Support NeoGAF

[ThePinkServbot]

Call of Duty still sells 8-digits with every single entry. So does FIFA. And Ass Creed. Of course they do.

Well, not quite on Ass Creed, there's a lot of few flat entries in there. That being said, though, while the low-end buyer maybe buys an Ass Creed, or a Halo... It's the 30 attach rate person that buys everything. It's the 30 attach rate person with the bread that gets listened to. At the "vote with your wallet" ballot box, the choices of the low-end buyer are overwhelmed by that of the high-end. Is the low-end buyer still buying games? Sure, but it's in an industry tailor-fitted for the person pushing the most cash into the system. And that person is a specific class, color, and gender. If the low income gamer was king, do you really think video game storylines and video game characters would be the way they are?

Way more people focussing on a small amount of different titles vs a small enthusiast base covering a broad area of different titles.

Also (though this is pretty unscientific), just to give you an idea at the difference in size of those groups:

NeoGAF has 160k members
/r/gaming (lowest common denominator) has 8.4 million subscribers, so about 50 times more members than GAF.

You're right. That is very unscientific.

 

[Steel]

Except that person with 30 games makes 30 votes. The person with one game makes one vote. There are not, in fact, that many more people making only one vote to overcome or even cancel out the person making 30 votes, and with that, the industry output becomes weighted towards the person putting the most cash into the system.

If you want to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to do more than say "statistics" like you're saying "expecto patronum."

There are, in fact, enough people to more than cancel out that 30 votes. If there wasn't, then consoles would have attach rates exceeding 20+ rather than 8. But, let's put that aside for the moment:

Ok, so let's say the person buying 30 games buys 24 niche ones, like Armored Core and 6 mainstream AAA ones. Those niche games that Mr. 30 buys don't sell nearly as much as the 6 AAA ones he bought, in fact they sell at a very small fraction of the rate of a AAA game. They're not the type of game that gets made by big publishers. On the other hand, that person buying only one game is 90% likely to be buying a AAA game. Now, there are 30 of these guys who buy only one AAA game to the one Mr. 30(the actuality is a LOT more skewed than that, but w/e).

Now, considering this, it's far more appealing for a businessman/woman to cater to the second person's choice of game, because if they can get that one game they buy to be their game, then they make a huge profit and go home happy.

 

[Teeth]

Well, not quite on Ass Creed, there's a lot of few flat entries in there. That being said, though, while the low-end buyer maybe buys an Ass Creed, or a Halo... It's the 30 attach rate person that buys everything. It's the 30 attach rate person with the bread that gets listened to. At the "vote with your wallet" ballot box, the choices of the low-end buyer are overwhelmed by that of the high-end. Is the low-end buyer still buying games? Sure, but it's in an industry tailor-fitted for the person pushing the most cash into the system. And that person is a specific class, color, and gender. If the low income gamer was king, do you really think video game storylines and video game characters would be the way they are?

Why do AAA games trend towards broad audience hand-holdiness and ultra-easy difficulty when they are supposedly targeted towards people who play tons of games?

Why does Nintendo's Wii strategy going after the blue ocean with wide adoption, no fail, everyone wins, low(er) cost category SO successful if the market everyone goes for is the hardcore 30 games a year audience?

 

[ThePinkServbot]

Why do AAA games trend towards broad audience hand-holdiness and ultra-easy difficulty when they are supposedly targeted towards people who play tons of games?

Because "playing tons of games" has never even remotely implied "likes a challenge"?

 

[KHlover]

Well, not quite on Ass Creed, there's a lot of few flat entries in there. That being said, though, while the low-end buyer maybe buys an Ass Creed, or a Halo... It's the 30 attach rate person that buys everything. It's the 30 attach rate person with the bread that gets listened to. At the "vote with your wallet" ballot box, the choices of the low-end buyer are overwhelmed by that of the high-end. Is the low-end buyer still buying games? Sure, but it's in an industry tailor-fitted for the person pushing the most cash into the system. And that person is a specific class, color, and gender. If the low income gamer was king, do you really think video game storylines and video game characters would be the way they are?


You're right. That is very unscientific.

Since we get like a thousand threads every month complaining about how games are too easy, we get too much AAA crap, mid-sized developers died out, X series was ruined by attempting to copy COD, Fuck EA threads, Fuck Ubisoft threads, X game bombed undeservedly etc. etc. - Yeah, I definitely do.

