Exploring The Development vs Consumer Cost Debate: Matters of Trust and Business?

Doc Watson from GamersFTW writes: "Publishers seem to be the bee in many video game player's bonnet: if anything goes wrong in the industry, people are eager to pin it on them first. However, with costs rising in the industry and business models changing and evolving, it is time to take a look at exactly what is beneath the surface of what is going on with these publishers, and if they deserve the flak that they get."

[Yukes]

Good read. Publishers will always be focused on one thing: making money. We think of ourselves as gamers but they see as consumers ripe for exploitation. With developers trying to realise their vision, often grinding against publisher-imposed restrictions, just adds further complexity to the debate.

Funnily enough, although us consumers are in some ways at the bottom of the pecking order, we're also the ones who ultimately have the power. Developers have to make a game that we want, and that the publishers want because they see profit in it. Publishers will squeeze as much money as they can out of a receptive audience but, ultimately, if the whole gaming community boycotted a game because of dubious practices, the publishers would have to change their approaches.

[alexgibson]

So called "whales" who support micro transactions mean that a coordinated strike against publishers is really difficult. For every 100 people that don't spend $1 on content, there is one person who is probably prepared to spend $100.

Ultimately, micro transactions are here to stay and it's upto the consumers to make their voices heard as best as they can, and hopefully that will mean a less obvious and obnoxious use of micro transactions for players.

[XxNxWxOxX]

Nice article, I for one cannot stand the "free to play" business model games such as Call of Duty are following even though the games are still $60. I think it diminishes the fun from who is better to who pays more.