Is the core gaming market unfair?

[binary solo]

bananaking21 said:
sometimes they can be unfair. remember the whole commotion that happened about AC Unity not having playable female characters? sometimes people just want to bitch.

I think you're talking about the wrong concept here. A lack of female playable characters didn't harm sales at all, and that's all the market is: sales.

The market, by definition, can't be unfair unless there are external influences that cause a market distortion. Advertising distorts the market in favour of those who spend the most on advertising. But is that unfair? If there is unfairness, then there is some sort of justification for intervention. If marketing is really the only thing that makes the market unfair then would that justify some kind of corporate welfare to help smaller developers / publishers market their games in a way they wouldn't be able to afford?

Can the market be distorted by a handful of people trash talking a game? Surely such people will be exposed as trolls if the game turns out to be really good, and ultimately the game will reap positive benefits from being trolled unjustly. If the game is shit, then the market will soon come to agree with the trash talking few and the game will deservedly bomb.

About the only unfairness introduced in the market is the review score system. Developers have (according to some pundits) have metascore KPI bonuses, because publishers probably rightly predict that a meta score in the 80s is worth a certain level of good will sales, and a meta in the 90s is worth even more good will sales, whereas a meta in the 70s is worth no good will sales and a meta in the 60s and below means -ve sales. But at least in terms of games that meta in the 70s there shouldn't be such a huge hit on sales. However the effect on sales is only an indirect effect. What is at play is supply and demand. If games get pumped out at a high rate, which they are, then people are going to prioritise their purchases, and if there are too many games coming out then the prioritisation will be very harsh. Games are expensive, and most people can't possibly afford all the 70+ meta games that they might want to try.

Do you want to get more people buying and trying 70+ meta games (or even 60+)? How about introducing full refunds into PSN and XBL? If people see no risk to laying down $60 for a game that's a bit of a 50/50 call then more people will give those games a go. They like it, they'll say money well spent and who cares about the meta score. They don't like it, they'll say the metascore was generous and they'll get a full refund, but maybe they'll buy another 60/70 meta game and try their luck again. Maybe they'll keep spending the same $60 on medium metascore games until they find one they like and want to keep? But with no refund there will be no sale to 60/70 meta games because the perceived risk of buying a lemon will be too high, so they will stick to the 80/90 meta games.

Refunds rebalances the unfairness of the distortions created by the over emphasis on greed vs amber coloured review scores.