Pretty much. They don't have any idea what a game even is, they just came in for the perceived gold rush (ignoring that movies have a much wider reach and games only make more money technically because they cost so damned much more). Basically what happened to the Atari 2600 after 3rd parties were found to be legal. I think that in this regard, gaming journos are very much actively going against both the consumer and the companies. Let's not forget the 2015's brouhaha was over some indie "developers" like Brianna Wu and Zoie Quinn. I don't think companies care one whit either way about DEI, but were told that's where they should go because of a journalist class that actually DOES hate gaming and wishes they were doing anything else. I'm sure IGN would keep using the 7-10 scale for advertisers either way, but the journalists present themselves as being on the pulse, and ignorant empty suits don't have any reason to think otherwise. Of course, there's also activist developers, but it's no secret that gaming journalists and developers often go back and forth between the roles, which only helps reinforce the strange, incestuous relationship that sparked Gamergate in the first place.

Oh, and snarky addendum: Probably because they hate their customers as much as we do. Have you seen the slop they've posted on this forum alone? Imagine being the Avowed developers, having to deal with the inane tripe being said instead of useful critical ripostes. (Currently sitting at 82 on OpenCritic.)

Funny how many here are bemoaning publicly traded companies...

It's not as if the privates or even indies aren't in it for profit.

I mean we regularly have threads where we lament the fact that many indies and small studios are more than happy to leave GOG customers hanging and stop posting updates to their games here.. because it's too much effort to make the builds? Not worth their time? F-you poor little customer.

I bet most small-medium studios would jump at the chance to "exit" (get their business acquired by some private investor or a large company, whether publicly traded or not) for a hefty sum of money. That's probably how RL ended in the hands of Epic. The less fortunate companies may just have to accept such a deal or go bankrupt. It's a tough field.

What about the companies that come take some old classic, get it pulled off the store, slap some new graphics and mods on it and call it a remake/remaster, sell it for more $$$ than the untainted original that can no longer be bought? It's not as if it isn't a favorite trick among a bunch of smaller studios... (hey Beamdog got acquired in 2022. I wonder how much money they made off of that deal. Not a public company so we can only guess.)

I also see interesting claims such as > here in the USA, corporations (publishers included) are viewed as fiduciaries who are mandated to chase the highest dividends possible for their shareholders

No no, I don't that poster has ever looked at stocks. US stocks pay notoriously low dividends. (The average equity dividend yield in US is 2.23% but 3.75% in EU and higher still in my country, according to 2016 stats. Tech companies tend to pay even less. Atari's dividend yield is zero. Ubisoft's dividend yield is zero. EA's and WSE:CDR's is zero dot something). Investors love growth over dividends; there are tax advantages to growth which enable greater wealth accumulation.

Another false idea is that companies are all about maximizing short-term quarterly revenue. Most investors are in it for the long game, because 1.10^20 is so much more than 1.20. Businesses that sacrifice their long term profitability for short term gains are a risky investment. Why would you invest in something that's going to piss off their customers, lose them, and turn unprofitable? It's even worse in a company that pays little to no dividends, like most game companies: your investment could turn to hot air overnight over shitty management decisions. If they actually had paid decend dividends, you'd actually gotten something out of it before the company is ruined. All the more reason to actually think about long term growth.

And then if you follow the money.. yeah, who are those customers, where does the money come from? Ah right. A million flies can't be wrong so big corpo shit must be good :) You can blame the gamers for buying it. Why would you buy it?

So yeah it's a combination of many things. It boils down to money, but gamers themselves deserve blame too -- that's where the money ultimately comes from. Public companies are not special; all business is in it for the money. Some are more ruthless than others, corpo or not. Somehow it just seems like big publicly traded companies make the most loved games. Small companies are quite keen to experiment with monetization strategies, though that's more prevalent in the mobile sector. Anything from subscriptions to ads to dlc spam and purchaseable cosmetics go, even pay to win crap is a thing, unfortunately.. anything for money!

I guess you could focus your gaming hours on labour-of-love solo indie games.. but there's a reason why there are so few of them, and even fewer that ever mature to the point where it resembles a finished game you can recommend to a friend. Money. Making games is extremely labour intensive and takes a ton of time (and skill!). Not easy to pull off when you have to worry about paying bills. I guess it gets easier if you've first invested enough in publicly traded companies that you can live off of the profits, just make sure it's not a company that kills its cash cow for short term profit because making a game is gonna take longer :P

Changing the way an existing game works in a bait and switch move is uncool, and that's one thing you can't blame gamers themselves for.

