90°

Game Length Affects Bang For Your Buck, But Not Quality

Everyone is going crazy over a potentially short game but let's not forget that length and quality are mutually exclusive. Quantity is irrelevant.

Read Full Story >>
psxextreme.com
PoSTedUP3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

id buy an epic 300 page novel over a mediocre 800 page novel for the same price any day of the week. mainly because 1.) i dont have a choice all new games are $60, and 2.) if im going to be spending hours of time doing something, it is going to be something worth while.

ps4gamer19833788d ago

I'm only buying games that have BOTH qualities this year: long campaign, And good dev team reputation.

So with that, i have my eyes mostly only on:

-Bloodborne
-Persona 5
-MGS 5 TPP
-Batman (new)
-Salt and Sanctuary

That's it. Anything else must get great reviews. Money is no joke in this economy and devs need to acknowledge that. Short campiagns with no replay value get short rentals.

ArchangelMike3788d ago

What about The Witcher 3. It ticks all the boxes of your gaming requirement and then some!

ps4gamer19833788d ago

My bad your right. Witcher is on my list too. A bunch of indies like No Man's Sky.

mikeslemonade3788d ago

Guys need to work on your gold digging skills.

ArchangelMike3788d ago

I actually agree with you to a degree. Although there are some games that I don't buy at launch, but I wait for the price to go down first before I buy - like Watchdogs, Alien Isolation etc. But The Order 1886, The WItcher 3, Uncharted 4... those are all Day 1 games for me.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3788d ago
ArchangelMike3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

@PoSTedUP

You're not making much sense. You have the choice weather or not to buy a 300 or 800 page novel. In exactly the same way you do have a choice NOT to buy a $60 game you know. I hope nobody is forcing you to buy games?!? 0.o

PoSTedUP3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

ha, i mean: "i" buy games no matter what, games that look good and are Worth my time. just like i constantly buy books or use to go to the movies all the time. wouldnt you rather have an absolute amazing 6 hours over an average 12 hours? have sex with a model for an hour or with an ugly hooker for 5? i just read The Alchemist a book that is 163 pages and it was full price, but it had an amazing message and greater experience than most full length novels ive read the last month.

point is: price and length doesnt matter to me, an awesome game is an awesome game and its gonna be the same price as a crappy game. all movie tickets are the same price, do people complain that one movie is an hour and 10 mins long and another one is 3 hours long? or do people in fact see the movie based on reviews and previews? people pay $30 bucks for a 2 hour bluray even when they saw the movie already; 2 hours, single player only. why? because its an epic experience that is worth their time.

sorry for the rant, im not ranting at you just so you know. it was a bad analogy and im probably off the topic of your reply, heh.

ArchangelMike3788d ago

For 60bucks I don't want my games too short. Remember the MGS:Ground Zero's fiasco. I got that game because it has a ton of replayability AND high quality.

In the case of the Order - again another game that is very high on quality AND replayability (I replay my story based games + hunt for platinum trophies); I'm not in a race with anyboy to blitz through the game. What's the point in that? I'll take my sweet time and enjoy every minute of the game.

mxguy933788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

I really don't care about a games length if it's good it good.plus I got school and work so it will take me forever to beat the order

LifeInNZ3788d ago

For me it's about value for money. I'm quite prepared to play a short game if I feel like I'm getting a value for money experience. However, likelihood I'll pay full retail will depend on reviews and word of mouth....not fan boy rhetoric.

Ozmoses3788d ago

this again?? everyone is always willing to pay upwards of $20 to see a movie on Day 1... don't see no one bitching when they are watching a blockbuster with their popcorn and 3D glasses only to walk out 1-2 HOURS later!

60 bucks for an experience that lasts at the very minimum 2-3 times longer than a movie is a freaking steal!

I'll be 31 in July and to be quite honest with you games haven't changed in price much at all.. If anything the idea of the Indie game and tablet games/phone games/apps have give then industry a balance..

I mean you didn't have Indie games (a term I hate to use) on PS1 or PS2 or Sega or Nintendo or whatever that you could purchase for like $5 bucks or $10 bucks... Even these small company games can push the clock in terms of HOURS of GAMEPLAY...

$60 isn't asking much and I haven't done any research and my memory isn't the greatest but I can almost swear that games in the PS1 days were only $10 cheaper than today... I want to say they were about 39.99-49.99 or something like that.

