down the path of acknowledging that the world which created these American horror novels, or whatever equivalent thing is melting away. He would have to confront his entire perception of reality being a nightmare. He would have to recognize that these Japanese men are gods compared to him, and if we're going to stop pretending that human inequality doesn't exist then this is all sounds like it's going to culminate in worshiping Hitler and destroying reality with never before seen levels of divine rage, which he is most certainly not capable of.

[Image: erikasig.png]
ourokouros
Yumetaro Wrote:Now what was so valuable to GREEDY Sony that they would dare to implement such a feature? The announcement refers to protecting players and Playstation's values of safety and security. A community representative (shown below) at Arrowhead Games Studios elaborated on this by explicitly stating that linking your Steam account to a PSN account allows managers to ban your account easier. I am not aware of anyone important contradicting either of these statements, so we may as well take it as the truth.

As for as Sony's "safety and security" goes, they have a stellar track record of getting customer data stolen every couple of months, they are the last company I would expect to care, or trust, with my security.
Guest
Sony is evil, it is the duty of all moral gamers to oppose them specifically. Basedworld is soon here due to Sony's demise.
anthony
Guest Wrote:Sony is evil, it is the duty of all moral gamers to oppose them specifically. Basedworld is soon here due to Sony's demise.

Sony's American base is evil. I don't know what it takes to cut off this retarded jewniggerwoman tumor or if it's possible anymore, but if they do they'll probably be fine again.
Guest
The inherent console-war in everyone's heart is funny but I will leave that alone. The Helldiver's situation is not incompetency or really anything. Account linking is ever-present and easy to do. It doesn't require truthfulness on the part of the registrant and never has. Somehow, everyone read the TOS this time and became very worried about lying to Sony over their location. In other words, it's a social media campaign. It would be funny if it was spontaneous, it would also be funny if it was organized by a competitor. It will have little to no effect on the "brand image" of Sony as people who consider them evil already considered them evil (which is funny as well.)
Aizen
Console wars would bring a little sorely needed life back to gaming, even if it is retarded. As far as I'm concerned PS5 is the better choice solely because it has Stellar Blade, but it'll come to PC soon enough.
[Image: cca7bac0c3817004e84eace282cc7a3d.jpg]
Mason Hall-McCullough
anthony Wrote:"Profit" is a very important and complex element everyone takes for granted. If probed the average /v/oaxacan believes that there is some kind of fat cat or board of fat cats at the top of every video game production and they make some kind of obscene excess personal profit whenever a perceived corner cutting takes place in a game. This is of course very silly. But what you mean when you say "profit"? The implication, which is the source of moral strength in the mob, is that a specific person somewhere is being personally enriched in an unfair way.

Is this really a common thing? What are these "attempts to earn immediate profit that caust outsized harm to the quality of a product, a brand's reputation, or a company's long-term prospects for success"? Can you actually name a single case where this appears to be happening? Or are we perhaps if we think about it talking about mere considerations of business exigency in virtually every single case like the Valve guy?

I'll help you out here with the closest I've got to a real greed case along the line I've given you. GSC Game World. The company behind Cossacks and STALKER. I like these guys. Their founder, Sergiy Grygorovych, like a lot of Eastern Euro businessmen, immediately started acting nigger-rich upon contact with success. Bought several exotic cars for himself while his employees caught the bus to work. Still, nobody attributes the poor state of any particular game to him as far as I know. His outsized personal enjoyment of the company's income may have held back their ability to expand or refine their projects, leading to their eventual dissolution. We could call this a kind of sabotage by greed. But it wasn't observable in their games in any of the ways gamers are conditioned to look for these things, beyond bugs.

But that leads into another point, that bugs were if anything more common in older PC games, which is the tradition GSC worked in. Games are expensive and can't be refined forever. Again. Exigency. They have to get out the door at some point. And generally this came out a lot rougher before "early-access" development models and Steam based easy patching became normal. Old PC games were a mess. Nobody thought this was greed. Perhaps because gaming was not yet democratic. Oaxacans did not have computers. There was not a sufficient mass of people who wanted to destroy all of these guys for making nice things.

