This video game company is bad because they focus on making money

>This video game company is bad because they focus on making money
I see this shit all the time here, the economic illiteracy seen on Sup Forums is staggering

OP is a shill for something.

I don't know what, but something.

i prefer my games to be quality over qouta

You understand quality games are made with profit in mind? Do you think everyone working on it is just doing it as a hobby?

I thought we kicked you Sup Forumstards out already.

I just want free everythings why is that so hard to understand!

>Quality games

The point is they're not quality. You're not getting a good complete product because they put profits first and any remotely good thing about the game gets put into loot boxes or cut for "DLC"

that doesnt make the profit aspect a desirable quality from the consumer's standpoint.

quality games are made to make a product thatll stand the test of time faggot not rake in lootbox dollars

>dude just let corporations walk over your consumer rights you don't have to do anything bro just keep buying shit
Dumb frogposter

It does because if the company that makes the quality game doesn't make a profit, they won't make more quality games in the future.

Games are made so i enjoy it when i play it and idgaf about how much mercedes the ceo buys from the profit

>Dude strawman lmao

That was literally his argument

so what will they do instead to make profit?

...

Try again, fag. Games are made so the programmers, artists and everyone else involved can make a living for themselves and their close ones.

Most people have no idea how the economy works. Hence the world is as it is. Don't you know this?

The majority of Sup Forums are either underage or manchildren who have never had a job

Stop falseflagging.

If they can't for the life of them make a profit out of video games they can try to enter another market with the resources they have or just shut down to cut losses.

Yeah that's right.

The gamer's interest is in playing good games, the producer's interest is in making money. These two things can be at odds. The gamer's interests are in conflict when the producer's interests affect the quality of the game for the sake of money.

You know it's possible to make a living and still want to deliver a quality product right? It's possible to combine those two qualities.

Nothing was even said or implied about consumer rights in the OP, you big retard. You can make money without violating consumer rights, shocking right?

Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, EA, Activision, Valve, Blizzard, Square Enix, Capcom, Naughty Dogs - whoever, wherever, whenever.

if a game isnt free, it's making someone money. If it cost more than $15,000 to develop, it will also be marketed/hyped/advertised by firms paid to do so, also under the guise of "word of mouth" that had been generated fraudulently.

The videogame industry is fucking garbage because the industry is the culture itself. Games are not made to succeed by some arbitrary set of rules that would determine if they're good or bad. They succeed on marketing alone.

Devs dont give a shit what your opinion is when publishers can pay to change the narrative. The Switch is selling better than the Wii U despite basically being the same hunk of retarded shit. The Wii sold better than the Gamecube despite literally being the same hunk of retarded shit.

The only thing that matters is profits, which is self-evident of the lacking divide between "industry" and "hobbyist culture" in discussions about how many consoles shipped, how many games sold, which team won what prize for whatever esport toirney, whatever.

The entire gaming culture is a completely illegitimate circle jerk shitfest of retards trying to figure how to seperate you from your money.

>consumer rights
explain

>if a good game is made, then it is profit driven
>therefore, if a profit driven game is made, then it is a good game
thats not how logic works retard

Gamers shouldn't complain of the making of money at all. If the method of making money is not working it will fail. Then other company will make more money with their better methods.
The f-ing end.

Nothing I said implied quality and people wanting to make money being mutually exclusive. That was the point of the OP you fucking sperg.

It is a good product. Not a good game. One is objective, the other isn't.

what the fuck are you even talking about

Gamers interest is in playing good games. If the practice of making money interferes with the quality of the game and therefor comes in conflict with the gamer's interests, they are perfectly justified in criticizing it.

The logic was this:
>All games are made with profit in mind
>Hence even quality games are made with profit in mind.
A company wanting to make a profit says nothing about the quality of their video game since all companies are out to make money.

It's not that they FOCUS, it's that it's ALL THEY CARE about. Everyone in this industry wants to make dosh (outside of a few guys that do freeware, they are in it for the art), but it should not be you only reason, otherwise you games just show jewery and become shit, because all products have to have some care in making something nice into it. And you can tell easily what companies have gone full retard with the "profits only" mentality and which still have some actual interest in making a good game.

What you're seeing is consumers caring about themselves.
I don't give a shit what the company wants, I want a good product.
Does the company give a shit if I get a quality product? No, they'd sell empty boxes at 60$ if they could.
Do I give a shit if the CEO of the company can buy a new yacht this year? No, he could live in misery for all I care.

If anything, the market needs more people not giving a shit about companies, seeing how they're constantly finding new ways to rip the customer off and getting away with it.

Because a consumer should totally give a shit about a company's bottom line, right?

Stop falling for their obvious tricks then? There are plenty of honest game developers who you can buy some real gems from. If other people want to eat shit, let them.

complaints about profit seeking are about games whose quality has been compromised by the competing interest of profit. did you seriously not make that mental leap?

Your only power to criticize is with your money.
>Don't buy the game
>Buy the competitor game
>Buy competitor company shares

Anything else is just whiny bullshit.

>HAHA YOU EXPECT IT FOR FREE

lol im bored af waiting for my gf so ima reply to you

If they couldn't make money of video games, why would people work 6-10 hours a day on making video games? There needs to be an incentive for skilled people to work, few people are gonna dedicate themselves to bringing quality games to NEETs for free.

take Overwatch for example, 90% of the updates are microtransactions and everything else is added at snail pace(because it doesn't make them money)

Nope, there's a variety of platforms for criticism. Many people have are even now making money from doing so ironically. You're just wrong at a fundamental level of facts.

Making money isn't the problem.

The problem is when they take a successful franchise that is loved by all and dumbing it down to shit so 8 year olds can play the game to "widen their audience" is the fucking problem.
Game devs being bought up by big publishers only to have their games be turned into mobile games is the fucking problem.
Making a game with no intention to add lootcrates only to add them later down the line to milk out the last few shekels from the community is the fucking problem.

So then the scheme of making more profits failed, since they ended up with a lesser product that fewer people will buy.

Consumers are not shareholders and we don't give a shit

... The logic is below

Adding things like lootboxes and micro transactions can ruin an otherwise fine game

That doesn't lead to more good games though.
You're underestimating or deliberately downplaying how easy it is to make money off of shit games.

I'm not saying they should work for free.
It's just that in the current market there's no space for caring about the other side. Each side has to do whatever it can to avoid getting ripped of by the other.
Too little is being done on the consumer side of the video-game market.

>So then the scheme of making more profits failed, since they ended up with a lesser product that fewer people will buy.
quality isnt the determinant of profit, retard

Criticism that change things > Whiny bullshit

You keep throwing Molineaux at me when he's a libertarian. Go watch more videos of him so you stop being a economic illiterate.

There are retards that preordered Shadow of War

Evidently some people like that shit, even if we find it in bad taste. Should they be prohibited from buying the lootboxes because we dislike it?

If shit games make money they deserve to have been made, doofus

>any remotely good thing about the game gets put into loot
in your mind cosmetics are the only good thing about games? lol what?

I don't really believe that there's anybody out there who actually enjoys the existence of microtransactions and lootboxes behind microtransactions

>Should drug addicts be prohibited from buying drugs because we dislike it?
yes

Nor is your subjective taste any better measure of quality.

>>This video game company is bad because they focus on making money
yes
they should focus on making fucking VIDEO GAMES instead you retarded frogposter

I'm afraid "whiny bullshit" is just strawman tier labelling without argument. Criticism is criticism and your non-argument is merely attempts to dismiss that which you cannot argue against by labeling in order to draw association without cause or justification.

I'll show you how easy it is to make your non-argument.

Your posts = whiny bullshit

>They don't like it yet they buy it

>dude, the magical hand of the free market will fix everything

>This video game company is bad because they focus on making money at the expense of the consumer and underhanded/dishonest business practices
Next time finish you're own sentences.

Yes

so if you have now admitted that profit and quality aren't correlated, your argument has fallen apart and the complaints giving rise to this thread are proven stupid.

Then tell me how lootboxes make a game better. There are in a game to milk more money from you, but they decrease the quality of the game.

That capitalist view of "if it makes money it's better" it's bullshit, they always find ways to exploit you more and get more money.

Actual dev time gets put into these loot systems and at an ever increasing rate games are being designed around them. Things that would've been in games normally became DLC. Things that would've been in DLC's are now in loot boxes because it's more profitable. You guys have kept saying the same excuses over and over but the slope is here and it's fucking slippery.

It's not that they make money, it's the unsustainable buisness model they all employ:

They want, with inflation somehow not being a contributing factor to make, not profits each year, but *more* profits each year. If I make 2million this year, if I make 'only' 1.9 million next year, I have the thought that I 'lost' .1 million. Except that isn't true, I made 1.9 million, which is still a *profit.* The problem with this thinking is that it is unsustainable. At some point *everyone* who would have bought an Xbox has bought an Xbox. This model is totally unsustainable and is driven by greed. And not 'good' greed but 'bad' greed. They aren't using those additional yearly profits to invest in the company, buy new equipment, or god forbid, pay their lower employees more. They funnel it into two locations: Advertising and Executive pay.
This is the part of, even if they don't know the specifics, the games industry and many other industries, that bothers consumers. They view customers, not as customers, i.e. a two way business negotiation where you agree to give me one thing and I agree to give you another thing, and neither feels to have gotten screwed in the end, but rather as increasingly large money sacks to be taken advantage of.

