Seth Carter said:
Uh, if Wrestling was insanely popular, you probably would. We could actually take a look at something like the explosion of "reality TV" for instance. Or more recently the explosions of "grey morality" dramas. Or exclusive shows to some network you have to pay for every month effectively for one specific show (some networks do better, others do not. I don't even think the one Star Treks on has any other shows).
And even all that has little to do with the same moral standpoints. Wrestling's a fun one here, because Wrestling has a gigantic issue with being anti-union, having wrestlers get no benefits because they're "independent contractors" (even when signed to multi year exclusive contracts and working 300+ dates a year). And other then some of the competition to WWE having lighter schedules because they don't have the resources to run that many shows, very little movement to remedying any of it.
I'd imagine if I had any particular knowledge of the ins and outs of TV production, that we'd see much the same struggles. Churning out seasons of TV on deadlines and around schedules is probably just as crunch-timey as any videogame being developed, its just less in the spotlight. I do know a few folks in the film industry (not actors or directors, but the lesser camera guys, and stagehands) and they're pretty regular on 16-20 hour days for weeks at a time if needed.
You know what? I coincide this point. You're absolutely correct. It was a poor analogy on my part.
But in truth, I can not think of a good similarity to the game buying public. Other people are more than willing to let the companies abuse them, so I either have to buy a game rife with those abuses or that franchise will die, a la Dawn of War 3 and a plethora of other games that didn't meet the market share to appease the Investors.
Tons of tv shows can fail for a network (and regularly do), and the network will be fine and just ship out new trainwrecks. Game Developer Companies don't have that luxury.
Neurotic Void Melody said:
Sorry for late reply, internet access is not a dependable thing in life currently, especially at weekends.
I should've been more in-depth with wording first post, but wrote it with an assumption it wouldn't be quoted so was a bit vague. Out of Pat and Woolie, it's generally Pat that is into getting all the new shinies as he seems to like to have new topical stuff to chat about for podcast, I think because he does a lot of streaming that is also request-based from his regular audience. Woolie just kinda gets on with his own thing, though I think he mentioned using it for Hades, which I totally empathise with. Pat already said Origin (and Uplay?) store is worse than Epic, yet still use them when they're required for a game. They've both used these store that they openly dislike many many times previous, was this not a noticeable problem before now? Also Pat has admitted to paying to go and see the Emoji movie solely to have more podcast content. Am sure that also falls into the abstract venn diagram here.
Of course you didn't use the word hypocrite, but it did kinda read like a heavily implied thing, with saying X says Y is bad, X then uses Y regularly for services, right under the header about morals in gaming being questioned. I apologise if that wasn't the intention, it was just how it came off to my corneas.
What I'm getting from this is that you are under the impression the epic store is immoral and kids/fans shouldn't be indirectly encouraged to use it by others (influencers) who bring up user criticisms and their own during their podcasts. Am I getting that right or no? And by not boycotting the store, they have betrayed an ideal you had in mind of how they should respond to this store?
Am gonna have to admit, as a bumbling peasant console owner, the extent of the internet reaction to the store doesn't make sense to me, so it just doesn't seem like a terrible thing if people use it, even if they already criticise it. As long as criticisms are still being made clear so progress can occur. It isn't new for those guys in particular and it doesn't feel like an immoral stance to me, so am probably not the best person to speak of or to about it.
Hey, no issue. Life is life. Thanks for taking the time to get back at me.
So, I'm going to start with my major issue. It's the problem with implication. Implication, whether meant or not, can take someone's sentiment away from them. Look at Roseanne Barr and her Planet of the Apes comment. On the surface, just an insult to a person. But given the fact that she's heavily Right winged, the nation is so divided nowadays, and the racial epithet always linked with calling people of Color 'Monkeys' and 'Apes', her stupid little comment took a life of its own, fueled by outrage that didn't need to be there.
I'm disappointed in Pat. But I can't consider him a Hypocrite because his overall statement is the the Epic Store is bad in terms of the product it put together and the tactics they use. Even though he bought stuff on Epic Game Store, his over all response and take away is that the store is worse than he thought, and he became actual news due to how bad the experience is. Which I already expressed.
As I spoke about before, whether he likes it or not, he is an Influencer. He has the ear of hundreds of thousands. He can malign the store all he wants, and be right about it. But when he says it sucks and still uses it anyway, it simply lessens his position. That, to me, is a distance between a disappointing action and a Hypocrite.
It's a subtle distinction that I'm willing to have a debate about in another thread, as it interests me. But to me, take a fictional person who says "Anyone who buys products from Madeupistan are subhuman pieces of filth who should be ashamed, because of how they treat their workers and you need to buy American and blah blah blah", and was seen later with the shiny new phone release that was made in Madeupistan's factories. That person is a hypocrite. It is absolutely doing the opposite of what he proclaimed.
Someone who's disappointing is someone who rails against the practices the labor laws of Madeupistan, who would actively vote down every measure they could to prevent it from happening in Madeupistan and anywhere else in the world... But never out rights tell people to not get products from Madeupistan and in fact owns several products from Madeupistan. It strikes of being disingenuous. They are probably truly appalled by how Madeupistan treats its workers, and they would fight tooth and nail to have said practices stricken from the world. But their phone is really getting slow. So they need something new...
Now, as far as I've seen on the videos and as memory serves, Pat and Woolie said you should do whatever you want, but the Epic Store is trash. If my memory is right, then I can't think of the as hypocrites. But as Influencers, whether they want the term or not, they have to understand their actions have significant weight in the layperson's justification or even reasoning. You'd be surprised how many people actually form their opinions based on the people they like.
And to your Pat/Emoji part, he flat out stated that he recognized that he was the problem. That these movies are made because of people like him who will spend the money to see the Trashfire.
My point is the Epic Store is not for the consumer. It's a ship-shod product that I actually wanted to work. I had no problem with having a new source of games for the PC. I go from Steam, to GOG, to Humble Store as much as I can. My original thought was Epic could come in and offer a service that was worth my time in the way that Origin and Uplay completely failed to do.
And they came out with services even less than those. It didn't seem like they truly cared. All they wanted was the games to come there and they just wanted people to follow to their bare-bones offering. They broke deals already made with Kickstarters/Game Companies that has probably eroded the trust in future PC Kickstarter games. Overlooking general of needing a new launcher, as I shown in a previous post, users chimed in and said flat out that Epic has not protected their accounts or their purchases and have banned them in a similiar fashion as Pat.
It's a subpar service that is trying to strong arm themselves in a position to rival steam. And if they could do it without having to improve themselves, I sincerely doubt they will do it out of their best interests.
And the last part is gives me the most pause, and why I made this thread in the first place. If the game industry gets to lower the bar more and more and still gets the financial rewards because gamers just shrug and accept the slop given to them, what actual incentive will these comapnies have to be better?
