The filing points to a possible ad-supported model for PC and console games that is less disruptive than the approaches commonly used in mobile titles.
Watching an ad would earn players another block of ad-free play time, called a “credit”
But what actually makes it bad? Is making a game and wanting to get a financial benefit out of it inherently wrong?
Why doesn’t that same logic apply to celebrities doing brand endorsements, shoving products down our throats that they probably don’t even use just because they are famous? And don’t forget product placement in movies.
Also, developing a modern video game can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it flops, it’s just a dead loss. Unlike movies, which can recoup losses through streaming deals or cable rights, a bad video game usually means nobody plays it and the studio loses everything. That is a massive financial risk.
But what actually makes it bad? Is making a game and wanting to get a financial benefit out of it inherently wrong?
Why doesn’t that same logic apply to celebrities doing brand endorsements, shoving products down our throats that they probably don’t even use just because they are famous? And don’t forget product placement in movies.
Also, developing a modern video game can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it flops, it’s just a dead loss. Unlike movies, which can recoup losses through streaming deals or cable rights, a bad video game usually means nobody plays it and the studio loses everything. That is a massive financial risk.
Where do you draw the line?