Seem's like you forget about 80s market crash
Fortnite is an amazing game. People only attack the game for being popular.
I hope they don't put any political view in this game.
That this game only portrays the reality of US combat against the evil Vietnamese.
You have a good point. First Microsoft, then Sony and finally Nintendo have taken up the concept that you should pay to play online.
The idea is not new. In the 1980s it was paid per hour on servers, and MMOs in the 1990s used subscription systems as well. In the 2000s they tried the "on-line pass".
However, this process shows how companies have the power to normalize practices and embed that there is no other option. The consumer does not want to pay for it, but d...
Maybe playing old games is the escape for some, but that's all there is: an escape. It is hard to face the problem head on and discuss the real causes.
Looking at the positive side, perhaps this change, which is not beneficial to gamers, open the eyes of a generation that believes that companies do what is best for customers.
Maybe it helps to show a lot of people that companies do what's good for them. And when they are big enough, they impose wh...
The point is that in the capitalist system of production constant growth is a sine qua non condition. If traditional game companies that are too large today can not keep pace with the growth of the other model, they will migrate or die. There is no room for stability in this system.
Do not see this as an attack on one's faith or religiosity in capitalism, but an analysis of how it works. Companies will normalize the new model in the same way they have normalized online payment, f...
But we will no longer have the option when all the companies have gone down the road of low investment and high return games.
It is not a question of quality is a matter of profit. And the tacit cartel that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will form will normalize these games and "accept" as good and cool.
This is how huge companies do business.
Our vote for the wallet will be in which system full of ill-finished g...
Some bois here have a hard time to get that they won't have an option. If they want new games they will pay for them in their rules. This is how business work.
Our choice as customers will be if we want Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo or any other company. They will embrass this really profitable and secure model.
@cloganart
When I said space I wasn't pointing to storage space, of course. I was saying about attention space.
Do they need? You can top it with a beef PC. But, the point is: how to convince people that what they want is to play unfinished games under subscriprion?
@Nyxus
I also find all this bad on the consumer side. However it's all very good on the business side. Taking control over consumer hardware and software turns players into a captive market. If we want to play a game we need to pay for the service. No options.
And since this model is so good for companies, we will see all of them adopting it. All of them. Because when we no longer have social memory from the previous model and GaaS has been normalized we will ...
Yeah, I think Microsoft and Amazon have the same vision for the game business as Google.
GaaS is amazing for those companies. They keep control of everything from hardware to software. We, as customers, won't have an option to play new games unless we paid one of them. The option to buy a game and play it in 2019 and again in 2025 is no more. It's up to them to decide when and for how much we can play that game. As business decision it's soooo good.
The idea that developers will "finish" the game when people are playing is terrible. And I think publishers will need to pay to keep the games running on google servers after a while.
I imagine a lot of games being lost over time to open space for the new crap, like movies on Netflix.
We don't need games. We need conectivity, social tools and experiences with online friends.
Gamer are stuff from the past.
They need to get those political agendas out of the games.
I miss the times when games were about just shooting at enemies, ridding maidens stepping on turtles or being the world's savior hero.
Nowadays it's just this thing of inclusion, social justice and other junk that only end the neutrality of my games.
@sono
Being aggressive is not helping. You edited this comment while I wrote mine, I did not see what you were asking. However, if you already have the answer it is signal that you have no disposition or ability to seriously discuss the point and add new opinions to your narrow and skewed reasoning.
But I like reading comments from insecure and aggressive people. A defined abdomen is not the object of desire created by women, but a pattern that men have defined for...
@Sono421
Luckily times are changing and more and more people are willing to accept uncreated women into sex symbols in games. And I mentioned above about that. But for every Horizon Zero Dawn history gives us 10 Dead or Alive Xtreme or some JRPG with objectification from women.
But this change is only occurring because there are brave developers in facing the conservative paradigm in the games. Unfortunately it is still not an easy task. Read directly from GG staff:
...
I'm being respectful like everyone here. Please try to be polite too.
Historical accuracy is not merit of any game, especially Battlefield. As the other campaigns represent men is as fanciful as that which put a woman in the lead role.
But that's not the point. The point is that all games are full of politics and that a very vowel part of the community has never been able to see, because it is a reflection of themselves.
What has been troubling is that some ...
@Gamingsince1981 That tradicional gamers demografic can't see how full of politics the games have always been.
And what bothers them now is that policies other than those that mirror them are being put in front of them.
It's a business replacement. Profits and control are bigger even if they lose some traditional gamers in the process.