 

[Teeth]

Because "playing tons of games" has never even remotely implied "likes a challenge"?

EDIT - nevermind, not worth it.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

There are, in fact, enough people to more than cancel out that 30 votes. If there wasn't, then consoles would have attach rates exceeding 20+ rather than 8.

I say "cancel out" to mean their impact on industry output. You say "cancel out" to mean "the sheer math of who buys how many video games." I'll wait for you to get back on topic.

Ok, so let's say the person buying 30 games buys 24 niche ones

Uh, let's not. I think you've been on NeoGAF too long if you think even a significant minority of people with a 30+ attach rate is some niche-focused gamer.

 

[Phediuk]

jfc at some of the ignorant/anti-intellectual responses in this thread. I'm really disappointed in GAF.

 

[Steel]

I say "cancel out" to mean their impact on industry output. You say "cancel out" to mean "the sheer math of who buys how many video games." I'll wait for you to get back on topic.



Uh, let's not. I think you've been on NeoGAF too long if you think even a significant minority of people with a 30+ attach rate is some niche-focused gamer.

I think you've been on neogaf too long if you think there's a significant amount of 30+ attach rate gamers.

And the sheer math of who buys video games is exactly where the money is. It's that simple. It's not rocket science.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

Since we get like a thousand threads every month complaining about how games are too easy, we get too much AAA crap, mid-sized developers died out, X series was ruined by attempting to copy COD, Fuck EA threads, Fuck Ubisoft threads, X game bombed undeservedly etc. etc. - Yeah, I definitely do.

...so you're applying NeoGAF sensibilities to the majority of low-income gamers? I don't understand your point.

 

[Darksol]

I just play video games.

^

This. So much this.

 

[Riposte]

jfc at some of the ignorant/anti-intellectual responses in this thread. I'm really disappointed in GAF.

Not caring about this or that tragedy is not tied to intellect. Maybe you are looking for a word like apathetic or selfish?

 

[Conan-san]

If I spent all my time in a Tiz about every last factor of the saussage factory, I'd never eat saussages again.

 

[Teeth]

jfc at some of the ignorant/anti-intellectual responses in this thread. I'm really disappointed in GAF.

What do you do?

 

[ThePinkServbot]

I think you've been on neogaf too long if you think there's a significant amount of 30+ attach rate gamers.

There actually are a lot of people who do buy games like that because they have the money and time to do that. They're either rich, or they've sacrificed everything else to do that. My brother, for example, is a very comfortable man, and he has a 360 game collection about that big. And he's no NeoGAFite, there are no Dead Risings or Blaz Blues or Lost Odysseys in his library, it's nothing but Rock Band and Madden and Halo and Gears and Kinect Crap and Just Dance. This isn't exactly a hard collection to make, and people do it all over the place.

And the sheer math of who buys video games is exactly where the money is. It's that simple. It's not rocket science.

I'm not sure why you're playing(?) dumb about what I meant. You interpreted "cancel out" in a way that served your argument yet also deviated from what I was actually talking about.

 

[KHlover]

...so you're applying NeoGAF sensibilities to the majority of low-income gamers? I don't understand your point.

No you asked if - were it indeed the low-income gamers dictating content - video characters and storylines would be the way they are.

My answer was supposed to show that, going by the threads here on NeoGAF which is a pretty big, yet still enthusiast forum, it certainly isn't the enthusiasts dictating the content.

 

[Steel]

There actually are a lot of people who do buy games like that because they have the money and time to do that. They're either rich, or they've sacrificed everything else to do that. My brother, for example, is a very comfortable man, and he has a 360 game collection about that big. And he's no NeoGAFite, there are no Dead Risings or Blaz Blues or Lost Odysseys in his library, it's nothing but Rock Band and Madden and Halo and Gears and Kinect Crap and Just Dance. This isn't exactly a hard collection to make, and people do it all over the place.

There are a lot of people on neogaf, too. But we're a drop in the bucket in the overall market. Our purchasing decisions do not have a huge impact on the direction of the gaming industry, it's really that simple.

