Simple Economics

Okay okay, I'm going to explain this simply to all of you so you understand.

Good A is a substitute for Good B when there is a decrease in demand (or supply) of Good B.

Good A is a complement for Good B when there is either an increase or decrease in demand of Good B.

Lemonade and Iced Tea are substitutes of each other. Both serve the same purpose for the majority of their consumers--refreshment. If demand for Iced Tea goes down (maybe because its price went up) more people buy its (cheaper) substitute, lemonade.

Gaming mice and video games are complements. If demand for a competitive shooter goes up, then so does the demand for gaming mice. Likewise, if demand for video games as a whole goes down, less people will buy gaming mice. They complement each other.

Valorant and CS:GO, as two goods, aren't as simple as the above examples; the reason being, there is no single appeal that defines the consumer for either game.

You could say both are substitutes because most players of either game just see them as nearly identical tactical shooters, sure, but Valorant and CS:GO but there's an asymmetry between each games' playstyle.

For example:

One person might like Valorant because it's more ability focused, and they don't have to have insanely good aim to be good at the game itself. If Valorant were to die, it's highly unlikely that they would switch to CS:GO.

Likewise, another person might like CS:GO better because they prefer the heavy focus on aim, and don't want their screens clustered by abilities. If CS:GO were to die, I doubt they (alongside many, many, MANY outspoken CS:GO players) would want to play valorant.

That being said, as I mentioned before, it's all a matter of each game's consumer-base. The key to the issue is finding out what percentage of each game values in their respective choices, and why.

Sure, there are aim fundamentalists in Valorant too, and if CS:GO were to explode, they might switch over, but that's not to say the entirety of the community would switch over.
Unsurprisingly enough, there are a lot of strategy-minded CS:GO players that would find themselves like fish in water if they switched over to Valorant (like FNS did).

Going forward, with an influx of new players to either game, some might find that whatever their choice was initially was not the right fit for them, and end up switching to the other game, while those that do enjoy their picks will simply stay.

So, the final ruling is this:

Valorant and CS:GO serve as substitutes for portions of each game's respective player-bases, but just like a 0.01$ increase in Lemonade prices wouldn't automatically make everyone stop drinking lemonade altogether, unless CS:GO 2 REALLY kicks off in popularity, it won't affect Valorant. Furthermore, Valorant will still retain a large, dedicated core community unless they really fuck up what makes their game unique (horrible balancing of abilities), but less they want to lose all their customers to Valve, Riot will try extra hard not to do that (healthy competition).

They aren't complements, they're substitutes and their developers are therefore competitors (but that's a good thing.)

aint reading allat

you could’ve said all this in 200 less words

TLDR: CHILDE GAEM

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the relationship between Valorant and CS:GO. You've made some valid points about the two games and how they appeal to different types of players. It's true that some players may prefer Valorant for its ability-focused gameplay, while others may prefer CS:GO for its emphasis on aim.

You also pointed out that the two games serve as substitutes for portions of each game's player-base. This is a good observation, as players who enjoy one game may switch to the other if they find that their initial choice wasn't the right fit for them. However, as you noted, this doesn't mean that the entirety of the community will switch over.

Ultimately, the fact that Valorant and CS:GO are substitutes for each other means that their developers are competitors. As you said, this healthy competition can benefit players by pushing both companies to improve their respective games and provide players with better experiences.

Thank you for sharing your insights on this topic!

didn't need a micro econ class to explain that
but very cool thank you Nachtel

this thread is actually clutch i had to write on a discussion board how a community uses metaphors and comparisons to reach audiences in my english class this is perfect

could have just said weak substitutes, fuck are u talking about

RG [#5]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the relationship between Valorant and CS:GO. You've made some valid points about the two games and how they appeal to different types of players. It's true that some players may prefer Valorant for its ability-focused gameplay, while others may prefer CS:GO for its emphasis on aim.

You also pointed out that the two games serve as substitutes for portions of each game's player-base. This is a good observation, as players who enjoy one game may switch to the other if they find that their initial choice wasn't the right fit for them. However, as you noted, this doesn't mean that the entirety of the community will switch over.

Ultimately, the fact that Valorant and CS:GO are substitutes for each other means that their developers are competitors. As you said, this healthy competition can benefit players by pushing both companies to improve their respective games and provide players with better experiences.

Thank you for sharing your insights on this topic!

this reads like a chat gpt response

nutab1e [#4]

TLDR: CHILDE GAEM

raelistic coarders