Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Predatory tactics in gaming are worse than you think
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

Predatory tactics in gaming are worse than you think

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
87 Posts 22 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    That is what it means, to sell content. That is what actual expansions are. This song-and-dance where you have the whole game, but you're not allowed to *really* have the whole game, is inseparable from everything you would call predatory. It's only a matter of degrees. One of the several alternatives you've repeatedly ignored is that these additions can be added to the game people already bought. Surprisingly, this does *not* involve slave labor for artists, because games that stay popular keep selling more copies. Do they make as much money? No. But it turns out maximum corporate revenue is not a guideline for ethics.
    missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
    missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
    missingno
    wrote last edited by
    #77
    It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with. The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.
    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      > Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love? Are we still pretending that paying for whole editions doesn't serve the same function? Are we still ignoring subscriptions because they make you feel icky? Are we still not acknowledging games that get updated for years, to keep sales up, and *then* have sequels? > It is not a model that we should ever go back to Well there's one question answered, albeit still on the basis of 'ick.' It existed - it was profitable - but we can't do it ever again because that's the same as a whole existing game being *banned.* Blah blah blah. I understand that compatibility is preferable. I am telling you it's not worth preserving this business model. This is the *gentlest* this business model could *possibly be,* and it has still created a typical 1v1 with a total price that's fucking bonkers. Compatibility is also possible through the just-update-the-damn-game model. Like how nobody charges five bucks for improved netcode. That also costs money to create, and is surely a key part of improving past the initial version. Funny how it's just taken for granted as part of the game you already bought.
      missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
      missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
      missingno
      wrote last edited by
      #78
      We can't go back to an objectively worse model because no consumer in the world besides you would be okay with it now that a better model is possible. You cannot be serious trying to say you think we'd ever go backwards. The current model *is* updating the game. Everyone gets to play the latest update even if you do not pay for the DLC. I am also still baffled that you can somehow claim with a straight face that subscriptions are better. Subscriptions are a lock-in model that threaten you with losing everything as soon as you stop paying, so you'll have to keep paying forever to keep your game. **If anything in this conversation is predatory, it's subscriptions!**
      M 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • missingnoM missingno
        Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.
        M This user is from outside of this forum
        M This user is from outside of this forum
        mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        wrote last edited by
        #79
        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.'
        missingnoM 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • missingnoM missingno
          It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with. The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.
          M This user is from outside of this forum
          M This user is from outside of this forum
          mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          wrote last edited by
          #80
          'This is the gentle end of a spectrum where the far end is clearly predatory.' *'So this is predatory?'* Fucking aggravating.
          missingnoM 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • missingnoM missingno
            We can't go back to an objectively worse model because no consumer in the world besides you would be okay with it now that a better model is possible. You cannot be serious trying to say you think we'd ever go backwards. The current model *is* updating the game. Everyone gets to play the latest update even if you do not pay for the DLC. I am also still baffled that you can somehow claim with a straight face that subscriptions are better. Subscriptions are a lock-in model that threaten you with losing everything as soon as you stop paying, so you'll have to keep paying forever to keep your game. **If anything in this conversation is predatory, it's subscriptions!**
            M This user is from outside of this forum
            M This user is from outside of this forum
            mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            wrote last edited by
            #81
            'Stop calling everything predatory, you're killing the word!' I didn't call everything pr-- 'You know what's predatory? *Paying for services!*' I'm out.
            missingnoM 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              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.'
              missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
              missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
              missingno
              wrote last edited by
              #82
              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.
              M 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                'This is the gentle end of a spectrum where the far end is clearly predatory.' *'So this is predatory?'* Fucking aggravating.
                missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
                missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
                missingno
                wrote last edited by
                #83
                Is DBFZ predatory or not?
                M 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  'Stop calling everything predatory, you're killing the word!' I didn't call everything pr-- 'You know what's predatory? *Paying for services!*' I'm out.
                  missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
                  missingnoM This user is from outside of this forum
                  missingno
                  wrote last edited by
                  #84
                  Please explain to me how a lock-in model that forces you to keep paying forever in order to keep what you already paid for is better than just being able to buy something once and have it.
                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • missingnoM missingno
                    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.
                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                    mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                    wrote last edited by
                    #85
                    > We’ve been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • missingnoM missingno
                      Is DBFZ predatory or not?
                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                      mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                      wrote last edited by
                      #86
                      Doesn't seem to be. The business model's still intolerable. Can you grasp that distinction?
                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0
                      • missingnoM missingno
                        Please explain to me how a lock-in model that forces you to keep paying forever in order to keep what you already paid for is better than just being able to buy something once and have it.
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                        wrote last edited by
                        #87
                        The comparison is wrong. If the products *you demand* require continuing revenue - a subscription model allows rational consumer decisions. That's why most consumers look at it and say 'no thanks.' Real-money charges inside games make more money than subscriptions, not because anyone wants to pay $130 for a video game, but because it obfuscates that price. The real question is, if FighterZ has now been funded by all those piecemeal sales, and is - in its current state - your favorite game... why the fuck isn't it $60 to buy it all once?
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0

                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • 1
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        • 5
                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups