The way the article talks about morally objectionable practices as good business (“With such large fines on the table, not fully complying with consumer laws is no longer a manageable option.”) makes me nauseated.
Could be wrong here but based on the URL of the website it’s an industry type site. They’re probably writing for people that make games, or are involved in their publishing more than they’re writing for the average person playing them.
I noticed, it doesn’t make it less sociopathic or less ethically reproachable. Honestly talking about the law as something that should be “managed” should be illegal on its own, as it’s basically leading people to break it.
I hope that if regulations clamp down that the average consumer can understand the ramifications as well. It wouldn’t be as possible for AAA games to be as fancy and bleeding edge with the same degree of scope if they lose significant funding, most likely.
I fantasize about a renaissance of limitation where the game design gets stronger to compensate for the lack of sheer powering through by financially afforded scope and breadth, but I know that falls apart the second the consumer feels like they’re getting anything less than the best. You already see that now with people complaining about Starfield being ugly and things of that nature.
The perspective of what’s “good” graphically continues heightening, and I’d hope we can understand that we’re at a point where games look more than good enough and we should be worried about what is happening in them, or what those graphics are being used to show us, especially with the possibility that bleeding whales dry to keep the outsourced high fidelity graphics going might not always be the way.
I’ve tried to find it again and could not, but several years back there was a grade A asshole who published a “course” on how to exploit their monetization targets psychologically (you know the ones, those that are referred to as see mammals that can be hunted for their precious blubber).
The whole thing was ultra cynical, it was like watching a comic book villain’s PowerPoint presentation. But it was really supposed to be a design resource.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
The way the article talks about morally objectionable practices as good business (“With such large fines on the table, not fully complying with consumer laws is no longer a manageable option.”) makes me nauseated.
Could be wrong here but based on the URL of the website it’s an industry type site. They’re probably writing for people that make games, or are involved in their publishing more than they’re writing for the average person playing them.
I noticed, it doesn’t make it less sociopathic or less ethically reproachable. Honestly talking about the law as something that should be “managed” should be illegal on its own, as it’s basically leading people to break it.
I hope that if regulations clamp down that the average consumer can understand the ramifications as well. It wouldn’t be as possible for AAA games to be as fancy and bleeding edge with the same degree of scope if they lose significant funding, most likely.
I fantasize about a renaissance of limitation where the game design gets stronger to compensate for the lack of sheer powering through by financially afforded scope and breadth, but I know that falls apart the second the consumer feels like they’re getting anything less than the best. You already see that now with people complaining about Starfield being ugly and things of that nature.
The perspective of what’s “good” graphically continues heightening, and I’d hope we can understand that we’re at a point where games look more than good enough and we should be worried about what is happening in them, or what those graphics are being used to show us, especially with the possibility that bleeding whales dry to keep the outsourced high fidelity graphics going might not always be the way.
Based on what?
They’re not spending most of their money on development. They’re spending it on ads to promote their addiction mechanics.
Based on my uninformed, unprofessional wild speculation
I’ve tried to find it again and could not, but several years back there was a grade A asshole who published a “course” on how to exploit their monetization targets psychologically (you know the ones, those that are referred to as see mammals that can be hunted for their precious blubber).
The whole thing was ultra cynical, it was like watching a comic book villain’s PowerPoint presentation. But it was really supposed to be a design resource.