I'm not sure why you're playing(?) dumb about what I meant. You interpreted "cancel out" in a way that served your argument yet also deviated from what I was actually talking about.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about anymore to be honest. You seem to really want to say that people who spend a ton of money on games have some kind of huge impact on the way games are made, which is demonstrably not true and by extension you seem to be trying to say that this somehow also means that the hobby of gaming is particularly expensive, which is also demonstrably false for most people that game. Beyond that, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

No you asked if - were it indeed the low-income gamers dictating content - video characters and storylines would be the way they are.

My answer was supposed to show that, going by the threads here on NeoGAF which is a pretty big, yet still enthusiast forum, it certainly isn't the enthusiasts dictating the content.

Okay, I think I understand the problem. You think that anyone who would buy games in those amounts would HAVE to be the NeoGAF type of person who is really into something like Earth Defense Force and OneChanbara. I'm sorry, this is not the case; most people who buy video games in those amounts are just buying AAA stuff upon AAA stuff.

 

[RPGam3r]

I just play video games.

For the most part this. Item six made me think a bit. I don't think it is exclusive to gaming that you only hear from the figure heads (who probably do a lot more than represent the company) of a company. Hundreds of people make things like games. You're never going to hear from most of them, and that's ok.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

There are a lot of people on neogaf, too. But we're a drop in the bucket in the overall market. Our purchasing decisions do not have a huge impact on the direction of the gaming industry, it's really that simple.

I really, really do not understand why you people keep thinking I am talking about NeoGAF.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about anymore to be honest. You seem to really want to say that people who spend a ton of money on games have some kind of huge impact on the way games are made, which is demonstrably not true and by extension you seem to be trying to say that this somehow also means that the hobby of gaming is particularly expensive, which is also demonstrably false for most people that game. Beyond that, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

For it to be "demonstrably false", you have to "demonstrate" something.

 

[Steel]

I really, really do not understand why you people keep thinking I am talking about NeoGAF.



For it to be "demonstrably false", you have to "demonstrate" something.

We're talking in circles, I mentioned before that there's a whole lot more than 30 people for every person that buys 30 games, but w/e. I mentioned Neogaf as a reference point for your anecdotal evidence, because your "Alot" doesn't really pan out in data. But, please, keep making claims about how attach rates work and effect the AAA industry with absolutely no statistical data to back yourself up. I think I'm done with this thread. Peace.

 

[Giever]

OP, I feel powerless to prevent the looming environmental catastrophes that are potentially in store for us, and that's what I spend most of my time worrying about. As far as I can tell, we're pretty well fucked (barring some insanely helpful technological break-through that no one is currently predicting), so I've mainly been trying to not worry too much about it and enjoy the life I have the way I can with my SO, for as long as that lasts.

I've made a few personal decisions that I hope might help contribute to the avoidance of such issues (or at least the avoidance of additional suffering for additional people), but beyond that, I don't feel that there's much I can do.

So, I play video games, and try not to worry about it too much. I do absolutely make an effort to keep in mind the horrible shit I'm contributing to, though, because I feel like I ought to at least feel somewhat properly like shit over my indulgences.

 

[And_Gignac]

This thread is sad. No one is telling you to stop gaming and to boycott every single piece of technology, just to acknowledge that there are problems your hobby indirectly generates and if, as possible, contribute to make their impact less severe. The way people are being so unapologetic about it is terrible.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

We're talking in circles, I mentioned before that there's a whole lot more than 30 people for every person that buys 30 games, but w/e. I mentioned Neogaf as a reference point for your anecdotal evidence. But, please, keep making claims about how attach rates work and effect the AAA industry with absolutely no statistical data to back yourself up. I think I'm done with this thread. Peace.

Mentioning NeoGAF as a reference point in this conversation is about as relevant as mentioning a giallo-focused forum in a conversation about the top 10 grossing films in the US.

 

[a.wd]

I try and do some work to offset the impact of my purchasing a game/system/component. This forms charity works and support for solutions that minimise the environmental/societal impact on the world, or in fact provide a neutral output.

I also try to be as ethical as I can be in gaming, supporting companies that demonstrate diversity in their internal culture as well as their gaming output.

I tend to be a reasonably happy with the impact that I have on the world, I know that as a culture gaming tends to be reasonably selfish in terms of assessing and addressing the impact on the world, but then I can see why some people will happily make decisions for their own best interest over others.

I just try to do what I can to leave the world in a better place than how I found it, and I am trying to teach that to my daughter as well (she is only 1!), so hopefully my family will see beyond "ooooh shiny toy" to the real impact on the world their presence has.

