this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
27 points (67.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
31314 readers
344 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is that different from, say, movie studios? All of your points fit for them too. In fact most of your points are just how companies work under capitalism:
I will be say I wasn't thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)
By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.
Doesn't mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the "big games companies" are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like "drug dealers" trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a "brand" of gaming and once they can "control" what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.
Again most of your points also fit movie studios and their streaming platforms
Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie's case it is a pay per experience.
With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won't be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience
It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying "hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it" or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes
Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more "easy" money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem "fresh and new") and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to "encourage" one to spend more on the original purchase.
The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere
They are trying to get people to become "addicted" to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial "junkie")
It's OK. This is a shower thought. It doesn't need to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.
Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.
It is like they are trying to find that "magic addictive formula" and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.
Have you heard of "engagement optimised match making"? Have a look on YouTube.
Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the "magic addictive formula"
They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to "addictive habits" and attempts to "encourage" a habit that leans towards an addiction.