From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


Well, not really... but that's sort of what a recent article on gameindustry.biz* is saying. It claims that the so called 'grey gamer'
market (gamers 55+) are 'under-served by the industry, despite there
being a growing number of them buying games. Reportedly the 40+
segment is expected to grow from $19 billion (2022) to $43 billion USD
in 2030; one of the few segments that is actually seeing growth while
the rest of the industry contracts.

The thing is, are we fogies** really so under-served? I mean, sure,
there's a bunch of games obviously targeted towards kids that we'll
never play. Roblox and Fortnite and similar live-service games are
intended as much --if not more-- as social experiences than gaming
experiences, and that definitely is something that appeals more to the
youthful than the grey-haired. But there are so many other games out
there that appeal to the un-younged. They may not be marketed towards
the 'grey gamer' directly but games like "Baldurs Gate" or "Cyberpunk
2077" or even "Elden Ring" likely suit the tastes of the 55+ just as
much as it appeals to those below that cut-off.

I mean, what exactly would a game that 'serves' the grey gamer really
be, anyway? Less social aspects, probably, and less DLC
nickel-and-diming, but that's something that would benefit younger
gamers too. (I also don't buy the article's argument that older gamers
will have less powerful hardware than the kiddies. We got the cash and
we've been buying gaming hardware for 40 years. We're not about to
start now. OUR elders might be pottering about on a Compaq from 1999,
because they don't know any better... but we know the benefit of a
fast GPU!) It's not that the older players need different games; it's
just that the grey gamer is a bit more discriminating than the
youthful when it comes to the amount of crap they'll put up with.

Publishers don't need to target the grey gamer specifically if they
want to make elder-money. They just need to make less games that don't
utilize such annoying monetization strategies.


Are you a grey gamer? Do you need games catered towards your senior
needs?





* which article? This article! https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nobodys-making-games-for-the-retired-people-the-growing-yet-underserved-market-for-grey-gamers



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Just make sure you keep an ample supply
of Depends around. You don't play pc games,anyway.
You just spew drivel about them on Usenet.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 6/4/26 5:49 PM, bill_wilson wrote:

Just make sure you keep an ample supply
of Depends around. You don't play pc games,anyway.
You just spew drivel about them on Usenet.

I wonder how many people have your messages filtered out.
You are always so rude and obscene.
At least you are active. That's something I guess.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

Well, not really... but that's sort of what a recent article on >gameindustry.biz* is saying. It claims that the so called 'grey gamer'
market (gamers 55+) are 'under-served by the industry, despite there
being a growing number of them buying games. Reportedly the 40+
segment is expected to grow from $19 billion (2022) to $43 billion USD
in 2030; one of the few segments that is actually seeing growth while
the rest of the industry contracts.

The thing is, are we fogies** really so under-served? <snip>

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to actually progress.

Compare Diablo2 with Diablo3.

I could play diabl2 offline and never spend another dollar, diablo3 on
the other hand was online only, even for solo play, and designed with
shit drops to force you into the real money auction house so blizzard
got more money.

D2 enhanced version, oh yeah, online only, so it's a "hell no" to
purchase for me.

Fuck battle.net, fuck blizzard wanting to advertise at me before I'm
allowed to play the game I paid for.

All too many modern games follow this metric, as well as being designed
for ADHD teens addicted to their phones and MTX.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 07:41:12 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

D2 enhanced version, oh yeah, online only, so it's a "hell no" to
purchase for me.

D2 Resurrected is not online only. It works offline. You can backup
your offline characters because they are locally saved. You can
download mods. These mods only work in offline mode, not on BattleNet,
as you would expect them to. This is exactly how classic D2 works.

There is an online component to D2 Resurrected but it is not 'online
only' like D3. You must authenticate your account once every 30 days
with an active internet connection. Once you authenticate, you can
play without an active internet connection for 30 more days offline.
No lag. No ping to think about. You can pause the game. I am ok with
this check-in process. If you are not, that is ok. But D2 Resurrected
is factually not online only.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 07:41:12 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> said this
thing:

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to >actually progress.

Compare Diablo2 with Diablo3.

All too many modern games follow this metric, as well as being designed
for ADHD teens addicted to their phones and MTX.