It all comes down to smart purchasing.. Buy the games that look like the ones you'll enjoy.. It's not that hard.. We've all been gaming long enough to know what games we're most likely going to like. Watch some videos, read a pre-view, read a review if you must.. But make YOUR OWN DAMN DECISION! IT's YOUR MONEY.

Listen to opinions but don't let them decide for you.

Chevalier3788d ago

I watched Imitation game and thought it was an amazing movie and the perfect length, but, I only knew that AFTER experiencing it. Came out of a longer movie like the Hobbit, but, didn't enjoy it as much, sure it was longer and by dollar value more 'worth' it, but, it didn't feel that way.

I had a Kobe steak and it was expensive as hell, it was also the most delicious thing I ever tasted, sure I could have had 3-4 steaks for the same price, but, honestly it was worth every penny.

I don't need crappy tacked on MP like Tomb Raider and even thought MP for Uncharted and TLOU was great, the story only was worth the price alone the rest was just bonus content as far as I was concerned. But that is just me I guess.

mhunterjr3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

You don't seem to understand that most people don't have unlimited amounts of money to spend on entertainment.

The witcher 3 and Bloodboorne do have something to do with the Order: they are near release and are also competing for our time and our Money. It isn't unreasonable to think that some people with concerns over how long the Order will entertain them, might look to other titles instead.

In an ideal world, someone would be able to purchase any title that remotely interests them. But in the real world, people need to make purchasing decisions, and in the case of purchasing games, the length of the game is one of many reasonable factors in the decision making process...

I haven't said anything negative about the Order's length. But I do understand why some people would think that its brevity is reason to consider waiting for a price drop, or buying something that could hold ones attention for longer.

As far as quantum break and Tomb Raider are concerned, they are too far from release for people to start panicking. We haven't even seen the new TR in action yet. I have however seen plenty of people expressing displeasure with the most recent QB game play previews.

mhunterjr3787d ago (Edited 3787d ago )

What are you on about stretch purchases? No one is saying $60 is a stretch. But when a new game comes out, someone might look at their spend on recent purchases and what they intend to spend onfuture purchases and decide "I won't by this game right now for X reason"

People have budgets. One guys budget might allow for 1 game a week. Some people buy one game a quarter. Some people buy one a year... Some people buy games at launch. Others by used or wait till the price drops. Just because someone can't afford or doesn't want to spend as much on gaming as you do, or doesn't see the value in paying full price for a 5-8 gaming experience doesn't mean that gaming as a whole is a 'luxury' that they shouldn't be a part of.

And who are you to tell others how they should evalueate their purchases? Do I think game length should be the only consideration? No. Your going to great extreme we to disprove a point that no one is making. There's no accounting chore. There's no spreadsheet. It's just a consumer asking him/herself a simple question: "Is what I get out of this worth what I have to put in"...people who have hobbies can watch how they spend on their hobbies. if I've got $60 to spend, and I'm really interested in 2 new games.... And 1 is going to last me 100hrs and the other is going to last me 10hrs. It's perfectly reasonable to buy the longer one now, and get the shorter one later, or rent it...

Your basically saying I have to choose the short one or both, or else I'm too cheap to be a gamer.

mhunterjr3786d ago (Edited 3786d ago )

There's nothing wrong with giving your personal opinion . But to say that someone who considers longevity as a factor should pick a new hobby is utterly ridiculous. On one hand you say value is subjective, then in the same post you suggest longevity should NEVER play a part in a personal purchase decision... That's s massive contradiction. The only person implying that one way is the only way is YOU. Like I said, I own plenty of short games, paid full price for them too. But I also understand and respect people who don't see the value in doing that.

I'm not saying everyone NEEDS to consider a games length before they buy it. I'm saying that if someone does consider length a factor, it's certainly within reason; they certainly shouldn't be criticized for it or told to pick a new hobby. One might be less inclined to buy a $40 steak if it was bitsized. One might be less inclined to pay to enter an amusement park if you only had time for a few rides. the same logic can apply to a video game purchase. Yes people should buy what they enjoy. But there's nothing wrong with also considering how long the experience will be enjoyable before parting with your money. And if a game doesn't meet their expectations for any reason, and they choose not to pay full price ; be it length or whatever else, who are you or I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Just because being enjoyable is the only thing YOU consider to determine if something is worth $60 doesn't mean that's all everyone should consider. Especially since they have other options to make sure their price of entry is inline with their percieved value of the experience (buying used, wait for price drop, renting, borrowing, etc)

mhunterjr3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

You've got to apply some relativity though.