I do find it funny that this thread is 4 pages long though, with the general amount of upset (for example the Has MS Changed your mind thread) I would have expected this to be a lot more populated.

 

[charlequin]

Globally you could say it is upperclass. In the West it's not quite so but when most people are living pay check to pay check and making much less than what the west does you could easily call it that.

It really isn't in any sense. The pricing of the hobby isn't upper-class -- plenty of people get by spending the equivalent of a couple bucks a week, far less than something like smoking. The retail presentation certainly isn't upper-class -- Gamestops tend to be found in crummy strip malls, as befits their status as erstwhile pawn shops. Its origins as a hobby -- in bars and arcades, less-than-classy types of establishment where the price per play was small -- are not upper-class. Even the typical personality profile associated with gaming isn't upper-class. Nobody finds out that someone plays Halo and goes "wow, that guy must be loaded!"

 

[Teeth]

I do find it funny that this thread is 4 pages long though, with the general amount of upset (for example the Has MS Changed your mind thread) I would have expected this to be a lot more populated.

It's mostly because there really isn't anything we can do about it except stop buying video games. And even that won't stop the manufacturing issues.

Or buying carbon morality credits like you do.

Being aware doesn't mean shit if you don't do anything about it.

 

[devonraynor]

And now Lets talk about something like clothing. Even though OP has legit points, you can find bad things in everything we consume.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I don't see a real big point in fighting over how the consoles are made. Remember the Fairchild Channel F and how they had to tone down the radioactive levels in order to get it manufactured?

As an adult I have some serious responsibilities to take care of. At the moment, not so much. I'm not married, no kids, and my mind can still have many different things going on at once. I can discuss gaming and to be honest I enjoy it a lot. I just don't know where my mind will be in the future beyond a couple years. New people will come into gaming, game series will end, the greats will retire, and who knows really.

I deal with everything just fine. There's a few aspects about gaming culture that I don't care for. A lot of it is because I pay lots of money to play the games. Discussing them is a huge plus too, don't get me wrong. I play games and I anticipate more games down the road. I don't make any money off of them. To be honest, I've been asked why I cared so much. I know why and it's the same way I've always felt.

There's a person probably playing a game I'm paying $190 or more to play. They may work part time or full time and they get this game for free months before I do. It's someone else's job and why should I even worry? I guess it just doesn't feel right at times. I care for gaming and I probably have spent more money than some journalist have out there on video games. I get so much less involvement and recognition from game designers, industry gurus, and the like. Some days I feel like I'm just along for the ride until we all fall back to who we are.

I'm not trying to take things for granted. If I quit period, no one would give two flying ducks out on the pond either. I don't like thinking that way, but I'm just talking here.

I bought a few real good books about the history of gaming. I love it. I see that they use the same books in various schools for game design. I didn't buy these books to go to school. I bought them because I enjoy video games.

I might not surround myself with gamer(s) or ever get a job where I can even think about video games outside my mind. I enjoy it and I care about issues concerning it. It's rough when you get involved inside a group who love games, who gets recognition from the developer, and then all of a sudden you drop off the map. You searched for the same thing and you didn't find the right things you need. The thing is, journalist and the important issues are handled by someone else for the majority of the time. Media uproars and the like can help solve some issues, but at the end of the day you are who you are.

I take important issues to heart, but I also remember that once I close my laptop. I'm dealing with my own game collections, my own pocket book, and my own mental status. Sometimes the two can fit and sometimes you just gotta find your own way.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

The pricing of the hobby isn't upper-class -- plenty of people get by spending the equivalent of a couple bucks a week, far less than something like smoking.

Yes, and I'm one of them. I acknowledge that the "plenty of people" like me, however, do not represent the core of the market that EA and Activision take into account when they decide to give who what money.

The retail presentation certainly isn't upper-class -- Gamestops tend to be found in crummy strip malls, as befits their status as erstwhile pawn shops.

I mean, that's true, but that doesn't really have anything to do with $60 pricetags and $300/$400 entry fees into the medium.

Its origins as a hobby --

Are irrelevant to the state of the hobby today.

Even the typical personality profile associated with gaming isn't upper-class. Nobody finds out that someone plays Halo and goes "wow, that guy must be loaded!"

No, but if they find out that he plays Halo and Gears and CoD and WoW and Rock Band and Uncharted and Tomb Raider and...

 

[Phediuk]

It really isn't in any sense. The pricing of the hobby isn't upper-class -- plenty of people get by spending the equivalent of a couple bucks a week, far less than something like smoking. The retail presentation certainly isn't upper-class -- Gamestops tend to be found in crummy strip malls, as befits their status as erstwhile pawn shops. Its origins as a hobby -- in bars and arcades, less-than-classy types of establishment where the price per play was small -- are not upper-class. Even the typical personality profile associated with gaming isn't upper-class. Nobody finds out that someone plays Halo and goes "wow, that guy must be loaded!"

I think if this were rephrased from a class issue to a developed world vs. developing world issue it would be spot-on, though.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

To use the already mentioned golf example, there are YMCA golf classes and open-to-everyone courses, too. Are we going to pretend that the people who use those services make up an even remotely noticeable percentage of golf hobbyists?

It's even worse with video games. The video game industry is actively and openly spiteful of the kind of consumer you're talking about, and tries to undermine and hamstring their ability to participate in video games at every turn.

You know, folks, you don't have to split your ass in half to defend some of the crappier components of your hobby at every turn.

Keep in mind mobile and social gaming. Not to mention folks who play indies and such.

I can pay anywhere from free to $60 for a game these days. So can the rest of the developed world who have access for a PC, smartphone, tablet, console, etc.

Edit:

As for the Issues raised by op? I'd going to take a lot of work.

Conflict minerals, E-recycling, etc: This needs to be an area where the gaming press (and others) hold their feet to the fire. Publish articles quarterly about it, or better. Constantly hound them for responses. Work with places like gamestop to get them to start offering recycling services for broken, old consoles and such instead of throwing them out or selling them to less reputable places to be shipped overseas. Publish stories about their e-waste management practices.

Industry practices like overworking and such, needs to be two prong as well: One the press constantly holding their feet to fire, but the other need stop come from within. Devs need to form guilds or unions and demand better hours and benefits. They need to end predatory contracts that force them to abandon their families to hit deadlines or lose bonuses or pay because some reviewer average wasn't at some arbitrary level.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

...then they assume he lives in his parents' basement and doesn't have a job?

Well, I did say earlier "or has made extreme sacrifices to do that kind of thing."

Keep in mind mobile and social gaming. Not to mention folks who play indies and such.

I can pay anywhere from free to $60 for a game these days. So can the rest of the developed world who have access for a PC, smartphone, tablet, console, etc.

Right, but this is a discussion about the kind of gaming OP was mentioning, which doesn't really entail mobile or social gaming. Indie gaming is completely my bread and butter these days, but... I mean... the fact that it's "indie gaming" sort of precludes it from any discussion about what the masses do.

 

[a.wd]

It's mostly because there really isn't anything we can do about it except stop buying video games. And even that won't stop the manufacturing issues.

Or buying carbon morality credits like you do.

Being aware doesn't mean shit if you don't do anything about it.

I ain't buying anything son, and there are plenty of things that you can do about it. Being aware means that you might in some small way recognise your impact on the earth and then try and do something/anything to help out.

 

[Teeth]

I ain't buying anything son, and there are plenty of things that you can do about it. Being aware means that you might in some small way recognise your impact on the earth and then try and do something/anything to help out.

That's what I was implying with "morality credits". The idea that you can spend an evening serving soup at a homeless shelter to offset buying a gaming system that was partly manufactured by a company that exploits workers.

One has nothing to do with solving the other. The equivalency metric is impossible to define. It is literally doing nothing to solve the problems with the gaming industry.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Don't really care to be honest. And if you say you care but still continue using your consoles/video games/gaming pcs, then I will label you as a hypocrite.

I also don't really care about others doing video-gaming. One of the reasons I am irked by anyone saying "Boycott thisss because of thattttt" which is for a 100% of the time simply boycotting stuff based on simple convenience only.

 

[charlequin]

Yes, and I'm one of them. I acknowledge that the "plenty of people" like me, however, do not represent the core of the market that EA and Activision take into account when they decide to give who what money.

Yeah, this is just wrong, full stop. This is exactly who Activision takes into account. You can tell in part because the vast, vast majority of videogame revenue (and basically everything Activision-Blizzard makes) is made by things that you can plausibly play for a year on a $100-ish expenditure. If you look at any type of industry customer persona report, this is exactly who they describe -- post-collegiate adults with middle class incomes, whose buying habits are heavily influenced by their social groups and their non-videogame interests, and who are more likely to develop a long-term habit with a single game's multiplayer component or extensive sidequest collection than to flit around between different titles.