I see your point in that many people have childish misconceptions about CEOs, profit and "capitalism". The framing of GREED is overall unhelpful, and "profit" may not be the best word either, but my point is that there does exist a tradeoff between a game's pursuit of financial success and its pursuit of value as art/entertainment. Whether we call it profit or sales or revenue is not really important if you understand my meaning.

I can't think of examples of well-known individuals ruining their own games to earn more money, I suspect examples like the one you gave are rare because you have to make something good in the first place before you can squander millions. In every example that comes to mind I could only blame the organization as a whole.

[Image: y1htvv.png]

I never played any of these but very obviously re-releasing the same game every year is not Pareto optimal. I assume the only reason they're able to do it without competition is because of an official deal to use official sports brands. Still, I don't think it would be reasonable to accuse shareholders, or the CEO, or managers, or employees of GREED without more info. It's more useful to model the decisions as made collectively by EA the company. EA is struggling, so rather than GREED it's more likely the decision to re-release the game every year is due to factors such as pressure from shareholders, maybe they want funds to expand another part of their business, maybe they expanded too much and want to avoid layoffs but struggle to pay their staff, or maybe they just misjudged what customers wanted. None of which necessarily relate to GREED at all, and some of which aren't necessarily described by "chasing profits". But my point is that EA intentionally makes their product worse (it is obsoleted after only a year) so they can make more money. There are many such cases even if they are not true examples of GREED.

The humans that work for the company also don't respond to moral shaming, they're each a component of the machine subject to varying pressures and responsibilities relating to other components. Individuals on the inside see things differently (e.g. that troon community manager would probably be part of the mob if he couldn't see what drove the company internally). If the company does respond collectively to accusations of GREED it will only be in the form of a cynical appeasing PR statement that rightfully implies that the community's reaction was hysterical.

In a competitive market, if harmful practices are normalized (perhaps initially justified by exigency of struggling companies) then it becomes harder for ventures that would otherwise be successful on their own to compete without participating in the race to the bottom. I feel that this has already happened and maybe expectations will reset if the market crashes due to a Slave Revolt in Gaming. If these companies need to rely on aforementioned tactics to survive, it is reasonable to provide some leniency but at a certain point they should just die and make way for new growth.

Quote:Microtransactions have never been meaningfully or successfully implemented into any kind of complete experience style of game. They only work in things like MMOs. Multiplayer games. "Service" games, whatever the fuck that means. I really still don't know.

Again I am going to ask you for specific examples. Which games have damaged gameplay experiences and artistic visions due to this chasing of short term profits? Which games betrayed your consumer expectations or deceived you unethically?

Microtransactions ruined the visual style of Team Fortress 2. You could argue that they're also the reason TF2 was so successful and remains alive today, and that's probably true, but this came at the cost of the original artistic vision of the game. It would be nice if TF2 could be economically viable without needing to add hundreds of items that don't fit with the game's original theme (not to mention the bright particle effects and Christmas lights that are just obnoxious on their own) and maybe this wouldn't be necessary if the games TF2 competed with were more ethically designed. TF2's hats are considered by many gamers to be an example of "good MTX" because they basically don't affect gameplay, but even so they objectively make it look like shit and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist. Loot crates are also deceptive because you don't expect to have to buy keys to unlock boxes you get for free, a common refrain but true.

All "pay to win" multiplayer games sacrifice game balance, no real way around this. At best, this sacrifice might be tolerable, but it's never an improvement. Subscription services rely on people forgetting to cancel which sucks for them, but the subscription model can be a tolerable compromise for an MMO that players log in to on a regular basis. I am no fan of subscriptions but thinking about this, they might actually be the least bad of the anti-consumer patterns I listed because they can only scam people out of money and don't adversely affect the design of the game.

The mobile game market has such poor consumer trust that it can be hard to get a user to even buy an app unless it's a welll-known game, there's such a reputation for scams and asset flips. Many mobile games are limited to making money through ads (should be obvious how this damages a game's quality) and microtransactions that are usually worse than what you'd see elsewhere. It's probably not possible for it to get this bad, but I wouldn't want PC gaming to reach that state.

