• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 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.