• Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Evil genius marketing, working as it always does. The kids don’t know any better, so they are being exploited and conditioned to think the horrible new normal is just the way things have to be. And most parents are too tired and busy to find better alternatives.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s simple, the games that appeal the most to kids require some form of subscription. If those games didn’t, then they wouldn’t want ones with subscriptions.

      • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Did it never occur to you that this might not be just coincidence?

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It did. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, or adding more to it than there is.

          Children do not desire subscriptions as a superior model to owning games. The model of access is not something they are comparing and contrasting. They are simply going for the games they prefer, which get locked behind subscriptions. I never implied that games popular with kids aren’t intentionally put behind subscriptions, I was arguing that the subscription model isn’t actually preferred by kids.

    • stopthatgirl7@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I was talking just today with some coworkers about how having subscriptions instead of owning is what is normal to kids now - not just games, but things like Netflix and Spotify. So this doesn’t surprise me, but does depress me. Technofeudalism is the new normal.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        In my teen years I spent a large fraction of my disposable income on music. A Spotify subscription is a vastly better value than buying whatever I could scrounge from a used CD store. Back then it was common for me to read about some semi-obscure recording and just have to wonder what it sounded like, because I had no hope of finding it in a store, and a special order was way out of my budget, especially for something I had no idea if I’d even like. Now I can listen to damn near anything that’s ever been published for less than I spent as a teenager. I find new music by listening to personalized recommendations instead of local radio stations. It’s just better in every way (except probably for the artists).

        A lot of subscription services suck and are just a way to milk customers, but streaming audio and video are not in that category.

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I keep hoping–perhaps naively so–for a major backlash against this. Sometimes consumers have power, and sometimes they don’t. But maybe we’ll all get fed up with this bullshit and start just dropping any and all unnecessary subscriptions from our lives. The big problem is when a brand becomes synonymous with a product (like fucking Adobe and ProTools, for two examples).