Whatever your opinion on the proposed Microsoft/Activision merger,
there's one good thing coming out of it: more transparency about how
these companies work.

Take, for instance, this fact from a recently poorly redacted
document: of all the people owning a Playstation 5, 1 million of them
use the device /only/ to play "Call of Duty", while 20 million
Playstation owners use it mainly play the same game.

Which, honestly, makes me feel a little sad. Look, I'm no fan of the
"Call of Duty" games; I think they are shallow, repetitive and haven't
done anything new or original in almost two decades. I've given up
playing the games because (amongst other reasons) they aren't
different enough from earlier games for me to want to pay for the
newest iteration.

But that's me. Others love the series and - even though I rue the
franchise's grip on the genre - I understand that tastes differ, and
if people actually LIKE the gameplay in "Call of Duty", then more
power to them.

So it's not sad that so many people love the "Call of Duty" games.
What /is/ sad is that these 20 million strong gamers aren't expanding
their horizons. Of course they 'love' "Call of Duty" if that's all
they are playing. But it's such a limited view of gaming and they
deserve to have a wider scope before making that decision. Yet - like
too often happens - they've cloistered themselves in their little COD
bubble and are missing out on so many great games.

Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
other gamers too.

I've no conclusion or fix for this issue; it's just a bit of data that
I've come across that I thought I'd share. It was something that made
me think that I thought might be interesting.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:08:41 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Whatever your opinion on the proposed Microsoft/Activision merger,
> there's one good thing coming out of it: more transparency about how
> these companies work.
>
> Take, for instance, this fact from a recently poorly redacted
> document: of all the people owning a Playstation 5, 1 million of them
> use the device /only/ to play "Call of Duty", while 20 million
> Playstation owners use it mainly play the same game.
>
> Which, honestly, makes me feel a little sad. Look, I'm no fan of the
> "Call of Duty" games; I think they are shallow, repetitive and haven't
> done anything new or original in almost two decades. I've given up
> playing the games because (amongst other reasons) they aren't
> different enough from earlier games for me to want to pay for the
> newest iteration.
>
> But that's me. Others love the series and - even though I rue the
> franchise's grip on the genre - I understand that tastes differ, and
> if people actually LIKE the gameplay in "Call of Duty", then more
> power to them.
>
> So it's not sad that so many people love the "Call of Duty" games.
> What /is/ sad is that these 20 million strong gamers aren't expanding
> their horizons. Of course they 'love' "Call of Duty" if that's all
> they are playing. But it's such a limited view of gaming and they
> deserve to have a wider scope before making that decision. Yet - like
> too often happens - they've cloistered themselves in their little COD
> bubble and are missing out on so many great games.
>
> Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
> rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
> then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
> overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
> other gamers too.
>
> I've no conclusion or fix for this issue; it's just a bit of data that
> I've come across that I thought I'd share. It was something that made
> me think that I thought might be interesting.

Call of Duty? I just made one!

I'll never understand the things the majority like, especially when it's
exclusive.

- Justisaur

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:08:28 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
>rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
>then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
>overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
>other gamers too.
>
>I've no conclusion or fix for this issue; it's just a bit of data that
>I've come across that I thought I'd share. It was something that made
>me think that I thought might be interesting.

Easy. We get them all a copy of Psygnosis' Lemmings. They will love it.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:08:41?AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Whatever your opinion on the proposed Microsoft/Activision merger,
>> there's one good thing coming out of it: more transparency about how
>> these companies work.
>>
>> Take, for instance, this fact from a recently poorly redacted
>> document: of all the people owning a Playstation 5, 1 million of them
>> use the device /only/ to play "Call of Duty", while 20 million
>> Playstation owners use it mainly play the same game.
>>
>> Which, honestly, makes me feel a little sad. Look, I'm no fan of the
>> "Call of Duty" games; I think they are shallow, repetitive and haven't
>> done anything new or original in almost two decades. I've given up
>> playing the games because (amongst other reasons) they aren't
>> different enough from earlier games for me to want to pay for the
>> newest iteration.
>>
>> But that's me. Others love the series and - even though I rue the
>> franchise's grip on the genre - I understand that tastes differ, and
>> if people actually LIKE the gameplay in "Call of Duty", then more
>> power to them.
>>
>> So it's not sad that so many people love the "Call of Duty" games.
>> What /is/ sad is that these 20 million strong gamers aren't expanding
>> their horizons. Of course they 'love' "Call of Duty" if that's all
>> they are playing. But it's such a limited view of gaming and they
>> deserve to have a wider scope before making that decision. Yet - like
>> too often happens - they've cloistered themselves in their little COD
>> bubble and are missing out on so many great games.
>>
>> Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
>> rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
>> then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
>> overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
>> other gamers too.
>>
>> I've no conclusion or fix for this issue; it's just a bit of data that
>> I've come across that I thought I'd share. It was something that made
>> me think that I thought might be interesting.
>
>Call of Duty? I just made one!

Did you remember to flush?

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

On 29/06/2023 15:08, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So it's not sad that so many people love the "Call of Duty" games.
> What/is/ sad is that these 20 million strong gamers aren't expanding
> their horizons. Of course they 'love' "Call of Duty" if that's all
> they are playing. But it's such a limited view of gaming and they
> deserve to have a wider scope before making that decision. Yet - like
> too often happens - they've cloistered themselves in their little COD
> bubble and are missing out on so many great games.

I don't think it's sad just because it's like only drinking one type of
wine but also it points to how companies use every trick in their
armoury to make sure players invest all their time, and money, in a
single game.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:02:19 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:08:28 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>>Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
>>rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
>>then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
>>overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
>>other gamers too.

Side note: Everytime I abbreviate "microtransactions", I'm reminded of
the awful MTX Motocross game (coincidentally, also made by
Activision).

Although these days, I'm half convinced that if Activision released a
new MTX game it would be using the newer form of the abbreviation: no
game, all microtransactions. ;-)

>Easy. We get them all a copy of Psygnosis' Lemmings. They will love it.

They deserve to play that game for the soundtrack alone.

Raise your hand if you can still whistle some (most/all) of the music
from the original game. 'Cause I sure can. Those were some catchy
tunes.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:53:05 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Raise your hand if you can still whistle some (most/all) of the music
>from the original game. 'Cause I sure can. Those were some catchy
>tunes.

<Raises hand>

I have some of those tunes in my soundtrack collection.

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:53:18 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:02:19 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:08:28 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> >Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> >>Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
> >>rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
> >>then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
> >>overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
> >>other gamers too.
> Side note: Everytime I abbreviate "microtransactions", I'm reminded of
> the awful MTX Motocross game (coincidentally, also made by
> Activision).
>
> Although these days, I'm half convinced that if Activision released a
> new MTX game it would be using the newer form of the abbreviation: no
> game, all microtransactions. ;-)

I've been wondering how MTX = microstransactions every time I see it,
I also don't know the new abbreviation either. Microtransactions
itself also sounds too mild. It should be called something like flim-flam.

- Justisaur

On 6/30/2023 11:14 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:53:18 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:02:19 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:08:28 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Worse, this narrow mindedness makes them easier to victimize by
>>>> rapacious corporations; if they're not going to jump to another game,
>>>> then Activision has no incentive to make the games better or not
>>>> overload it with MTX. And, sadly, those corporate decisions effect
>>>> other gamers too.
>> Side note: Everytime I abbreviate "microtransactions", I'm reminded of
>> the awful MTX Motocross game (coincidentally, also made by
>> Activision).
>>
>> Although these days, I'm half convinced that if Activision released a
>> new MTX game it would be using the newer form of the abbreviation: no
>> game, all microtransactions. ;-)
>
> I've been wondering how MTX = microstransactions every time I see it,
> I also don't know the new abbreviation either. Microtransactions
> itself also sounds too mild. It should be called something like flim-flam.
>
Financial Death By A Thousand Currency Cuts.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:17:27 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 6/30/2023 11:14 AM, Justisaur wrote:

>> I've been wondering how MTX = microstransactions every time I see it,
>> I also don't know the new abbreviation either. Microtransactions
>> itself also sounds too mild. It should be called something like flim-flam.

>Financial Death By A Thousand Currency Cuts.

Yeah, but FiDBATCuC doesn't roll of the tongue the same way. ;-)

On 6/30/2023 2:15 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:17:27 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 6/30/2023 11:14 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>
>
>>> I've been wondering how MTX = microstransactions every time I see it,
>>> I also don't know the new abbreviation either. Microtransactions
>>> itself also sounds too mild. It should be called something like flim-flam.
>
>> Financial Death By A Thousand Currency Cuts.
>
> Yeah, but FiDBATCuC doesn't roll of the tongue the same way. ;-)
>
Fine. Financial Death by a Thousand Cuts. Happy now?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:08:28 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Take, for instance, this fact from a recently poorly redacted
>document: of all the people owning a Playstation 5, 1 million of them
>use the device /only/ to play "Call of Duty", while 20 million
>Playstation owners use it mainly play the same game.
>
>Which, honestly, makes me feel a little sad. Look, I'm no fan of the
>"Call of Duty" games; I think they are shallow, repetitive and haven't
>done anything new or original in almost two decades. I've given up
>playing the games because (amongst other reasons) they aren't
>different enough from earlier games for me to want to pay for the
>newest iteration.
>
>But that's me. Others love the series and - even though I rue the
>franchise's grip on the genre - I understand that tastes differ, and
>if people actually LIKE the gameplay in "Call of Duty", then more
>power to them.

I do still play COD occasionally (more for the battle royale variation
on it than the standard game).

The COD formula still scratches a certain multiplayer shooter itch.
Once a formula is successful at that level, changing that formula
becomes a slippery slope. Too many changes, and the franchise can
lose its core audience... with a franchise that successful, potential
consequences are massive. This is why we never see much innovation in
COD; experimenting with a successful product formula is risky
regardless of product type.

For those that do like mp shooters, sometimes relatively small changes
(visual improvements, new gameplay modes, and perhaps most of all, and
possibly the easiest to accomodate: new maps) are enough to retain
interest and warrant a new purchase.

For those not into the genre, changes like those won't seem
substantial enough and it all feels like the same game.

Personally I prefer more tactical games, but COD does have a certain
twitch-dopamine vibe going which does not translate quite the same way
to deeper, slower paced, more realistic tactical shooters. So if they
wanted to innovate, a less risky course of action would be to
introduce a spin-off franchise that doesn't threaten the COD brand and
allows for some creative headroom to try new things and see what
works.

Not holding my breath though, because I can already envision some
marketing douchebag in a conference room saying "but wait, if we
release a new shooter it could cannibalize COD sales". And douchey as
they may be, they might actually have a valid point in this case.