I'm not sure what you mean by "seem." If online games are making a great deal more money than non-online games, then doesn't it stand to reason that the majority of people who play and buy a lot of games have an internet connection that can support it?zwzsg wrote:You're saying online games are massive. I point out they may seem bigger than they are since you don't hear from people without internet.
You don't hear from people at all. I'm not referring to me literally hearing people talk about games. That would be irrelevant. I'm talking about companies making decisions based on what sells. Its not any easier to hear from people who play online than it is to hear from people who don't, because either way, they pay money for the goods, and that's all that a company hears. If a company wants to make a lot of money (which all companies exist to do) they'll make products that people have historically bought more of (follow sales trends) and, based on the money that they rake in, that is online games.
tl;dr version: I'm saying they're massive because they make more money, not because I randomly "hear from people" about them.
They aren't. I never said that. Not a single time did I even imply that we are supposed to buy into a product that we don't like. In fact, I've suggested over and over and over again in this conversation that you should buy what you want and not buy what you don't want, and if you really really don't like something, don't buy it and try to convince others not to buy it.zwzsg wrote:As a gamer, the amount of money Microsoft make is not my primary concern. Since when are consumers now required to forfeit their own feeling, their own taste and to only to act in accordance with the best interest of companies?
It's not a trust, its just what drives the medium. Its a reality that's worked the same in every other entertainment industry in history. Movies, music, radio, etc. Obviously, there are extreme sales that are illegal, such as, you know, slavery. And its a good thing they are illegal. But, sales like the ones we're talking about aren't abusive. They're just arguably a bad bargain. If you don't like the bargain, don't buy it. There's no protection against stupidity. If you don't like something and you buy it anyway, that's rather stupid.zwzsg wrote:I find your trust in free market a bit scary. And no, even if both party agreed to it, not all sales are legal. Thanksfully, even in murica, there are laws to protect consumers against abuse.
EULAs have been standard for years now, and while they may be "protected" against in various other countries, the lion share of profits are currently in the US, where people don't seem to mind. If you do mind, vote with your wallet. If everyone else doesn't mind, tough shit.
There's no laws against what Steam does. And, people know what it does, and they're fine with it. If you're not, then, again, don't buy into it! That's fine!
And, on that note, this doesn't mean that every single game will be a multiplayer shooter and a Moba in the near future. That doesn't make sense. It means that the variety of games will be divided based on how divided the consumer base is. If there aren't many singleplayer gameplay oriented games, then not many people want that. If there are a lot of multiplayer competitive twitch based games, a lot of people want that. If there are a medium amount of story based games, some people want that. It just matches whatever the demand is, because competition exists. And then, of course, its all scaled to match production costs etc etc etc.