This week’s topic has been one of the most eye opening ones so far as it has given some people an opportunity to share what they are passionate about. This week I chose to talk about gaming and how essentially making a game free is beneficial for the majority in most cases.
It was interesting to have been able to involve a bit of Psychology in this week’s discussion within my post and the discussions I’ve had with my colleagues in the comments. A lot of people (including myself) tend to lose grasp on how big some business companies are (especially gaming). The business models they implement are meant to work in their favour one way or another. In the case of Free-to-Play, games like League of Legends (LoL) make full use of “Psychological loop-holes” – Jess and I talked a little bit about competitiveness and how it gives people drive to spend.
Calum and I also had a lengthy discussion about the differences between the two models (Free-to-Play and Pay-to-Play) and analysed how each have worked well within different segments of the gaming industry. Some games will only work with certain business models … apart from the ones released by established gaming companies. Some of them have really just made themselves dominant in the industry that they can do whatever they want.
The responses to my comments I made on both Andy’s and Freya’s blog posts ties well with what I can conclude in this week’s topic. Producers, gaming companies and journal article authors alike, have the right to be selfish and shouldn’t receive criticism when decisions are made to benefit them financially. However, as consumers, we have the power to influence their decisions by being in the middle of the supply and demand chain.