You're trip to the movies comes with certain expectations. Maybe, You wouldn't take that $20 trip to ticket movies if the film in question was just 30min long. Even if it was a great 30min. Why? Because people have come to expect to be entertained for about 2hrs when they go to theaters. In this case, one might decide to wait until it hits dvd or Netflix.

Likewise, there are certain expectations when it comes to video games. Sure an 8hr $60 game might be a steal when compare to a trip to the movies. But it's not a steal when compared to another $60 game with a lengthy single player, replayability, and/or a compelling multiplayer component. There are too many current and upcoming games that offer too much bang for the buck, to ignore the comparison.

Ozmoses3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

you can't argue that at all..

games have been like that since day one...

FFVII and GEX: Enter the Gecko cost the same amount of $$$ back in the day

two totally different level games... one turned out to be a classic... the other people probably don't remember..

games have always been valued at the same price...

it has ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT IMAGE!!!

that's why you saw Tekken being sold and not TOBAL NO.1... they costed the same back in day... but 1 was better.

that's why people buy NBA2K over NBA Live...

and what do you mean people wouldn't pay $20 to see a 30 minute movie???

you obviously live in a different world... because on a daily basis people drop $20 or more on scratch-off tickets like it's nothing... just to name one of the countless things people spend money on.

people will spend their money on whatever they find interesting or want.. it's that simple..

you can't just suddenly attack the video game industry for something that has remained the EXACT SAME since the video game industry was created...

some AAA games are good... some AAA games are bad... regardless they COST THE SAME...

some AAA movies are good.... some AAA movies are bad....

some AAA music albums are good... some AAA music albums are bad...

just be smart about your finances... that simple...

know the amount of money you have at all times and try to continuously grow that amount of money and you'll find that you can afford almost anything you want.

Chevalier3788d ago

I don't need to apply anything. What is relative to you isn't the same as me. That's like the question of time relative to me except I am in a quick moving train and your walking, it's not the same for either of us. What I value only I can determine and time has nothing to do with it. That's like saying I won't enjoy the movie UNLESS it is at least 2 1/2 hours. Nope each movie and experience can only be judged AFTER I have experienced it. What I deem the appropriate length has nothing to do with relativity. Honestly your way of thinking is narrow minded and negative way to think of things.

Just like my Hobbit example, if you calculate the dollar per minute it was more bang for my buck. In terms of value though? Nope the shorter movie was a far better experience with much better story and tighter scripting. The longer movie actually should have been shortened, the length just wasted my time. You see YOU can't put a value on what I enjoy and deem worth my time, ONLY I can. You can't put a price on what I value. So if that's your narrow minded view I am sorry for you. Don't assume you can know my expectations.

mhunterjr3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

@chevalier
@ozmoses

My comment was to a gentleman who claims he doesn't understand why someone would object to spending $60 for a short game, citing the price of a trip to the movies.

My response was that different people have different expectations when it comes to what they money gets them. A sentiment that you both appear to agree with. Many people consider length of experience to be a factor in their purchasing decisions. That ISNT UNREASONABLE. Those same people, if faced with the option to buy a great, short, linear title for $60 (like The Order) OR a great, long, open title (like the witcher 3, or Bloodborne) for the same price might predictably choose the latter.

No, you personably don't need to apply relativity. I wasnt suggesting you, or anyone else SHOULD. It's your money, afterall. I buy short games all the time, so I have no idea how you take this as my so don't assume that my view is that games need to be a certain length. But someone who is trying to understand why others don't want to spend $60 for short games (which is the question I was responding to), needs to consider the factors that govern other people purchasing decisions.

It's strange that I get called narrowminded for pointing out other people's Point of View.

Chevalier3788d ago

Witcher and Bloodborne have nothing to do with the Order. Just because a dozen other good games come out this year shouldn't take away from another good experience. Plus what other 3rd person game even plays like The Order any time soon? Bloodborne will be amazing but is a month away and Witcher is out in May.