Quote:
Quote:It seems like that screenshot was probably a misunderstanding or lie, and I think it was reasonable of the community to assume as much given that safety/security is the most common excuse for any anti-user policy a company wants to enact. I also think it was likely that Sony pushed the Helldivers 2 devs to require all players to use PSN accounts, Sony had a financial incentive to do this because it puts more users in their store and they can show increased registration counts to shareholders. Sony ZOGployees are probably way more professional and sociopathic than that incompetent troon "community manager" (AKA Discord/reddit mod).

I'll give you credit, this is the most plausible explanation I've seen offered so far. But if correct, it does not naturally follow that Sony are professional and sociopathic. This absolutely shit on their image and alienated people riding high off of their success of the year. The problem keeps happening in these discussions. Massive corporate FAILURES cannot be attributed to refinement and sociopathic devotion to professionalism. This doesn't make sense. This is what you say when you believe that Late Capitalism is when something makes you angry.

Some incompetency was likely involved within Sony, but this wasn't necessarily foreseeable as a massive corporate failure. It would be fair for Sony and Helldivers to have assumed that players might grumble a bit before making a PSN account and forgetting about it. There was precedent to expect that it would be tolerated by players, because software companies in general have been getting away with forcing people to make unnecessary accounts for a long time. Mojang (subsidiary of Microsoft) forcibly migrated everyone who owned Minecraft Java Edition to Microsoft accounts with barely any fuss. I didn't sperg out about it but I wished at the time that more people cared. Helldivers were unlucky to trigger a PR disaster and maybe now they'll be the example that makes other companies hesitate in future before doing something similar that might offend the gamer hordes.
Sakana
A sort of parallel statement to the "GREED" meme is the accusation that game companies are making their games woke in order to "stir up controversy". Here's an example: 

If you aren't interested in seeing this garbage, it alleges that actually they made the main character of the new Assassin's Creed a nigger because uhh controversy and shit mang. The average Day One Purchase American doesn't care one iota about any of this woke stuff, because they're a lobotomized zombie who purchases literally anything handed to them. The Knight will purposefully boycott games with pushed progressive messages. The communist hates videogames and won't buy them regardless of appeal to woke. So who does this controversy market to? Nobody is buying anything solely because of any controversy. It's a ridiculous assertion, that effectively tries to reason the retarded decision as the product of a secret conspiracy by genius Ubisoft marketers (even though no one competent works there, as admitted by the video's maker).
anthony
(1 hour ago)Sakana Wrote: A sort of parallel statement to the "GREED" meme is the accusation that game companies are making their games woke in order to "stir up controversy". Here's an example: 

If you aren't interested in seeing this garbage, it alleges that actually they made the main character of the new Assassin's Creed a nigger because uhh controversy and shit mang. The average Day One Purchase American doesn't care one iota about any of this woke stuff, because they're a lobotomized zombie who purchases literally anything handed to them. The Knight will purposefully boycott games with pushed progressive messages. The communist hates videogames and won't buy them regardless of appeal to woke. So who does this controversy market to? Nobody is buying anything solely because of any controversy. It's a ridiculous assertion, that effectively tries to reason the retarded decision as the product of a secret conspiracy by genius Ubisoft marketers (even though no one competent works there, as admitted by the video's maker).

Shorts don't embed. So I'll take your link and put it here.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f9UiP-3hsZM

This has annoyed me every time it comes up. Just retarded, thoughtless, improvised explanations for obvious communist retardation. Attribution of superpowers to a retarded field that runs on superstition (marketing). I can't think off the top of my head of any controversy which cleverly boosted whatever it was attached to by feeding off of outrage, especially of this political kind. Also I won't watch the video because this weird white dhar mann gamer moralism hypeman disgusts me.
Sakana
It's far easier for libtards to believe that there's a secret marketing cabal hidden deep within the seemingly incompetent Ubisoft front office than it is  for them to admit that most people on their side are tasteless morons who can't make art. That's the reason behind all of these attempts to make secret reasons for why ostensibly liberal, progressive media is so awful now. The more intelligent liberals are highly embarrassed at what their side is doing, and so headcanon these retarded notions into existence, and the less intelligent ones are driven by memes, and parrot what their betters say.
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)