this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
240 points (99.2% liked)

Games

16742 readers
818 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

My standard would be having enough people behind it to actually make a difference and not just a handful of angry people on a forum who may or may not actually stick to their guns.

Boycotts have worked for things. But only when they had enough people actually boycotting the thing that it hurt someone's bottom line. I've not seen this happen with any video games since the crash of '82.

With a game like GTA, that at one point was the most sold video game in history, you're gonna need a lot more people on board with a boycott than the entirety of Reddit to actually make a dent.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

having enough people behind it to actually make a difference

Like a dent in profits? As previously mentioned?

Star Wars Battlefront II had a massive consumer backlash, leading to apologies and concessions, but it still posed no risk whatsoever of killing that specific game, let alone the business model. Hence the original point: boycotts here can't work.

Half the issue is that a tiny fraction of players get pantsed for thousands of dollars apiece, in exchange for imaginary hats. The fuck does a boycott even look like when a game is "free?" Even the people playing it mostly aren't buying it. It's still half the video game industry, by revenue. Only legislation will fix this.

Boycotts are relevant because every third dingus replying to "only legislation will fix this" scoffs, "just don't buy it." Or, marginally better, blames it on consumers "encouraging this behavior." Both are glib denials of a systemic problem. This is is the dominant strategy. Every business is either doing this shit... or not making as much money as they could. We were never going to shop our way out of it.