I think if this were rephrased from a class issue to a developed world vs. developing world issue it would be spot-on, though.

I mean, sure, though I don't tend to consider that type of comparison in discussions like this since global wealth disparities mean that most consumer-good or expenditure-based hobbies in developed countries will be available to only a selected few in developing nations.

 

[patapuf]

There are a lot of people on neogaf, too. But we're a drop in the bucket in the overall market. Our purchasing decisions do not have a huge impact on the direction of the gaming industry, it's really that simple.



I'm not quite sure what you're talking about anymore to be honest. You seem to really want to say that people who spend a ton of money on games have some kind of huge impact on the way games are made, which is demonstrably not true and by extension you seem to be trying to say that this somehow also means that the hobby of gaming is particularly expensive, which is also demonstrably false for most people that game. Beyond that, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Ironically, the people who spend a ton of money influence the one area of gaming he dismisses: F2P games.

 

[Northeastmonk]

...then they assume he lives in his parents' basement and doesn't have a job?

or that he plays games with his kids or his kid's friends. I've heard the daddy gamer mentality. It's not bad right, but it's not how I see life. If their kids quit for a summer, can that same guy play video games?

There's so many stereotypes to look at: Wastes money, no job, no girl, basement, violent, obesity, unintelligent, sexist, you're too old, etc.

Then there's the holy grail of what you can throw back at people: It's used for education, video games tell a story, I'm bored, I use to play and this is just something popular, everyone plays a game, and you play game(s) on your phone.

It's a sad day when you've lived your life thinking about games, enjoying their charm, lived out your daily life with no problems at all. Then you hit a certain age and you're told to grow up and move on.

I always find some of it being hypocritical because I'm told the opposite by someone else. I'm told that they met another adult who plays or they bought a video game that got very good PR attached to it. Then I meet the opposite kind of person, an older man or a person my own age telling me to grow up and move on again. The cycle keeps repeating and repeating.

If someone cannot play video games because of age then I'd love for there to be a report done on it tomorrow or the next day. This week even. I think the entire world is filled with hypocrites if we can make documentaries and videos saying "gaming is art and is storytelling", while they say only kids, teenagers, college kids, and those in their 20's enjoy it. Gaming is more than a hobby for 20 somethings, right?

 

[a.wd]

That's what I was implying with "morality credits". The idea that you can spend an evening serving soup at a homeless shelter to offset buying a gaming system that was partly manufactured by a company that exploits workers.

One has nothing to do with solving the other. The equivalency metric is impossible to define. It is literally doing nothing to solve the problems with the gaming industry.

I know what you were insinuating, however there are organisations that work to minimise the impact that globalisation has on workforces without unions and power. Go and get in touch with them, they don't only need money, they also need intelligent articulate people who can reason and debate against people with a very vested interest in keeping the status quo.

 

[Lime]

Thanks for the all the replies - it's interesting to read what people think.

In retrospect, I regret the way I worded two things in my OP:

1) I should have asked what "we can do with the problematic aspects of the games culture and industry?". Instead, I implicitly made the question sound as if the burden is on you individual, which wasn't my intention as such. These problems are so big and structural that it is impossible to exist in Western society without consuming stuff that isn't ethical in some sense or the other. I understand why so many are giving their personal advice on how to do best as an individual, but I personally believe this is a collective and structural issue that needs to be adressed by everyone, especially larger companies and media organizations.

Reporters and game journalists should ask more into these issues and reviewers should cover the labor context of the games they review. And maybe some day we will get Fairtrade/"Organic" games? :lol

2) Many people think that I'm saying video games are an upper-class hobby. That is not what I wrote. I claimed that video games are *constructed* as an upper-class luxury hobby in terms of mostly requiring to have the latest expensive gadgets, buying the "day one" editions of expensive $60 (US) / $100 (EU) games, having the best hardware, etc. And the culture motivates the consumer to be part of this expensive hobby with its pre-order schemes, its "day one" editions, review & marketing hype, community conversations on the latest games, etc. For example, just as a minor example of the latter, OTs on Neogaf get relegated to the Community Ghetto after 4 weeks, so if you want to be part of the activity in the thread, you have to play the game within that timeframe (although LTTP threads are always great). But the same social mechanic goes the discussions on Twitter, Facebook, other communities, and so on.