I don't think they're designed for teens so much as they take
advantage of them. The publishers prey on FOMO and the teen's social
anxieties, as well as their inexperience with less predatory gaming experiences. These tactics are less effective as you get older,
forcing publishers to rely on other tactics (like actually making a
good game!) to rope in older players. But I think --and based on my
admittedly limited ability to survey the youth-- most kids would
appreciate the same sort of games as their elders. A lot of them seem
as annoyed with the heavy-handed live-service bullshit being foisted
on them as we are.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 07:41:12 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> said this
thing:

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to
actually progress.

Compare Diablo2 with Diablo3.

All too many modern games follow this metric, as well as being designed
for ADHD teens addicted to their phones and MTX.

I don't think they're designed for teens so much as they take
advantage of them. The publishers prey on FOMO and the teen's social anxieties, as well as their inexperience with less predatory gaming experiences. These tactics are less effective as you get older,
forcing publishers to rely on other tactics (like actually making a
good game!) to rope in older players. But I think --and based on my admittedly limited ability to survey the youth-- most kids would
appreciate the same sort of games as their elders. A lot of them seem
as annoyed with the heavy-handed live-service bullshit being foisted
on them as we are.

That's the problem with the Gen Z. While they may be AI-infused and
AI-paired, they have zero resistance to MTX. I'm Gen X and I hate MTX.
It's not fun for me. Stupid Gen Z.
--
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

Well, not really... but that's sort of what a recent article on >gameindustry.biz* is saying. It claims that the so called 'grey gamer' >market (gamers 55+) are 'under-served by the industry, despite there
being a growing number of them buying games. Reportedly the 40+
segment is expected to grow from $19 billion (2022) to $43 billion USD
in 2030; one of the few segments that is actually seeing growth while
the rest of the industry contracts.

The thing is, are we fogies** really so under-served? <snip>

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to actually progress.

What's MTX? I must be old. :(

Compare Diablo2 with Diablo3.

I could play diabl2 offline and never spend another dollar, diablo3 on
the other hand was online only, even for solo play, and designed with
shit drops to force you into the real money auction house so blizzard
got more money.

D2 enhanced version, oh yeah, online only, so it's a "hell no" to
purchase for me.

Fuck battle.net, fuck blizzard wanting to advertise at me before I'm
allowed to play the game I paid for.

All too many modern games follow this metric, as well as being designed
for ADHD teens addicted to their phones and MTX.

Yep.
--
"Encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing." --1 Thessalonians 5:11. Quieter days again, but sleepy.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 23:33:36 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Ant) said
this thing:

Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

Well, not really... but that's sort of what a recent article on
gameindustry.biz* is saying. It claims that the so called 'grey gamer'
market (gamers 55+) are 'under-served by the industry, despite there
being a growing number of them buying games. Reportedly the 40+
segment is expected to grow from $19 billion (2022) to $43 billion USD
in 2030; one of the few segments that is actually seeing growth while
the rest of the industry contracts.

The thing is, are we fogies** really so under-served? <snip>

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to
actually progress.

What's MTX? I must be old. :(

Micro Transactions. Small digital expansions to the game that you buy
after the fact

You know, "buy a hat for USD $1.50", "Get a lootbox suprise for
$2.00", or "Crafting too hard? Speed up your crafting speed for three
hours at the low-low-price of $2.00". Sometimes called in-game
purchases.

The bane of the modern gaming industry, hated by developers and
players alike (but loved by publishers)... because whatever else you
want to say about it, it WORKS. Estimates are that more than half of
gaming revenue is earned through MTX nowadays. Which is why a lot of
developers shove it into their games despite how much they themselves
dislike the concept of nickel-and-diming their players for the full
experience. It pays the bills (and more!)

It is, however, unclear how much regular gamers buy this stuff, versus
whales (a small subset of players who have more money than sense), or
players (and bots) who buy the stuff to use as chips in the online
gambling market. I recall reading that the lifetime average for MTX
spend for most players is ~$100. But there are others who literally
spend tens of thousands of dollars.

And no, it's not just the kids. MTX spending is common across all
age-groups. The younger-set may be a bit ahead (possibly due to less
resistance to social pressures, or maybe just because MTX is more
within their spend range, so that's what they get instead of buying a
new game). But their elders aren't far behind.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:
...

Yes, we expect value for money like in the old days, and the modern
games are all day1 DLCs for basic functions and full of MTX in order to
actually progress.

