Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the “magic addictive formula”

They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to “addictive habits” and attempts to “encourage” a habit that leans towards an addiction.

Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.

Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.

It is like they are trying to find that “magic addictive formula” and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.

That sounds depressing, it is like they commoditised cheat codes. Sad to see it fall into the trappings that the game makes fun of. I can almost imagine what the GTA 6 version might become if they decide to intergrate that level of “hooks” into its shiny game environment.

I think that was the 2K launcher, if I recall, I remember they were doing something with their games (was playing XCOM 2 at the time) and promptly made use of a workaround

Didn’t like the extra steps just to get into a game - like they were reminding you that you only pay for the license to play the game and the property is theirs to do with as they please. I mean, it is, but still doesn’t help feeling like I am being constantly reminded.

That is probably one of the more famous examples, yeah. They pivoted resources from the single player experience once they saw how much money they were making with their shark cards (I believe it was called). Developed an ecosystem that encouraged spending money to enjoy the game (but not forced) and I guess it was an equivalent experience of getting players to “micro-dose” with a payment to bypass elements of grind to get the best stuff and have an overall smoother experience.

Yeah, they are more apt comparisons where the target market is built upon consistent small (or large) payments that are in a business’ best interests - like in-game currencies (chips in gambling sense) are used to obfuscate the value of what a player is spending money on (which falls into one of the many psychological tricks you mentioned)

Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie’s case it is a pay per experience.

With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won’t be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience

It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying “hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it” or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes

Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more “easy” money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem “fresh and new”) and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to “encourage” one to spend more on the original purchase.

The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere

They are trying to get people to become “addicted” to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial “junkie”)

I will be say I wasn’t thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)

• Was thinking how the idea of games-as-a-service and subscriptions are considered a priority
• how samey a lot of AAA games seems to feel (like it is consoldated on a “formula”)
• a desire to manipulate towards the idea to spend more on the original product
• supply enough of a product to get a player invested and once hooked - try to maintain that investment over a period of time
• the product is seldom as good as advertised
• the quality of the product, in general, feels like it is being degraded in an effort to more easily manipulate
• games are seen as something as means to an end - and in that vein, it is targeted to be able to draw in people according to metrics and less a expression of creativity

By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.

Doesn’t mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the “big games companies” are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like “drug dealers” trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a “brand” of gaming and once they can “control” what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.

That is true, it did popularise the drive towards extracting large amounts of value for comparatively little effort

Meanwhile Microsoft doing back-room deals to corner more of the market

That is a shame, I would have thought that she would have some measure of control after the events of the first game

Especially, since the burden she was carrying was lifted.

I do agree on it being a great game, and she fights gods on her way to her final goal but

Haven’t finished 1,2,3 but spoilers below:

Just my opinion - but Stardew Valley, for me, is best enjoyed in the same vein like something like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing.

It is like Sims: Rural. I liked the idea of someone being sick of the corporate drone lifestyle and being given the opportunity to start a new life in the country-side.

While I agree, especially in the beginning that the timers do feel restrictive, farming can be a chore when you are starting out and the stamina can be annoying but it has been built towards an idea that

“This is your character’s life and just enjoy a new start in the countryside”

It does get easier, more streamlined and opens up more options when one starts getting into the specialisations in leveling and gain benefits from progress which brings with it more “set and forget” tasks (like ancient fruit in a green house with sprinklers) which are profitable and if farming isn’t your thing I was going to say to try animal husbandry - which starts out with just giving the animals you buy some attention and food everyday ( buy hay or use a scythe on long grass), open the barn hatch in the morning (when not raining) and close it at night and collect the resource either by picking it up or having the right tool for the animal.

Animal husbandry is a lot of initial setup and then animal maintainence to get a resource, which leaves more time to explore other aspects of the game

I guess it is a game best enjoyed to roleplay as one learns about everybody in the valley and make your mark as someone of important as you can either make your fortune, have a family, make friends or just check off the list of collectables

I do feel it is a bit unfair to compare it to something like Rimworld as it is a great colony simulator in its own right with it having the focus of developing a “blank slate” community of random people in a harsh and cruel world where the player is the “architect” as you create the plan and the pawns enact it.

Comparatively, I do feel Rimworld farming is more involved than in Stardew Valley as there is a lot of external factors to consider like fertility, effective crop placement to avoid disease ruining all your crops if your pawns are too slow to contain it, raiders burning it, weather and events that ruin the crops, etc)

While Stardew it is a cycle of seasonal preparation, planting, watering, scarecrows placement to avoid crows stealing crops and harvesting - it is quite simple although more hands-on in practice and some of these steps can eventually be automated.

I guess Stardew Valley is predictable and consistent without much risk and can come across as a chore whereas Rimworld has a lot of external variables that keeps one needing to have a plan in the back of one’s mind when things go wrong.

Fair enough if you do not find it interesting, it might just not be your style of gameplay. Give credit where credit is due that you gave it an honest go at it and if you do not refund it it, maybe you will enjoy it one day