Seriously why all this negativity for a unreleased game? The hypocrisy and hate pouring in is ridiculous. How come there's no hate articles for Quantum Break? Will Tomb Raider even get half this criticism?!

Is Sony twisting arms and saying you guys have to buy this game? Don't like then ignore and move on. Especially from people who Haven't played any of it.

Chevalier3787d ago

"In an ideal world, someone would be able to purchase any title that remotely interests them. But in the real world, people need to make purchasing decisions, "

Just going to point out the ridiculous "real world" choice. Sorry if a $60 game is a stretch purchase and is a finance hit then these real world people should be realistic and not have gaming as a hobby. They have their priorities messed up in that case. Gaming is a luxury and not a real issue for people like you suggest. Otherwise you want me to believe after a $400 purchase a $60 one is some kind of stretch? That's just grasping at straws.

Buy what you like and be happy, you can't put a dollar figure on enjoyment and personal satisfaction in $ quantities. If your considering how many hours your going to get out of a hobby then I question whether you truly enjoy gaming. This shouldn't be a acccounting chore where we calculate amortization and on a spreadsheet. The only thing at the end is did you enjoy it? If the answer is yes then it was worth it.

More hours does not equate to more enjoyment. I finished Uncharted 2 and by your dollar and cents view it may have been not worth it. For me it was one of the best experiences EVER. It was priceless, I would have thrown money for more. The only feeling I had was, let's do that again. Same as this expensive $10 ride that literally lasted minutes, but, was so much fun for my brother and I we will always have that great memory. If I equated $ to that experience albeit brief was worth it.

If you have to think so hard for your enjoyment maybe you should consider picking up a book? It has great $ to hours value.

Chevalier3787d ago

Well ideals and all you speak of are hypothetical. Buy what you like if you want, hours of game don't increase enjoyment and it is pretty simple to just buy and enjoy what you like. If it isn't in the budget then don't buy.

Like you suggesting applying some relativity, that's just going to depend on each individual and like I said if you suggest hours of enjoyment is a factor versus dollars then maybe it's time for a new hobby.

" value in paying full price for a 5-8 gaming experience doesn't mean that gaming as a whole is a 'luxury' that they shouldn't be a part of...."

Value is subjective so what metric are you going to use? Gaming as a whole regardless of your opinion is a luxury. It's not a necessity to live so by definition is a luxury. Food, clothing and housing are necessities of life.

"people who have hobbies can watch how they spend on their hobbies. if I've got $60 to spend, and I'm really interested in 2 new games.... And 1 is going to last me 100hrs and the other is going to last me 10hrs. It's perfectly reasonable to buy the longer one now, and get the shorter one later, or rent it..."

That's your metric. All the power to you and your free to spend your money as it is yours. I am saying your suggesting/implying more hours = more enjoyment. Except like my examples I have enjoyed short experiences more than long drawn out boring ones. Your suggestions don't and can't be calculated because like I said value is subjective.

"And who are you to tell others how they should evalueate their purchases?"

I gave my personal opinion with my experiences of how I view things so I don't see how that is wrong? So just because I and 4 or other posters have the opposite view your going to suggest where wrong for our views? I will quote myself again:

" The only thing at the end is did you enjoy it? If the answer is yes then it was worth it. "

Bottom line if you enjoyed it then $60 was worth it. TLOU, Journey, Uncharted, Tomb Raider and plenty of short games were to me far and away more enjoyable then some of the long drawn out games. Same goes for movies, books and other media's as well. Like I said value is subjective so stop assuming that your way is the only way to think or view things.

Chevalier3784d ago

Your the one suggesting that we 'have' to apply relativity then going on about (how dare I) telling you how to evaluate?! Then you go on suggesting we have expectations of games and comparing game length as if length, money and how good something is somehow mutually exclusive.

"One might be less inclined to pay to enter an amusement park if you only had time for a few rides."

Well just because you don't personally have the time does NOT change how awesome the park is now does it? That's not a consideration that should be associated. Here you suggest that your time be considered though?!

Honestly people don't do these dollar considerations on that 3 minute ride. Do you do minute calculations for that $20 movie you watched? Do you go and do dollar per page before you read a book in a new series you want to read? Probably not right? Yet specifically gaming you do? If time were a consideration then guess what almost EVERY entertainment fails based on dollar to hours enjoyment.

