I was on destructoid today and the Jim sterling i hear about all the time puts up a video post and just balaintinly tells me why millions of people, me included, are stupid compared to the casual gaming audience. I was wondering what he's talking about because i consider my self smart considering i have ADHD, and i know people like Tim Shafer, Gabe Newel, Adam Sessler, and other people in the gaming business that i would call a hardcore gamer aren't stupid. So Im sitting here so confused at why someone would say this i just click the article and watch the video. You know what his argument is? We're dumb because we buy dlc for a game that we already bought and then he goes and defends the casual gamer who buys crap for farm ville! I mean if someone who spends only 1 hour on Facebook a week buys something for farmville there automatically smarter than a person who buys some dlc for a console they love and use more than that casual player who barely spends anytime on face book! Another thought i have to say is how does knowing how to spend money make you smart or not?
So what do you guys think am i on the dime or is it a little more complicated than that?
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
I think his point was that by deciding how much or how little they spend on the game, players determine how much $ the Farmville experience is worth to them. "Hardcore"/console players are TOLD how much the games are worth: $59.99 and $14.99 for dlc, there's no leeway and it's either all or nothing.
This type of stuff should probably be in the forums. Since it's a direct question & topic of discussion. No offence, here are my thoughts anyway.
Anyway. The marketing mechanics of each scenario are different. Generally in respect games using microtransaction-based systems are what players would be 'wasting' more money on.
If one was to put a one time, value on farm ville, at retail. It'd probaby be around $5. So the comparison with DLC of full retail titles. I'm not going to use MW2 as a comparison as the people who bought DLC which exceed industry standard pricing without warrant, are indeed stupid, but the reality is in all probability these people on farmville will be paying $2 every now and then and shelling out maybe $20 in there farmville life-time, paying 4 fold what the games value-would be.
Of course value is subjective mind you, so you could argue that these people spending $20, the value of the base game itself, is perhaps more than $80? So it really depends on various factors, and is purely dependant on the individual.
Pricing of game
Value of game to consumer
Pricing of content
Value of content to consumer
You can just use the latter two since the value of DLC content to the consumer should be into consideration the value of the game, by the consumer. Then from there the individual can justify, or not justify the purchase themself.
The idiots are the people that go against this, type of logic. Or take 'increase of epenis length', or 'peer pressure' into the equation when making the decision on the DLCs value. Two traits which are very typical of the social/casual gamer, put them on microtransaction games, and you get a whole load of stupid.
The purchasing the MW2 DLC, are stupid too - typically, but for more noble reasons. As they truly believe the game is the best thing since sliced bread, often without playing much else... so naturally since they live and breath the game, the value of the DLC to them, is pretty high.
Of course the significant of the 'values' on these petty cash items, decreases with the consumers income. If an individual earns enough to spend the cash without warrant - I think they can purchase the content without being defined as 'stupid'.
Bottomline, it's down to the individual consumer what's stupid, or not stupid of them to purchase. Some people are stupid, some people are not. Microtransaction schemes like what farm-ville offers draw in stupid consumers by coupling social-peer pressure, with very small payments producing a "hmm... it sucks but only $1? go on then I guess" phenomenon. Are those people stupid? Generally no, it's just clever marketing, you don't have to be stupid to get ripped off, although it certainly helps.
"Are* the Hardcore Dumb?"