insightguy wrote:reason I'm asking because I've heard an argument that since the game is usually already done before the game is released to the public for review or marketing purposes, the artists are then just tasked with making new assets for DLC and such due to "free time"
There's no such thing as "free time" in commercial business. If you're on the clock, you're working to make the company money. Whether that means being shifted to a different department that you can help in, or to the next big project, or to DLC; if you have idle workers, you're doing business wrong, and that's just as true today as it was in the 90s.
Whatever happened to mid-tier publishers? The ones that are not indie enough to be underfunded yet not greedy enough to be AAA. They always seemed like the people you go to for this kind of dissatisfaction.
There was a saying I saw somewhere, something to the effect of "You either die to the monster, or you live long enough to become the monster." In a capitalist economy, you have to be greedy to succeed. A company may be able to last and even grow for a while without resorting to bad practices, but eventually they'll get to a point where they have to make a decision; start doing those things or get snuffed out by those who do.
with regards to the point on steam, isn't the only reason most of us are "ok" with it is because it gives us enough features to counteract the DRM? (cloud saving, easy download of installers, offline mode, etc.)
The only way to counteract DRM is to remove it. The only way I'll ever say DRM is acceptable if it's non-intrusive (i.e. I know exactly what it's doing and I can remove it whenever I wish) and just as importantly, the game is 100% free. I don't want something on my machine that I don't know what it does, or that I can't remove if I no longer want it doing that. And if I pay money to get something, I don't want someone else to reserve the right to take it away whenever they want for any reason.
Offline Mode is not something you control (it's only by the Grace of GabeN that you have it; should Valve decide to remove it tomorrow, there's nothing you can legally do about it), and features like cloud saving should never be mandatory if it means giving up our rights to the things we buy. Have it as an option for people who are okay with sacrificing ownership for convenience, fine, but for those of us that like to own what we buy, let us just have a normal game. Besides, I could probably set up something similar to cloud saving myself (presuming the developers don't try to prevent it), so I don't need to add strain to their servers.
Honestly, I'm not really feeling the burn of monetezation that some people seem to have, either because I'm a cheap bastard and avoid those games like the plague or because I like steam sales and usually refrain from buying recent games unless 60% off or more.
For some of us, it's the principle of the thing. Common behaviors dictate trends, which offers a glimpse of what the future holds.
I remember I bought Oblivion because it was proudly marketed to have no DRM (at a time when SecuROM was all the rage, enforcing limited installs and server checks while installing files onto your machine without your knowledge and making it impossible to delete them via normal means). That game also basically introduced me to the Elder Scrolls series and it quickly became one of my favorite series after also playing Morrowind and Daggerfall. I got worried when their next game, Fallout 3, included SecuROM (it's just a CD check guyz, it's okay!). I wasn't happy to hear Fallout New Vegas required Steam with online DRM (Steam is cool tho, rite?). I was upset when Skyrim then was also announced to require Steam DRM, as it meant I was blocked out from that entry of the series. So in the span of a few games, a company once marketed a game as being DRM-free, then went on to utilize SecuROM then online authentication. And the signs were there if you looked at common industry practice.
The fact the Bethesda has started to release games on GOG gives me some hope that their games won't be forever tied to Steam DRM and will become DRM free again, even if it may be a few years after release. But seeing the industry's desire to have free-to-play economies in full-price games (aka fee-to-pay games), and seeing what Bethesda is doing with the Creation Club, that again causes me worry. Even if they proudly market their next game as having no micro-transactions or loot boxes, that doesn't mean they'll never use them if they continue to be the norm in the industry.
And if that can happen to Bethesda, is any company safe? Will CD Projekt be the next to crack after their next game? inXile? Obsidian? Paradox? Larian? Ninja Theory? The only defense we have is to continue making it known that it's not okay, to encourage those who maintain some sense of ethical behavior.
dpJudas wrote:There is no doubt the "whale" players will continue to pay and play the "AAA" games - they are lost cause
It's more than that. There are mental disorders that cause people to be unable to stop gambling. People who, once their compulsion kicks in, literally can't stop themselves from continuing to pump money into such a system (in some severe cases, to the point where they pass out and die from exhaustion). You also have impressionable kids, who don't understand these kinds of schemes or what they're doing. These people aren't a lost cause, they're people who need help, and part of that help means being able to avoid that which can induce harmful behaviors.
For people who video games are normally a relaxing hobby (or maybe even a source of income, if they're a streamer or a critic/reviewer or something), what do you think it does for them if there's no regulation on this stuff and any game can end up including some kind of gamble box system without warning? If a product contains elements that can harm enough people who use it as intended, shouldn't they be required to at least clearly disclose that so the people who are at risk of harm have a chance to avoid it?
