People who have strong psychological adjustment skills tend to be very open-minded.
For example, when people are powerless to change the status quo, and the status quo suppresses themselves again and again, crying and anger are a way to vent their emotions, we can't say that this way is wrong, but relatively speaking, another way can better reflect their sober understanding of the world.
For example, applaud.
Applauding this behavior is not necessarily "encouraging for the sake of good", it can also be a kind of ridicule that feeds back the status quo, and any behavior that hurts oneself can be responded to in this way, because people know that instead of hurting oneself through extreme emotions and not being able to cause any substantial change, it is better to show a kind of spiritual fearlessness in a way of applauding.
From the moment the threat becomes a laughing stock,
Those who are not to blame,
You'll laugh loud.
If you can't stop the doomed loss of control, then the applause is the spiritual push.
I used to play an online game, which was originally very well run, but the game's attitude towards free players became more and more harsh, which eventually led to the loss of a large number of free players, and I had to announce the termination of the game.
There is a view that free-to-play players are not worth paying attention to, after all, these people don't spend money to play games, so they just come to make up the numbers, and game operators should really pay attention to those players who spend money and spend a lot of money.
In fact, free players are an extremely large group, or most players are free players, and the status quo of many online games is that a group of free players accompany some consumer players to play.
If the free players are gone, and who the consumer players play with, their consumption experience will be poor.
Therefore, allowing free players to get the necessary game experience is the core condition to ensure that the game can be operated.
The game I played before was an ignorance of this problem, which eventually led to the inevitable result of the shutdown.
At first, in order to promote free players to spend money to play the game, they set a lot of threshold rules, which are not to distinguish the game experience between free and paid players, but to let free players understand,
If you don't spend money, you don't even have the "qualifications" to play the game.
For example, there was a kind of prop in the game before, which can be obtained by both free and paid players by playing the game, and later this prop added a threshold, that is, it must be online for a certain period of time to obtain, otherwise it must be bought with money, and when you get it, you have to pay other costs, such as other important props in the game,
This leads to an increase in the cost of playing games for free players, and although it does not cost money to play the game, the requirements for spending energy and time increase exponentially.
What may seem like an increase in the number of people online to the game is actually a fatal danger that free-to-play players will find it not worth it.
And for consumer players, they will think that this rule is very reasonable, after all, they spend money, and they will be happy to spend money, and as a result, these consumer players will do their best to ridicule those free players, saying that they don't deserve to play this game, and if they don't spend money to play for nothing, they will have to pay a greater price, which is the end they deserve.
The rules are restricted, the public opinion environment is extremely bad, and all the contradictions point to free players.
As a result, a large number of free-to-play players have opted out of the game.
The remaining free players also choose to play badly, they greatly reduce the interaction effect with other players, reduce the time to play the game, and seek new games that are more suitable for them, which leads to the continuous departure of free players.
And the paying players are not having a good time, because the overall environment of the game has deteriorated, and the operators will start to squeeze these paying players in order to make a profit, and the paying players will not be able to get a better gaming experience from the free players, and eventually they will also "get" a reason to leave completely.
In this digital realm woven by code, an unprecedented "collaboration" is quietly brewing in the game's forums and communities, which is like a prism that reflects the intriguing subtle tension between the game and the player.
Here, whether it is a paid "aristocracy" or a free "commoner", their voices converge into the same tragic symphony - although the experience is different, the purpose is "different paths".
For those "civilian" players, the virtual land they have watered with time and sweat has returned to them the shackles of rules and the cold wind of exclusion.
In the discipline of being marginalized by the game mechanics, they chose a simple but effective behavior: stop playing.
On the other hand, the plight of the "noble" players can be described as full of irony.
They once built a high wall with gold yuan, eager to find a utopia in the virtual world that is difficult to reach in reality, but unexpectedly, the high price is exchanged for the increasingly barren experience.
So, these former advocates turned to the sharpest critics to put the final nail in the coffin of the game.
In this piece of laughter, they witnessed the apocalyptic scene accelerated by their own hands, and this carnival was the most poignant irony of disappointment.
And the people who make the sarcasm sharp and pathetic are not the real players, the real participants, after all.
It's not them who determine the future of the game, but those game manufacturers who are high up and invincible.
It is their insatiable greed that gives all players a chance to unite,
Although the player does not have the ability to change the game itself, they can encourage others to leave together and watch the fact that the game is completely finished.
Now that the game has abandoned them,
Then they naturally have a reason to applaud the eventual failure of the game.
If the doomed outcome cannot be changed, then applauding together is not the arrangement of fate.
It's a sound satire of the status quo,
Some people don't like to hear such a voice,
And we need that voice,
The bigger, the better.