But gamers could be the force that lead to regulatory change. It's kind of unrelated to the OP's issue with Rocket League, but here's a petition in EU to "stop destroying videogames." Last time I brought it up, I mostly heard whining about how it's not just exactly the thing each individual wants. Not radical enough or whatever. It's easier to whine than to make a difference?

Less than half of the required signatures have been collected and time is running out. Gamers don't care enough.

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

I'm saying there could be regulation to prevent changing the rules of a released game too much? There could be regulation that entitles customers to refund if the product is changed in an unreasonable way? How much do you care? Food for thought.

If you want to know what you're getting and you want to keep it too: look at single player games, wait until the game is finished, buy it drm-free and save the installer. Nobody's going to change the rules on that.

Better yet, why not make your own game? Hey, make it free too. That way money can't corrupt it. Good luck...

AAA
developers want money so badly they don't inform us of anything.
all choices are mostly for money, even if it's not what your fans want.
when they dig in our data to make their product, we get mental illness while they claim to be innocent

no thank you id rather go live with the sand people and eat my own dung.

Definitely true. Companies are there to make money. Video game developers arnt non-profits. However, I think the ire against public companies is due to the need to always chase higher profits and implementing anti-consumer measures (MTX, loot boxes, undeveloped games) year after year to keep shareholders happy. These measures make money and public companies are highly incentivized to pursue these to meet and "exceed" targets. Given the fact that there are many stories of games initially being single-player that were forcibly turned into live-service by executives speaks to this fact and why there is ire against executives.

This is the biggest issue with gaming imo. Gaming has gone through several significant revolutions due to significant changes in the player base.

The sad fact is good, well-made video games do not necessarily result in greater profit. On the contrary, reselling or continuing a popular IP is a guaranteed money maker even if the game is incomplete trash. Say what you will about EA, they are consistently getting around 3 games in the top 10 most sold video games every year. You cant blame Rockstar for not making GTA 6 when they rake in millions of dollars selling shark cards for GTA Online. You cant really blame companies like Epic for Fortnite when they also rake in millions selling skins and when they try to fund a good single player like Alan Wake 2, it takes a while for them to even get their money back. The market has spoken and the majority of gamers do enjoy these predatory games that separate them from their money. Look at all the CoD fans complaining about the latest CoD entry for their lack of maps, loot boxes, and multiplayer then go and buy the next entry day 1.

Art, and stories especially, are always open to interpretation. What values they communicate is seldom overt. Most of those we find great relate to our personal truths, and we might interpret more into them than there actually is. That's why it's difficult for mere fiction to transport lies and conspiracy theories or spread hate. Some right wingers with extremely hateful political views are writing great fiction or create great art (like Orson Scott Card and Doug TeNapel).

There are of course propaganda stories. I have a degree in German literature – they did force me to read one of these, namely Gustav Frenssen's Peter Moors Fahrt nach Südwest. The book isn't in print, we had to get it photocopied, but it isn't censored or indexed or anything in Germany. To the last student, myself included, we interpreted some sort of misguided compassion and yearning for peace into this horrible racist's drivel.

Censoring art for the values they supposedly transport, that's just a huge can of worms. I strongly believe that this is a sword best left in the closet, gathering rust. I don't even want Steven Seagal's "The Way of the Shadow Wolves" censored, and that's as overt fascist propaganda as it gets. The US, in the meantime, is heading in a completely different way: Like, for example, Julianne Moore's children's book "Freckleface Strawberry". They're one inch from public book burnings, and why? Because the compassion of artists for their fellow people is always a thorn in the eyes of fascist leaders.

What I've been saying for a while now is: They don't want to be asked uncomfortable questions any longer. To me, that's kind of why I read at all. I also see that relationship between hyper consumerist behaviour and rejecting narratives that challenge the status quo; these often go hand in hand. However ... we're in the GOG forums, and it would be a bit short sighted of me to not acknowledge that this platform isn't exactly a gathering place for mindless consumers content with any cash grab shit the game industry flings at us.

To cut off the tangent here with a TL;DR:
"game companies" don't "hate their customers", but they do treat us like they're milking cows sometimes.
Blaming these companies for the empathy of their artists, however, is perverse.

Something else that's funny is that some people will point towards other people who supposedly "hate" the medium they're working in. Conveniently enough these same people who supposedly """hate""" games may happen to advocate for something deemed """political""".

But then again this is called shifting blame. As clarry said, who else to blame but the buyers and players who keep the industry afloat? As Tokyo_Bunny said, who else is buying the shark cards? Those people who """hate""" the medium and advocate for things on social media, or countless players who see nothing wrong with the status quo?