“The boiling frog story is generally offered as a metaphor cautioning people to be aware of even gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences. It may be invoked in support of a slippery slope argument as a caution against creeping normality. It is also used in business to reinforce that change needs to be gradual to be accepted. The term “boiling frog syndrome” is a metaphor used to describe the failure to act against a problematic situation which will increase in severity until reaching catastrophic proportions. It thereby encapsulates the barely noticeable impact of slow environmental degradation that has been described by Daniel Pauly as shifting baselines.”
Case in point:
“It’s not so bad, they give me free stuff.”
They stop making regular games and everything is a live service.
“Thats cool, we still get to play for FREE if we prop up their revenue stream.”
Games get aggressive with charges and adds a hard paywall.
“Thats cool, at least long term fans are enjoying the gameplay they provide.”
They kill off the original in favour of marketing part 2 with more enshittification and half the content of the original missing.
Your initial claim was that you will hit a paywall. I explained how I played multiple games for many years each where I didn’t hit a paywall.
Was that challenged or even acknowledged? No. All you did was move on to a hypothetical.
And the weirdest part about this hypothetical is that my post already kind of addresses it in the very first sentence: “many of these companies want lots of ftp players to keep the whales playing, as it gives them people to play against. Any empty game is no fun for anyone.”
Was this addressed or even acknowledged? No.
Maybe you’re right, but I question how much critical thought this was actually given when there was neither an admission that the original claim was wrong, nor even a mention of a point already made that totally undercuts the hypothetical.
Yes and in the past games used to not have loot boxes and subscriptions.
Your experience in the past does not represent an accurate view of the future of games.
You might have had fun with free shit but that’s not the case for everyone and every game. Especially moving forward with how games are developed nowadays.
You are projecting your “good” experience onto many players that didn’t.
If it’s only got a playerbase because it’s giving free shit to attract players for whales then that game is a fucking scam.
Your experience in the past does not represent an accurate view of the future of games.
I never said it did. You’re the one predicting the future of gaming, while ignoring things in the present that call into question your assumptions. So I suggest that your hypothetical probably doesn’t represent the future either.
You are projecting your “good” experience onto many players that didn’t.
Lol all I did was point out that your claims of facts are not true, and that your prediction about the future ignores important things about the model now. In fact I very explicitly said “for me.” So this claim I was suggesting it’s the same for everyone is kind of ridiculous. Seems like your MO is ignoring what was said in favor of what you want to be true.
Have you heard of boiling frogs?
“The boiling frog story is generally offered as a metaphor cautioning people to be aware of even gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences. It may be invoked in support of a slippery slope argument as a caution against creeping normality. It is also used in business to reinforce that change needs to be gradual to be accepted. The term “boiling frog syndrome” is a metaphor used to describe the failure to act against a problematic situation which will increase in severity until reaching catastrophic proportions. It thereby encapsulates the barely noticeable impact of slow environmental degradation that has been described by Daniel Pauly as shifting baselines.”
Case in point:
“It’s not so bad, they give me free stuff.”
They stop making regular games and everything is a live service.
“Thats cool, we still get to play for FREE if we prop up their revenue stream.”
Games get aggressive with charges and adds a hard paywall.
“Thats cool, at least long term fans are enjoying the gameplay they provide.”
They kill off the original in favour of marketing part 2 with more enshittification and half the content of the original missing.
“Oh…”
You are the boiling frog.
This is such a weird response.
Your initial claim was that you will hit a paywall. I explained how I played multiple games for many years each where I didn’t hit a paywall.
Was that challenged or even acknowledged? No. All you did was move on to a hypothetical.
And the weirdest part about this hypothetical is that my post already kind of addresses it in the very first sentence: “many of these companies want lots of ftp players to keep the whales playing, as it gives them people to play against. Any empty game is no fun for anyone.”
Was this addressed or even acknowledged? No.
Maybe you’re right, but I question how much critical thought this was actually given when there was neither an admission that the original claim was wrong, nor even a mention of a point already made that totally undercuts the hypothetical.
Yes and in the past games used to not have loot boxes and subscriptions.
Your experience in the past does not represent an accurate view of the future of games.
You might have had fun with free shit but that’s not the case for everyone and every game. Especially moving forward with how games are developed nowadays. You are projecting your “good” experience onto many players that didn’t.
If it’s only got a playerbase because it’s giving free shit to attract players for whales then that game is a fucking scam.
I never said it did. You’re the one predicting the future of gaming, while ignoring things in the present that call into question your assumptions. So I suggest that your hypothetical probably doesn’t represent the future either.
Lol all I did was point out that your claims of facts are not true, and that your prediction about the future ignores important things about the model now. In fact I very explicitly said “for me.” So this claim I was suggesting it’s the same for everyone is kind of ridiculous. Seems like your MO is ignoring what was said in favor of what you want to be true.