Which is exactly the problem. All the folks in charge care about is money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is fun to play or not.

An eternal curse on the houses of anyone involved with these AIs.

▲

wilg 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Money has to do with whether you can make the game. Games are regularly funded by many non-profit options such as co-ops or grants, etc. Developers are free to make games however they want.

▲

andrewmutz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don’t you make more money if the game is fun to play? (People buy the game)

▲

makerofthings 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A huge marketing budget can push a mediocre game far further than a really good indie game that doesn't get lucky with youtube.

	▲	spwa4 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		... which is why it was, and still is, common economic knowledge that the government must control marketplaces. Meaning the physical areas where trading is taking place. We've been through this rodeo before you know. Private ownership of markets, with the obvious result monopoly abuses. Hell we've had private money and that was a total disaster too. And now we have VISA as opposed to government controlled payments. But then people stopped caring about that. With abuse upon abuse the result. Because it's not like this result, that only by buying a prominent position on a marketplace you can have success as a seller is only the case online. This is very much true in meatspace as well. And now almost everything you can buy is effectively through a privately owned (semi-)monopoly rather than a marketplace. From supermarkets to app stores. Addendum: and then governments must NOT let anyone, not even other governments, force "whoever pays most" rules (like the EU is forcing through in Europe)

▲

jasonlotito 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No.

100% not. To equate fun to play to people buying the game is 100% not how you should say making more money is more people buying the game. Money is money. If the game is mediocre but it is fun enough, it can get more money than a game that is more fun but doesn't have as many opportunities to spend.

This is why things like dark patterns exist that try to get you to spend money through FOMO and other mechanisms like loot boxes.

You can argue that all of these things are people having "fun," but I wouldn't define that as fun to play.

Finally, none of these necessitate people buying the game, but rather spending money in the game. Usually, it's free games where people buy a secondary currency to spend on virtual items. Mobile apps, for example, are huge with this.

So the real answer to your question on multiple grounds is no.

Edit: Now, I will give you that people do have to make a choice, but that's like saying that gambling addiction is not real and it's a choice, or drug addiction is real and it's a choice. The reason for alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous is bogus because it's just a choice, but it would be dangerous to classify it as just a choice.