So you match up dollar to time ratio for games in opposite genres? Like Bloodborne will have 'more' value even though grinding RPG or MMO will always be an unfair comparison?

Do you do this before you go to the movies and consider the other 12 awesome movies which might offer more value before walking into the theatre?!

Do you split your steak and compare dollar per ounce comparison to the other food options on the menu before you order that steak? Even though nutritional value may be more important?

You probably don't have ridiculous standards for movies, books, amusement park rides or virtually any other entertainment media, but, you do for games right? All I suggest is temper your expectations.
Otherwise Uncharted, Quantum Break, Tomb Raider and most of the new awesome games won't be passing your dollar per hour enjoyment regardless of how great they may be.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3784d ago
hkgamer3788d ago

the way that you are justifying price and game length makes you associate money with time, in this case game length.

@mhunterjr
very good point but you are still associaitng game length and price as mutually exclusive which it shouldn't really be. i may find a 10hr game more enjoyable than a 40hr game, we all percieve time as different, i could have spent that extra 30hr working or studying.

not saying if one thing or the other is wrong. i just think that we should try to enjoy something without the cost of things affecting our mood. if i go to a restaurant i dont really like looking at the price. i also dont compare a mcdonalds burger to a high quality burger.

mhunterjr3788d ago (Edited 3788d ago )

I'm not suggesting time and value are mutually exclusive at all. You'll have to Read it again. I'm saying that time is a FACTOR... A factor who's importance is naturally and understandably going to vary from person to person. A Factor, that many people consider when they walk into a store and are faced with various entertainment options.

$60 isn't a trivial amount of money to some people. Whether or not a game will keep their attention for days, weeks, months or years, is a perfectly reasonable consideration to make. One simply can't ignore that factor, and then claim not to understand why a games length is a big deal to others.

Show all comments (34)
290°

The Real Enemy of Gaming Isn’t DEI. It’s the CEO

From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
jambola21d ago

maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad

senorfartcushion20d ago

This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.

The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.

Calm down.

jambola19d ago

i'm very calm
you seem very upset however

Notellin19d ago

You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.

jambola19d ago

stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud

PapaBop19d ago

It's not like kids show with one bad guy? I present to you.. Bobby Kotick

ABizzel119d ago (Edited 19d ago )

DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.

DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.

DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.

DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.

DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…

The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.

jambola18d ago

you don't get to decide other people's motivations
sorry to break it to you

ABizzel117d ago (Edited 17d ago )

To each their own, however, nothing you said invalidates why some people take offense to DEI incorrectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 17d ago
Sciurus_vulgaris21d ago

Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.

Killer2020UK19d ago

The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.

We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'

LoveSpuds19d ago

This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.

Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.

GhostScholar19d ago

Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.

Soy19d ago

That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.

ABizzel119d ago

Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.

More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.

But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.

jambola21d ago

honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it

TiredGamer20d ago

I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.

HyperMoused19d ago

What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.

senorfartcushion20d ago

This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.

Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.

Christopher20d ago

Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.

TiredGamer19d ago

Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.

senorfartcushion19d ago

Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.

This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.

And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.

jambola19d ago

ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 19d ago
victorMaje20d ago

Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.

We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.

jambola19d ago

just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast

HyperMoused19d ago

Just like scooby doo, you have shown us the real monsters are us

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 19d ago
Inverno20d ago

Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.

coolfool20d ago

I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.

Show all comments (51)
70°

Why We Partnered With St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

Matt Miller: "Every subscription to Game Informer now raises funds for St. Jude. We want you to know what that means."

Read Full Story >>
gameinformer.com
thorstein24d ago

I subscribed to this not knowing about how some of the proceeds go to St. Judes.

Really cool that some of the money goes there.

Even if people don't subscribe to the mag, it might bring people to the charity.

jznrpg23d ago

One of the main charities my wife and I donate to. They help a lot of children and being a parent of 5 children I can’t imagine what those parents go through. I’ll probably get a sub to GI because of St Jude and of course because I love video games.

80°

Dungeons and Dragons is About to Break a 6-Year Trend

Though Unearthed Arcana's content primarily consists of subclasses and spells, WOTC's latest UA drop is set to shake up Dungeons and Dragons' future.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com