What's MTX? I must be old. :(

Micro Transactions. Small digital expansions to the game that you buy
after the fact

You know, "buy a hat for USD $1.50", "Get a lootbox suprise for
$2.00", or "Crafting too hard? Speed up your crafting speed for three
hours at the low-low-price of $2.00". Sometimes called in-game
purchases.

Oh that. Ugh. I avoid those! Thanks.
--
"Encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing." --1 Thessalonians 5:11. Quieter days again, but sleepy.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Mike S. <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 07:41:12 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

D2 enhanced version, oh yeah, online only, so it's a "hell no" to
purchase for me.

D2 Resurrected is not online only. It works offline. You can backup
your offline characters because they are locally saved. You can
download mods. These mods only work in offline mode, not on BattleNet,
as you would expect them to. This is exactly how classic D2 works.

There is an online component to D2 Resurrected but it is not 'online
only' like D3. You must authenticate your account once every 30 days
with an active internet connection. Once you authenticate, you can
play without an active internet connection for 30 more days offline.
No lag. No ping to think about. You can pause the game. I am ok with
this check-in process. If you are not, that is ok. But D2 Resurrected
is factually not online only.

If I have to check in with Blizzard every month to see if I am still
allowed to play the game I purchased, this is NOT value for money.

D2 had no such leash.

This is the difference between being a free man and being on parole.

I'm not going to give Blizzard money to treat me like a criminal.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:46:32 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

If I have to check in with Blizzard every month to see if I am still
allowed to play the game I purchased, this is NOT value for money.

D2 had no such leash.

This is the difference between being a free man and being on parole.

I'm not going to give Blizzard money to treat me like a criminal.

Xocyll

I don't disagree with you, but as far as I know, this is the reality
for bigger titles in the video game industry these days. This is also
a separate issue from the point of my post.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Mike S. <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:46:32 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

If I have to check in with Blizzard every month to see if I am still >>allowed to play the game I purchased, this is NOT value for money.

D2 had no such leash.

This is the difference between being a free man and being on parole.

I'm not going to give Blizzard money to treat me like a criminal.

Xocyll

I don't disagree with you, but as far as I know, this is the reality
for bigger titles in the video game industry these days. This is also
a separate issue from the point of my post.

And likely why I will not buy any game at any price (even free) where my ability to continue playing single player involves an online account and
a forced login every month.

How long until that morphs into not just logging in once a month, but
having made an MTX purchase that month as well if you want to keep
playing the game you bought at an absurdly high price?

Blizzard already proved with D3's real money auction house and the game
tuning to force you into it, that they ARE that greedy.

When it's an actual remake of D2 including full offline and never ever
need to go online unless I choose to, then I might purchase it.

But they'd better do it soon, my Diablo2 nostalgia is fading more and
more the longer it goes since I played.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 6/4/2026 9:26 AM, 16 wrote:

On 6/4/26 5:49 PM, bill_wilson wrote:

Just make sure you keep an ample supply
of Depends around. You don't play pc games,anyway.
You just spew drivel about them on Usenet.

I wonder how many people have your messages filtered out.
You are always so rude and obscene.
At least you are active. That's something I guess.

Oh, I guess I was wrong, I do have someone in my kill-file.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote at 17:49 this Monday (GMT):

Mike S. <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:46:32 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:

If I have to check in with Blizzard every month to see if I am still >>>allowed to play the game I purchased, this is NOT value for money.

D2 had no such leash.

This is the difference between being a free man and being on parole.

I'm not going to give Blizzard money to treat me like a criminal.

Xocyll

I don't disagree with you, but as far as I know, this is the reality
for bigger titles in the video game industry these days. This is also
a separate issue from the point of my post.

And likely why I will not buy any game at any price (even free) where my ability to continue playing single player involves an online account and
a forced login every month.

How long until that morphs into not just logging in once a month, but
having made an MTX purchase that month as well if you want to keep
playing the game you bought at an absurdly high price?

Blizzard already proved with D3's real money auction house and the game tuning to force you into it, that they ARE that greedy.

When it's an actual remake of D2 including full offline and never ever
need to go online unless I choose to, then I might purchase it.

But they'd better do it soon, my Diablo2 nostalgia is fading more and
more the longer it goes since I played.

Xocyll

Offline games with a forced login are not offline and I wish companies
would stop forcing that onto people. It's blatently just there to force
you into buying the next game by artificially locking out the old one.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2