Remember COD:MW2 protests?
https://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-...
Remember COD:MW2 protests?
https://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-...
Many, though certainly not all PC gamers are serious about not having their platform choices manipulated by exclusivity deals. It is interpreted as bullying, and we have had plenty of practice sticking to that belief against attempts to coerce people to buy every console. Red Dead Redemption 2 was just released, but even though it looks like an actually good game, it simply doesn't exist for me until it comes to PC.
You don't know what the monetization scheme will be but you are sure it will use dark patterns to drain peoples wallets.
You apparently didn't read the article to see what the similar GUI patterns they replicated were but you are certain it's just another pay to win game.
Your bias is showing.
In some ways it also tarnishes the Android and Apple brand, which is why I think Google reacted with multi-accounts device sharing and YouTube kids. I wonder how much mobile gaming revenue is because parents signed in with their credit card and there aren't multiple accounts on iOS, and you can't update a game without the parent signing back in, and Family Sharing has no granularity. I have to think that Apple has walked over every inch of their UX and knows this.
On Blizzard, I'm feeling what they mismanaged was the fact that their conference is expensive and anticipated enough to travel to, but what they announced is for a different audience.
As corporations become ever larger, it becomes harder to make demand-side opinions observable, and so it becomes necessary to employ more extreme forms of protest to avoid being overpowered by the sell-side attempts at influence. If that influence is not opposed, the market will become entirely dominated by the sell-side and will allow trust-like abuse of power, destroying the equilibrium pressure by which markets are allegedly regulated. This kind of market abuse does not require monopolies, and appears to be a blind spot for many proponents of market economies.
This is not just a problem with gaming, and one could reasonably argue that there are more important battles to fight. That said, this is probably one of the few markets where that kind of demand-side mobilization is still possible, as many others have already been neutralized by divide-and-conquer tactics.
> Your bias is showing.
Your ignorance of the market is showing.
Sure, because it's not just a reskin. They are creating new models, too. When people say "reskin," they sometimes aren't literally talking just about skins. Rather, they are talking about making another game on top of the same basic engine that exists in other games. And considering who Blizzard is partnering with to make this game and the other games they've put out, you can see there point.
And maybe successful COD example is due to the more casual gamers who wouldn't attend a conference (given that there are many more of them, it doesn't take as much engagement for financial success. )
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data