LogFAQs > #985102242

Sega9599 posted...

But that game still has a local multiplayer option.

Yeah, which is why I specified "playing the game online". The example was meant to be a generalized one, not one deliberately focused on that one particular game.

To simplify it even more, "having to buy six copies of a game costs more than having to buy one copy of a game".



agesboy posted...

for her, yeah, but for everyone else using 4g and 5g it was positive

Yes, which is why I said it's mainly a case of whether or not the new innovations exist side-by-side with old tech or forcibly replace it.

It's not like she was the only one left on Earth still using 3G and somehow holding everyone else back. Plenty of people were still happy with the service they had, and plenty of those people were annoyed by being forced to upgrade. And the "positives" of 5G aren't necessarily positives to everyone. So there was a significant percentage of people who were essentially forcibly upgraded for (in their eyes) no good reason, which in turn breeds resentment.

The bleeding edge early adopters will always welcome innovations, and there will always be people who drag their heels, and usually the majority of people fall somewhere between those two extremes.

If phone companies announced they were going to implement 6G (which is 100% currently being worked on) tomorrow, the vast majority of people either wouldn't care or would be annoyed. There is very little perception to the average person that it's in any way necessary. If they were told it would lead to slightly faster Internet speeds, most people still wouldn't care. If they were told part of the reason why 6G was "needed" was to better integrate with AI (one of the goals that is absolutely part of its development plan), a lot of people would be actively opposed to it. If they were told that it would cut their monthly phone bills in half, a lot of people would suddenly be interested, but no company would ever want to do that.

If you really want to sell a technological advance with minimal resistance, it needs to be both qualitatively improved from previous iterations (not just small incremental improvements), and universally applicable enough that the vast majority of people will see it as something worth engaging with. And it helps if you can implement it without needing to murder all preexisting alternatives to maintain it. If you can make people want it, without punishing the people who don't want it, you win the marketing game.

That's part of why multiple companies are pushing the idea of VR so hard. They hope that the idea of virtual storefronts and interactions is sufficiently advanced from current Internet usage that they can find ways to trick most people into thinking it's something they absolutely need rather than something that a lot of people will simply reject out of hand as being completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, the current level of tech and applicability really doesn't make it much more than a gimmick (and one most people aren't interested in).



agesboy posted...

but shit happens

This mentality is the main reason why companies can get away with all of the anti-consumerist practices they do. They're fully aware that apathy and learned helplessness will eventually allow them to get away with even the most repugnant of things so long as they're willing to wait. Even more so for industries that functionally control the marketplace to the point where they never need to worry about actual competition becoming a problem.

Shit shouldn't happen. And when it does, people shouldn't just shrug and go "ehh". If more people pushed back, shit would happen way less.