Batman Arkham Knight released in 2015 compared to 'Suicide Squad' Game which released in 2024. Which one is better in your opinion?Connect with me:Twitter:ht...
“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification.”
The origin of the term. Note, “good to users” is things like undercutting local taxis a la Uber, or ad-free accounts a la Netflix, with the plan to abuse the established customer base later. A bad game =/= a company systemically abusing users for shareholders. It’s just a shitty game.
If you broaden a word too much, it loses meaning. Eventually it’ll just mean “things I don’t like,” and we’d need another word for the original meaning and the cycle repeats.
That’s why the OP pushed back against it, and why I’m defending them.
The next game in a franchise isn’t opt-out, it’s opt-in. Netflix adding ads to your tier is opt-out (you need to pick a higher tier to avoid them). They’re not the same thing at all.
I could see if SS started as a non-live service game and then added live service nonsense later, but that’s not what happened. It was released as live service from the start.
The word just means the product you purchased gets worse because of changes the manufacturer makes. I can perhaps see it being used for physical products like cars, where the next model year adds a monthly subscription to something that used to be included for a fixed price (e.g. heated seats, remote start, etc), so buying the same model but newer would result in a degradation.
SS is a new IP, so it’s not really a new release of something that already exists, and it was advertised as having live service stuff from the outset. There’s no bait and switch there, just bad bait, and the bait and switch is a pretty hard requirement for me.
The origin of the term. Note, “good to users” is things like undercutting local taxis a la Uber, or ad-free accounts a la Netflix, with the plan to abuse the established customer base later. A bad game =/= a company systemically abusing users for shareholders. It’s just a shitty game.
deleted by creator
If you broaden a word too much, it loses meaning. Eventually it’ll just mean “things I don’t like,” and we’d need another word for the original meaning and the cycle repeats.
That’s why the OP pushed back against it, and why I’m defending them.
deleted by creator
The next game in a franchise isn’t opt-out, it’s opt-in. Netflix adding ads to your tier is opt-out (you need to pick a higher tier to avoid them). They’re not the same thing at all.
I could see if SS started as a non-live service game and then added live service nonsense later, but that’s not what happened. It was released as live service from the start.
The word just means the product you purchased gets worse because of changes the manufacturer makes. I can perhaps see it being used for physical products like cars, where the next model year adds a monthly subscription to something that used to be included for a fixed price (e.g. heated seats, remote start, etc), so buying the same model but newer would result in a degradation.
SS is a new IP, so it’s not really a new release of something that already exists, and it was advertised as having live service stuff from the outset. There’s no bait and switch there, just bad bait, and the bait and switch is a pretty hard requirement for me.
deleted by creator