So, I didn't write that video games is only for upper-class individuals, but that they are as a culture constructed by the industry and media to have the consumers buy into the products as much as possible and as high as possible. On a global scale of course, video games are for the more well-off countries and upper-class citizens in less well-off countries.

Any way, I appreciate the posts in this thread, even the unfortunate "I just play video games" comments.

 

[Teeth]

Gaming is more than a hobby for 20 somethings, right?

Video games are like masturbating. Everyone does it but only young men talk about it.

I know what you were insinuating, however there are organisations that work to minimise the impact that globalisation has on workforces without unions and power. Go and get in touch with them, they don't only need money, they also need intelligent articulate people who can reason and debate against people with a very vested interest in keeping the status quo.

To what avail? What would be the debate a Westerner could have with a person who wants to keep the status quo for foreign workers that doesn't amount to boycotting select manufacturers?

2) Many people think that I'm saying video games are an upper-class hobby. That is not what I wrote. I claimed that video games are *constructed* as an upper-class luxury hobby in terms of mostly requiring to have the latest expensive gadgets, buying the "day one" editions of expensive $60 (US) / $100 (EU) games, having the best hardware, etc. And the culture motivates the consumer to be part of this expensive hobby with its pre-order schemes, its "day one" editions, review & marketing hype, community conversations on the latest games, etc. For example, just as a minor example of the latter, OTs on Neogaf get relegated to the Community Ghetto after 4 weeks, so if you want to be part of the activity in the thread, you have to play the game within that timeframe (although LTTP threads are always great). But the same social mechanic goes the discussions on Twitter, Facebook, other communities, and so on.

As a recovering poor person, I can say you get pretty fucking wise to what a corporation wants to sell you, and how it means very little to what you actually want to buy when your disposable income is in such short supply.

They can sell all the sizzle they want, but I need a steak with volume to fuel my bike ride to work.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

Yeah, this is just wrong, full stop. This is exactly who Activision takes into account. You can tell in part because the vast, vast majority of videogame revenue (and basically everything Activision-Blizzard makes) is made by things that you can plausibly play for a year on a $100-ish expenditure. If you look at any type of industry customer persona report, this is exactly who they describe -- post-collegiate adults with middle class incomes, whose buying habits are heavily influenced by their social groups and their non-videogame interests, and who are more likely to develop a long-term habit with a single game's multiplayer component or extensive sidequest collection than to flit around between different titles.

Yup, if there's one thing a for-profit corporation loves most, it's convincing a consumer to buy one product instead of two. Sorry, just because Activision has years-long plans for Destiny, doesn't mean they don't FULLY INTEND for the exact same person to also buy the next CoD.

Also...

post-collegiate adults with middle class incomes

This is the kind of lack of self awareness that makes Americans think they're still an underdog. "We're not well off, we're post-collegiate adults with middle class incomes!"

 

[NuclearSpy]

I enjoy and glad that points 1-7 were mentioned.

Vehemently disagree with 8 and 9.

How I deal with it?
I don't feel like 1-7 is something I can't control.
8 and 9 are incredibly disingenuous and because of that; I dismiss it by ignoring it.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Well, I did say earlier "or has made extreme sacrifices to do that kind of thing."



Right, but this is a discussion about the kind of gaming OP was mentioning, which doesn't really entail mobile or social gaming. Indie gaming is completely my bread and butter these days, but... I mean... the fact that it's "indie gaming" sort of precludes it from any discussion about what the masses do.

Yeah, but it can't really be ignored, in terms of how much revenue and how many gameplay hours it represents.

I mean heck, look at minecraft. It's bread and butter isn't the hardcore, it's all the millions using it as virtual LEGOs. Same for all the thousands of free to play, social games, mobile games, etc. Heck, many a indie game are probably bought by folks with little income who just want something to play.

This is really changing the landscape in a lot of ways compared to the days of old. I doubt that majority of game players even consider themselves 'gamers' by any classical definition.

Part of the reason I think we see so many purchase incentives by the big companies is they know the hardcore market is shrinking, and thus are trying to milk us for every last cent they can.

