Three decades? Yes, things have changed a lot since the 1990s. Like I said, back then there were several non-monetizable passion projects out there (freeware) just made to gain notoriety within the industry. It's quite naĆÆve to use the 1990's standards to judge today's industry. Video Games is a multi-billion dollar industry with a lot of investments at stake. The main drive is to release a product successful enough to generate money. As I said, that has always been the case, with the exception of the few passion projects of the 90s.
Someone else brought up the 90s as a comparison point, can't recall who...
Anyway, apologies for bringing the word "naive" into discussion...
It's extremely naive to blame a company for not making a game we want, and for pursuing an alternative money-making venture instead. Games are expensive to make, and player bases are difficult to assemble. Now a company like EA? Sure they have money to spare, but even they are openly dissing single player games. Their offline modes aren't really affecting online money making, and that's why they're there. Konami's player base dwarfs next to EA's. It's naive to wonder why game companies are chasing money-making ventures, as opposed to making a nice offline game with a sprinkle of passion. They're businesses.
As it happens, though, the examples of naivety you went on to attribute to me aren't examples relevant to anything I said or examples of things I said; or, for that matter, examples of naivety at all.
To be clear:
- to blame a company for pursuing profit above all else would not be naivety: by contrast, it would be naive to expect them, say, to ultimately have gamers' best interests at heart. But it's not out of the realm of possibility to expect a big developer or publisher to make something that is both directed at making lots of profit and meets the demands of various sectors of its fanbase (this is something e.g. people on this thread have said about 2K and their NBA franchise, though I'm not qualified to comment on it myself). There are big and good games out there that do both those things ā and that's probably the sort of hope people here would have for Konami.
- Moreover, simply judging Konami as greedy incompetent bastards who don't give one shit about their most historically dedicated fans (which is all I've done) is not naivety ā it's not even a candidate for naivety; it's a value judgement.
- It might be naive to "wonder why game companies are chasing money-making ventures...", but this is just yet another straw-man. Nobody is stumped, wondering why Konami are pursuing profit above all else ā gameplay and features be damned. In the very post you're replying to, I lay out exactly why I think they do, participating as they are in industry-wide trends. In that case, your accusation of naivety is clearly misguided, grounded only in this weird rhetorical need to start inserting the notion of naivety into your reply to form into an escalating angry motif.
So, putting that naivety talk aside... You skipped right past the point of my post. Which was this: it isn't quite right to say that Konami are just a business and therefore just doing businessy things ā which was essentially the idea you summarised as an "unsavoury truth", that gaming businesses have always been focused on profit.
I could probably state it like this instead: either your truth amounts to a boring truism that we all know (businesses like to make some money) or it's just a gross simplification that obscures the important differences in the industry across time, or even across businesses within the industry at this present time. The commodification of gamers in line with industry trends today is fundamentally different to how it was even 15 years ago, and so has the attitude changed of the big art producers towards the art they make and sell. You might hand-wave again and say "15 years?! Who cares about that?!", but again ā I was responding to your own point (the "unsavoury truth") which sought to flatten out the differences in the industry (or businesses within it) over time.
I am happy if you don't want to take this disagreement further. It was an attempt at a good-faith discussion, but I don't sense it coming back that way.
I did. Still more interesting than the efootball update. Don't care one bit about that.
If our choices are rational but don't always have the desired impact, were we wrong to make them? I would say no.
Obviously you make a lot of valid points about the state of the gaming industry but at the end of the day we make hundreds of such decisions about countless products without overanalyzing the impact of our decisions or the state of the industry.
In this particular industry we still have a binary choice to make, feed the beast or not feed the beast. I don't think you can argue that feeding the beast is the right thing to do and that alone makes the decision we have as consumers easy in my eyes. You're just saying an alternative may not be viable and we may not kill the beast. There are examples that show that not everything is futile all the time though. Many such games from behemoths die every year due to lack of consumer support, we just don't think of them that much as they quietly disappear. I could even argue that e-football is one of them. Are the 3k users playing on steam whales that will make the game viable on pc? I think not. This particular beast is maybe half dead on anything but mobile.
I understand that maybe people can feel helpless when dealing with the huge successful behemoths (like, the "other game"). But to the point of "submitting to the likes of the big behemoths out of feeling helpless"? I don't know about that, not my thing thankfully. Yes a lot of things are out of our control and sometimes we all make irrational choices & purchases, but maybe we can think of our choices as having a net positive or a net negative effect, no matter how small, rather than accomplishing some grand overarching goal.
See, now this is an example of a good-faith reply!
I can definitely see your reasons and you see mine, I think. I will say that I'm still uncomfortable viewing gamers' decisions to buy or play the games they really wish were better/different as acting against their rational self-interest. Perhaps you're appealing to their higher selves or something ā to what, if they put all their urges and emotional needs aside, they should
really want. Then you might be right... But I would just say that I think buying a game you expect won't fully satisfy you, or buying content within it likewise, might placate you for a bit, might be directed at re-connecting you with past experiences that were ultimately better. And that to me is intelligible as still in the self-interest of people, even if it doesn't bring a better game any closer to them (or as you've been saying, pushes it farther away).
I suppose what I'm basically trying to say is that
@Chris Davies's yearly purchases of FIFA (I would have said PES as well, but you can hardly outright buy it anymore...) in spite of what he fears deep down it will turn out to be aren't entirely irrational!