Yes

They tolerate it more like.

You can have fun without being a bottom bitch.

Quality very strongly correlates with profits made. If we define quality as a measure of how many people enjoy your product.

>making money
>nickel and diming everything possible, ruining gameplay, chopping a game into million dlc pieces and not giving a fuck about any consequences on the way
Eat shit, shill.

>profit strongly correlates with profit

>All games are made with profit in mind
that's wrong you fucking retard
thousands of people and groups make games just because they want to make them and for people to enjoy them, they just don't have $50,000,000 to market them, and so the corporate monster that grew around a fucking HOBBY keeps shitting out even bigger more expensive garbage unopposed

I can't even bring myself to watch shit like E3 or VGA's anymore, It's just new Hollywood/Pop Music scene - with same celebrity drama, giving out it's own Oscars and Grammy's and churning out shit for the lowest denominator on industrial scale, making it more and more bloated so that they have to sell more and more of it or fucking die.

I hope it does.

The problem is that their solution to making money isn't working hard on good games, but instead making cheap games with addictive elements and microtransactions, and making up for any inherent unpopularity with assloads of marketing.

Then the issue is that the product is of low quality not that the developers want to make a profit, otherwise every single game would be considered bad.

>The videogame industry is fucking garbage because the industry is the culture itself.
Yeah, all of these nude webms of literally every game with 3d models and female anything-that-stands-upright are absolutely as the industry intended.

Saying "whiny bullshit" sure is a nice way of deflecting, though i dont see thr point.
How do you honestly believe that talking about shitty business practices doesn't help? I've explained bullshit in games to plenty of friends before who didn't purchase a game on my advice, and I've read plenty of complaints online here that have convinced me to do the same.
The level of stupidity it takes to say "don't talk about the problem!" borderlines on shilling

It's mostly lefties that think making money is bad. They feel entitled and can't understand when games are made to cater to different audiences.

games designed for the lowest common denominator are not quality
mainstream gaming today is shit for much the same reason hollywood is shit

Yes, it's bad because they should focus on making good games instead. And no, if the game sells well it doesn't mean it is good. If we go by that argument, I'll even use a food analogy for you, you retarded fuckface, McDonald's must be the best fucking restaurant ever, since they make such a large profit and are so popular.

Quality is pretty subjective. I'm sure every pleb playing overwatch thinks it's of good quality.

>You understand quality games are made with profit in mind?
HAHAHAHA oh boy

It's gonna blow your mind when you realise that most artists are poor as fuck.

McDonalds has good cost x benefit and it's popular because of that.

That's a nice logical leap you did there. Too bad it's not how it actually works. The issue is that they manage to make a product of low quality sell like a product of high quality via aggressive marketing.

no the problem with the most aggressive profit-seeking publishers today is precisely that they are all made for a single audience, and their developers are pressured to water down any mechanics or features that would appeal to specific niches
they want to pump billions of dollars into marketing and sell their game to anyone and everyone, which is coincidentally a big reason for the cult-like diversity push that many people are sick of

Good for them. But I think it's okay but for the sake of this argument will say that I don't.
But it isn't good.

>McDonald's must be the best fucking restaurant ever
Define "best"

But it's not good food. Their safety standards are fucking atrocious. They have zero quality control and they employ people that know fuck all about hygiene. That is not a good cost x benefit at all. You'd benefit more if you ate a piece of fucking breat and chugged it down with water, rather than eating their shit.

>this is your mind on libertarianism
(Apologies if I have mistaken your political ideology OP: I appreciate falsely calling you a libertarian must be very insulting)

>But I think it's okay but for the sake of this argument will say that I don't.
Don't support overwatch then? Just because a game is for a demographic you're not part of doesn't mean profit seeking = bad quality.

Makes the most money. That's the argument the thread began with. Making a lot of money = good for games.

Profit seeking is inherently a bad quality for selling a product that has to be graded by quality standards that do not depend on the amount of money spent to gain them.

Gz on finding the entire flaw in publicly traded companies

making a lot of money is good for making a lot of money. it doesn't imply anything else whatsoever. congratulations on your worthless tautology.

I'm center left, but it's clear to see that the biggest reason people work full time on game making is because they get paid. If they have passion for their project, that's great but very rarely do people work 8hours/day out of passion alone (althought there probably are cases).

I didn't say it did. My argument is against the fact that subjective art = you can't argue about art.

And also that good games = profit-seeking. HAVING SAID THAT, in almost all cases profit seeking will worsen a game. It distracts from the artistic vision (but that doesn't preclude it being good, it just means it's worse than it could have been).

Then why would you "call out" people that oppose the profit seeking in videogame development, if it can negatively reflect on quality of said videogames?