But what actually makes it bad? Is making a game and wanting to get a financial benefit out of it inherently wrong?
Why doesn’t that same logic apply to celebrities doing brand endorsements, shoving products down our throats that they probably don’t even use just because they are famous? And don’t forget product placement in movies.
Also, developing a modern video game can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it flops, it’s just a dead loss. Unlike movies, which can recoup losses through streaming deals or cable rights, a bad video game usually means nobody plays it and the studio loses everything. That is a massive financial risk.
I was not weighing in on whether or not adding advertisements is a bad thing. I was pointing out how flawed your logic is. “Just doing their job” is not a good defense for the job being done.
What do you mean? You were the one who brought morality into this by comparing game developers to Nazi soldiers.
You claim that ‘just doing their job’ isn’t a valid defense, but how else am I supposed to look at it? It is literally their job to find new ways to monetize a product. If a company pushes a bad strategy, consumers can just stop playing and paying, like when BMW tried subscription heated seats and failed because of low sales. Blaming employees for doing what they are hired to do, while people keep playing the game, makes no sense. Trying new ways to make money isn’t a moral crime; it’s just business.
Kyunw@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
why people keep making stupid comparison? why? just an effort to make my stand is morally wrong?
those people that got kill by the nazi have no choice, they cant simply refuse to get kill or got drag to the camp
do the game developer forces you to play their game? its your choice whether to play it or not
Master_Suck@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Because you’re going to great lengths to defend a form of enshitification.
It sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Bad thing is bad thing is bad. Period.
Kyunw@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
But what actually makes it bad? Is making a game and wanting to get a financial benefit out of it inherently wrong?
Why doesn’t that same logic apply to celebrities doing brand endorsements, shoving products down our throats that they probably don’t even use just because they are famous? And don’t forget product placement in movies.
Also, developing a modern video game can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it flops, it’s just a dead loss. Unlike movies, which can recoup losses through streaming deals or cable rights, a bad video game usually means nobody plays it and the studio loses everything. That is a massive financial risk.
Where do you draw the line?
SystemDisc@feddit.org 6 hours ago
I was not weighing in on whether or not adding advertisements is a bad thing. I was pointing out how flawed your logic is. “Just doing their job” is not a good defense for the job being done.
Kyunw@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
What do you mean? You were the one who brought morality into this by comparing game developers to Nazi soldiers.
You claim that ‘just doing their job’ isn’t a valid defense, but how else am I supposed to look at it? It is literally their job to find new ways to monetize a product. If a company pushes a bad strategy, consumers can just stop playing and paying, like when BMW tried subscription heated seats and failed because of low sales. Blaming employees for doing what they are hired to do, while people keep playing the game, makes no sense. Trying new ways to make money isn’t a moral crime; it’s just business.