• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book.

    No, it’s like paying more for a thicker book.

    Also, you just admitted to paying more for the same thing by buying it multiple times. So you’re obviously already willing to continue paying for the same entertainment.

    • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it like being charged hourly to read a book, and the book has a bunch of copied and pasted paragraphs saying “protagonist killed 10 chickens.” And the ending to the book costs extra.

      And you still have to buy the whole book before doing any of that.

    • shanie@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re so close.

      Imagine for me a world where executives want to maximize extraction of funds out of consumers. Now imagine “filler” in video games. Finally, imagine games psychology and how to keep the player running after that carrot on a stick.

      I’m sure you see where this is going.

      (I realise this is even better under your comment here).

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, and no.

      You don’t pay more for a thicker book. That’s an absolutely ridiculous notion and it’s not how the industry works. At all. The value of a book is the quality of the writing, not its length.

      Second, I could have read each of those individual books as many times as I wanted. I was buying different products each time. I’mnot paying for the same entertainment at all. It’s more like buying the same e game on Xbox and on switch, if that makes it easier for you.

      It’s a stupid fucking idea, and it’s exactly what got Unity rightfully smacked down just a week or so ago.