When Cuphead released in late September last year, it was immediately met with equal measures of both praise and complaints. Even though it had been making appearances at gaming events like PAX in the years leading up to its release, it still managed to surprise everyone with its tough-as-nails gameplay. Some were delighted by its difficulty, some endured it for the sake of the game’s other charms and still others were quick to vocalize their discontent. The complaints continued even after Cuphead’s reputation as a demanding boss rush had been cemented. Some even went so far as to argue that its design excluded lesser-skilled players and that seeing a game’s end is something owed to the player rather than something they have to earn for themselves. This line of thinking is inherently flawed.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Matt Miller: "Every subscription to Game Informer now raises funds for St. Jude. We want you to know what that means."
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.
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.
That headline is nonsense. If a game is too difficult for the average player, it's too difficult for the average player. He can't control that. This shouldn't even need to be said; but apparently, not everyone can see its plain clarity.
Damn straight