A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
You'll need to pay to edit your Monster Hunter Wilds character beyond the first free redo
-
That's still shuffling unrelated definitions of "value." You understand Achievements have no intrinsic worth. The fact you've been made to care about them anyway, is what I am talking about. You were *made* to care about collecting a thousand unicorn skulls, because the game dangled a cleverly-named merit badge for doing so. Dollar value: zilch. Totally arbitrary nonsense, could've been anything else. > at a certain point, manipulation constitutes an initiation of force against a user. Kinda weird to frame it with the non-aggression principle, but sure, yes, good. These systems exploit cognitive vulnerabilities to shortcut our decision-making and trick people out of real money. Generally for things that cost the seller nothing... like editing your own character on your own computer. Any game taking real money is inevitably a collection of these abusive antipatterns, for that kind of manufactured desire. Nitpicking individual cases is letting the trees obscure the forest - these are game studios. Finding novel ways to manipulate customers is their job. Only a sweeping solution could possibly work.> Dollar value: zilch For me, yeah, I agree. For someone else, maybe they do have value. Achievements are a particularly stupid example because you can automate getting them, but my point is that digital things can have value. Maybe they're sentimental (I did a hard thing and this proves it), or maybe they're resellable (rare item in a game, which can be traded). Something physical that you value could have no value to someone else. Value is subjective. > Kinda weird to frame it with the non-aggression principle As a libertarian, that's generally how I frame things, because if I can't justify it under the NAP, it's probably me forcing my values on others. > Finding novel ways to manipulate customers is their job True, but isn't that true of pretty much everything if we zoom out enough? Politicians want to manipulate voters to get (re)elected, restaurants want to manipulate patrons to return, etc. We all have a selfish interest in getting others to do what we want. There has to be a line at which point self-interest is "wrong" to the extent that we should use government to regulate it. I use the NAP to reason about that point, others use some other (often subjective) metric. This same line of reasoning could be used to ban porn games, games with self-harm, or games critical of a government. Banning things is generally not what governments should be doing, they should practice restraint and only step in when someone's rights are violated or at risk of being violated.
-
> Dollar value: zilch For me, yeah, I agree. For someone else, maybe they do have value. Achievements are a particularly stupid example because you can automate getting them, but my point is that digital things can have value. Maybe they're sentimental (I did a hard thing and this proves it), or maybe they're resellable (rare item in a game, which can be traded). Something physical that you value could have no value to someone else. Value is subjective. > Kinda weird to frame it with the non-aggression principle As a libertarian, that's generally how I frame things, because if I can't justify it under the NAP, it's probably me forcing my values on others. > Finding novel ways to manipulate customers is their job True, but isn't that true of pretty much everything if we zoom out enough? Politicians want to manipulate voters to get (re)elected, restaurants want to manipulate patrons to return, etc. We all have a selfish interest in getting others to do what we want. There has to be a line at which point self-interest is "wrong" to the extent that we should use government to regulate it. I use the NAP to reason about that point, others use some other (often subjective) metric. This same line of reasoning could be used to ban porn games, games with self-harm, or games critical of a government. Banning things is generally not what governments should be doing, they should practice restraint and only step in when someone's rights are violated or at risk of being violated.> True, but isn’t that true of pretty much everything if we zoom out enough? My guy, the key word in that sentence was "novel." edit: goddamn ctrl+enter shortcut. hang on.
-
Variations on a scam.It's not exactly a scam, though, is it. Are the game companies committing fraud?
-
This is the thing though. Let ppl have their opinion of you. You did a selfish thing, thought screw the community or lack there of. Let people shame you for being selfish, value is perspective at least enjoy it.When people criticise me or my actions, I have at least as much right to defend myself as you do to cast judgement and voice it in the first place. But the magnitude of the condemnation you expressed by your word choice is greatly at odds with what I have done. I bought a game because I thought its value would be worth the price for me. Having used it, I've found my early assessment was right. You clearly have different expectations for a game to be worth buying, and my purchase makes it less likely that companies will have to cater to you in the future. I understand your frustration, but I have not wronged you or anyone else.
-
> Dollar value: zilch For me, yeah, I agree. For someone else, maybe they do have value. Achievements are a particularly stupid example because you can automate getting them, but my point is that digital things can have value. Maybe they're sentimental (I did a hard thing and this proves it), or maybe they're resellable (rare item in a game, which can be traded). Something physical that you value could have no value to someone else. Value is subjective. > Kinda weird to frame it with the non-aggression principle As a libertarian, that's generally how I frame things, because if I can't justify it under the NAP, it's probably me forcing my values on others. > Finding novel ways to manipulate customers is their job True, but isn't that true of pretty much everything if we zoom out enough? Politicians want to manipulate voters to get (re)elected, restaurants want to manipulate patrons to return, etc. We all have a selfish interest in getting others to do what we want. There has to be a line at which point self-interest is "wrong" to the extent that we should use government to regulate it. I use the NAP to reason about that point, others use some other (often subjective) metric. This same line of reasoning could be used to ban porn games, games with self-harm, or games critical of a government. Banning things is generally not what governments should be doing, they should practice restraint and only step in when someone's rights are violated or at risk of being violated.Fixed the edit.
-
It's not exactly a scam, though, is it. Are the game companies committing fraud?When people can pay ten times the cost of a whole-ass game, for one tiny thing in a game *they already bought,* and any one game pushes a thousand such absurd schemes - scam is the closest word I know. The money being taken is hilariously disconnected from any form of value or cost, even when it's not something literally free, like letting you modify your own character on your own computer. It was a bit much when The Sims and a couple expansions could run you a couple hundred dollars. When buying everything in one generic game totals the cost of a fucking house, that's a crime with more steps.
-
The author mentioned Horse armor's probs why commenters are bringing it upYeah, fair point.
-
Guess I will stick to warframe, No Man's Sky and BG3.No Man's Sky is the other extreme, I actually feel kinda embarrassed that I get so much new content without paying for it. Like, other companies would make it into 20 DLCs already. And even the non-shitty companies would make at least 2 DLCs out of the content. I think they redeemed the shitty start many times over, they should really charge for some DLC.
-
When people can pay ten times the cost of a whole-ass game, for one tiny thing in a game *they already bought,* and any one game pushes a thousand such absurd schemes - scam is the closest word I know. The money being taken is hilariously disconnected from any form of value or cost, even when it's not something literally free, like letting you modify your own character on your own computer. It was a bit much when The Sims and a couple expansions could run you a couple hundred dollars. When buying everything in one generic game totals the cost of a fucking house, that's a crime with more steps.Let's go with a simple approach: is anyone giving money for something where they don't fully understand what they are getting in return. That is, they don't know they are getting a decoration or unlocking a character or whatever?
-
Let's go with a simple approach: is anyone giving money for something where they don't fully understand what they are getting in return. That is, they don't know they are getting a decoration or unlocking a character or whatever?Rejected.
