I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

If you want to say that certain types of business models, like paying for RNG where you don't know what you're buying, are predatory, I would be with you on that.

But your extreme hardline stance of "nothing should cost money ever" is not a reasonable place to draw the line. At least some of what you're railing against should be perfectly fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Nothing inside a video game. That part is not optional. I've dealt with too many cranks who see me arguing - JUST SELL GAMES - and then go 'you want it for free!' No, folks, you want it for free. You want to play endlessly-updated games, 'subsidized by teenage hormones.' You imagine that you would never be taken for ungodly sums of money.

    Even if you're right, you're counting on other people being taken for all the money you're not paying, and more. That's what it means, when this abuse makes more money.

    Predatory abuse is inseparable from this business model. Maximum revenue comes from addiction and frustration. You can be made to want whatever bullshit they're allowed to push. That's how games work. They mechanically convince you to value arbitrary nonsense.

    edit: oh shit, I thought I hit submit on this five hours ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    I do want updated games, yes. My favorite games wouldn't be my favorite games if 1.0 was all we ever got.

    Some games have predatory models, and I do oppose that. But only when it actually is predatory. I take issue with how you're trying to say nothing should ever be sold, even when what's being sold is perfectly fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    I take issue with how you're still lying about what I said. 'Things being sold' is my entire drive. Did you miss it, in all caps? The problem is this farce of charging real money for permission to use what's already in a game you already paid for.

    Games were updated before this nonsense was possible. This business model is only like fifteen years old. Unreal Tournament '99 had updates and new content for years, because people kept buying the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    I'm not missing, I'm saying that your hardline stance against things being sold isn't reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    You're repeatedly misrepresenting my stance after several clear and specific corrections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    You said "Nothing inside a video game should cost real money". Those are your words. If you want to claim that your stance is actually something else, why did you say those words?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    And you keep pretending I said "nothing should ever be sold." Or “nothing should cost money ever.”

    Do you need a diagram?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If nothing costs money, nothing is sold. Are you trying to play dumb here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Nothing inside a video game. That part is not optional. I've dealt with too many cranks who see me arguing - JUST SELL GAMES - and then go 'you want it for free!'

    I'd sound less hostile if you didn't need this explained five separate times.

    And it's not incidental, because you are now that crank, insisting "you don’t seem to want anyone to get paid to make [content]."

    Stop fucking that strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I know what you said, and I know we're on the same page because we've been talking about concrete examples where you say the DLC shouldn't be allowed to be sold. I don't know why you're up here trying to play some silly semantics games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The DLC is content in the video game.

    That's why you can see it, even if you haven't paid for it.

    Welcome to the conversation.

    For the love of god, do not make me rub your nose in this a seventh time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Horse armor was above-board, relative to this.

    I keep telling you the precise shape of the problem, and you keep going 'yeah, something else.'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm done playing your weird word games. We've been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy simply because it involves DLC, and I take issue with you drawing that line. You can't pretend you're actually saying something else at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    We’ve been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy

    I have repeatedly, specifically, and explicitly pointed out this is a lie.

    You don't care.

    You don't get to sneer about a word choice I've told you over and over that I did not use, in the context you're sneering about.

  • source
  • parent