Comment by blaze33

I can't help but notice the underlying conflict giving rise to these sort of controversies. What is a game? What makes a successful one?

Ok, checks dictionary: "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". I remember buying Age of Empires or Total Annihilation as a kid. That was before the ubiquitous internet, you asked your friends and read game magazines before heading to the shop to buy the CDROM. New games had similar prices but some were better (from the player pov) than others and I feel like at that time, being fun and entertaining more directly correlated to commercial successes.

Now everything is online: the games, the stores, the payments. We have in game transactions, DLCs, pay-to-win, pay-to-not-wait-24h, in game gambling, analytics to optimize, etc. And also this definition of gaming: "to manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous". What gives?

> “But this industry divides people between those who still hold to that philosophy and those who massively embrace how to figure out what makes a successful product."

So yeah, could this divide actually come from our definition of "success"? Is it about maximizing the financial ROI using all the tricks we know to hook and exploit whales? Is it about making an actually fun and enjoyable game? I wonder...