 

[charlequin]

2) Many people think that I'm saying video games are an upper-class hobby. That is not what I wrote. I claimed that video games are *constructed* as an upper-class luxury hobby in terms of mostly requiring to have the latest expensive gadgets, buying the "day one" editions of expensive $60 (US) / $100 (EU) games, having the best hardware, etc. And the culture motivates the consumer to be part of this expensive hobby with its pre-order schemes, its "day one" editions, review & marketing hype, community conversations on the latest games, etc. For example, just as a minor example of the latter, OTs on Neogaf get relegated to the Community Ghetto after 4 weeks, so if you want to be part of the activity in the thread, you have to play the game within that timeframe (although LTTP threads are always great). But the same social mechanic goes the discussions on Twitter, Facebook, other communities, and so on.

I think the fundamental error of categorization here is interpreting this to mean it's constructed as an upper-class hobby when it just means that it's constructed as a consumerist hobby.

Yup, if there's one thing a for-profit corporation loves most, it's convincing a consumer to buy one product instead of two.

People who understand the operation of the video game industry know that as a content provider you're almost certainly not going to get anyone to spend more money than they would otherwise, so the thing you really want to do is just to make sure that they spend all that money on you. If someone plays a game like Destiny or World of Warcraft that completely consumes their gaming time, that is meaty enough to serve as an entire hobby unto itself, then you have a customer who will dedicate pretty close to 100% of their budget for that hobby to buying your content. Activision has consistently been one of the most successful video game publishers in the world for so long specifically because they have this exact thing down to a science.

 

[a.wd]

To what avail? What would be the debate a Westerner could have with a person who wants to keep the status quo for foreign workers that doesn't amount to boycotting select manufacturers?



As a recovering poor person, I can say you get pretty fucking wise to what a corporation wants to sell you, and how it means very little to what you actually want to buy when your disposable income is in such short supply.

They can sell all the sizzle they want, but I need a steak with volume to fuel my bike ride to work.

At a personal level, sure, all you are doing is saying to people "avoid those guys, they are assholes" but then you need to be able to trust that the corporations that you buy things from are trustworthy. Which I don't.

At government level? You can impress upon them that people are unhappy with the human cost of our society, this might not do much, but every little helps, until the little becomes the majority.

As a fellow post proper poor person, I recognise your perspective, I just think we can all do something, no matter how small, to help and recognising where our lives has an impact guides us to the things to try and alleviate that impact.

 

[ThePinkServbot]

Yeah, but it can't really be ignored, in terms of how much revenue and how many gameplay hours it represents.

Mobile gaming? Absolutely, but it really isn't what the OP is talking about. Indie gaming? Eh... You've got Minecraft in there, sure, but 99% of indie gaming isn't going to register a tick.

I doubt that majority of game players even consider themselves 'gamers' by any classical definition.

Thank god for that.

Part of the reason I think we see so many purchase incentives by the big companies is they know the hardcore market is shrinking, and thus are trying to milk us for every last cent they can.

Yup, and in milking the shrinking hardcore market as much as they can, they will play to each and every whim of the hardcore market, which means white dudes pressing X to survive.

 

[Teeth]

People who understand the operation of the video game industry know that as a content provider you're almost certainly not going to get anyone to spend more money than they would otherwise, so the thing you really want to do is just to make sure that they spend all that money on you. If someone plays a game like Destiny or World of Warcraft that completely consumes their gaming time, that is meaty enough to serve as an entire hobby unto itself, then you have a customer who will dedicate pretty close to 100% of their budget for that hobby to buying your content. Activision has consistently been one of the most successful video game publishers in the world for so long specifically because they have this exact thing down to a science.

It should be noted that, aside from Nintendo, Activision is the least price flexible of all of the major corps. They maintain the value of their products which teaches their consumers that A) Buying in early will not create post-buyer dissonance because the price will rarely ever go down, and B) The buy in is high enough that the customer is willing to throw additional money at it because they have likely invested heavily in time-commitment to get worth out of the original buy in.

I honestly believe that one of the main reasons CoD has such high day one sales is because they never go on sale.

 

[KHlover]

What exactly do you think constitutes the upper class?

He probably compares this to 2nd or 3rd world countries, can't see any other way he thinks 50k-100k (+ another 100k - 200k if you bought a house) student loans on a yearly income of ~ $70k ($90k if both parents have a degree, but then you also have double the student loans) with two kids would in any way constitute an "upper-class".

EDIT: nope, he doesn't