Chebucto Regional Softball Club

But it is. There's nothing Linux devs can do if game/anticheat devs block Linux.

> 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.

> Games make you… care about… arbitrary worthless crap That's a super subjective take. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Who's to say your collection of beanie babies holds any more value than my collection of achievements in Steam? It's entirely subjective. > you’re actually fine with legal consequences for manipulative antipatterns Yes, because at a certain point, manipulation constitutes an initiation of force against a user. That point isn't "paid character respecs" though, but a consistent pattern of putting people under pressure so they have to make a decision before they can get complete information. If they allow refunds within a generous enough amount of time (i.e. if you drunkenly buy a bunch of cosmetics or something then request a refund when sober), then it's probably fine. However, I believe these types of rules should be set by court precedent, not legislatures, legislatures merely define broadly what constitutes "force" in a variety of contexts to give judges and juries something to build off of.

> letting people pay to keep up That's what I'm specifically giving an alternative to. If you're trying to discourage keeping up with the meta, you make it take long enough to adapt to the meta that you can patch out the meta.

Mostly the open world. III was a bit more influential with: - tiled graphics - party combat (Wizardry also had it) - time travel But each game from the Ultima series was additive, and Ultima also pulled from Akalabeth, so it's hard to pick a specific game to be "most influential." Is it Ultima I because it started the series that largely standardized CRPGs? Or is it Akalabeth because its success led to Ultima?

I think the notion of a "git gud" game largely came from Contra. Yes, the genre didn't last, but people crowding around the arcade machine translated to people making videos of themselves beating a hard game. It's a different kind of connection.

> And you are calling them morons, by consistently saying it’s a stupid decision. Saying a decision is stupid isn't the same as calling a person stupid, smart people do stupid things all the time. I'm saying something like "mouth feel" is a stupid reason to dramatically increase your risk of lung cancer, especially when vapes exist. People should be free to make stupid decisions. > Any sane definition of video games must conclude that they make you value objectively worthless arbitrary goals. That's unfair and you know it. [Video games can provide a lot of value](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-video-games-good-for-you). Yes there's trash out there, and that exists in every field. Look at people getting into CCGs like MtG, wine collecting (esp when [wine experts can't reliably tell "good" from "bad"](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/)), or any other form of hobby with a high price ceiling. > How the fuck do you split hairs about these specific things, versus your libertarian insistence that only overt lying could possibly be wrong? It's about power imbalance. Scarcity in MP games (e.g. cosmetics) is completely artificial because the game files continue to include those products so you can see others wear them, so the only reason to stop selling them is to inflate their price. Can you truly make an informed decision under time pressure? No. The only reason for the scarcity is manipulation, hence why it's wrong. That's why high pressure sales is successful, and also why I oppose it. I totally understand companies choosing to stop selling a product. I have my own views on how that should be handled (e.g. they give up any copyright protections), but if they're still maintaining a product and it costs them nothing to keep selling it (i.e. no ongoing licensing costs), they should keep it available for purchase. > There’s nothing sanitary about unsanitized goods. There's a huge difference between unpasteurized milk and unsanitary milk. When I say "sanitary," I mean things like washing/disinfecting utters before milking, quickly cooling the milk and keeping it cold though shipping, ensuring clean jugs, testing cows for disease, etc. I expect more stringent controls for unpasteurized milk than pasteurized because you don't have that pasteurization process to cover up your mistakes. Pasteurization alters the taste of the milk, to the point that I refuse to drink ultra-pasteurized milk (i.e. shelf-stable milk) and actually prefer powdered milk to it. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, but pasteurized whole milk is close enough, so that's what I buy. > driving too fast is dangerous Well yeah, it presents a risk to others, so it should be controlled. Your rights end where mine begin, and you driving too fast presents an unacceptable risk to my (and others') life. > botulism kills people It certainly does, and should obviously be avoided... That's why we have food safety standards and health inspections, to inform the public of any dangers and shut down dangerous operations. That said, if you want to take the risk, be my guest. I sometimes buy from unregulated street vendors, knowing full well the risks of doing so.

> Cigarette smokers aren’t morons I never said they were. I said they know it's bad for them, yet they continue to smoke cigarettes despite safer options existing, like vapes, patches, and gums. Yet they continue with cigarettes because they prefer them. I'm not talking about how they got addicted, but what they choose to manage that addiction. They know their options, and with taxes, they choose one of the most expensive options. It's their right to make that choice for themselves. > misrepresenting the value of whatever bullshit it’s selling There's no objective measure of value for something like this. They present exactly what you're buying, and you get what's advertised, nothing more, nothing less. That's a clear cut, informed decision. That said, I do draw a line at psychological tricks, like artificial scarcity or other types of FOMO. That's manipulation and I would be fine with prosecuting that because the customer is being tricked. If something will remain in the game, it should always be available to get. Something like paying to respec a character is dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. > It’s your god-given right to guzzle unpasteurized milk. It absolutely is, provided I demonstrate that I understand the risks (e.g. sign a waiver with clear language), and the company does its best to keep things sanitary. The higher the risk, the higher the burden on the provider to keep things as sanitary as possible. I firmly believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm less m others and they are properly informed of the risks.

No, a scam involves fraud, which means misrepresenting a product. > you’re telling other parents how to raise No, I'm telling them how I raise mine and why, and only when it's relevant. > They’re not victims, somehow. If you do something with full knowledge, then no, you're not a victim. > cigarettes as a positive example I think it's a fantastic example. Everyone agrees they're harmful, even smokers, yet they continue to use them despite safer alternatives existing. Does that mean they're too stupid to make their own decisions and we should ban them? No. We should prevent kids from using them, but adults should be free to make their own decisions. I don't want to live in a nanny state where the government decides what's good for me. I want to be treated like an adult, with the responsibilities and consequences that come with that, provided I have accurate information. Instead of banning things, our governments should restrict themselves to advising (e.g. warning labels on cigarettes) and only step in when there's an actual crime (e.g. fraud), and come down *hard* on the offender.

> People chose to get scammed, ergo, not a scam. That's not the same thing. A scam is when you get something other than what was advertised. These games don't do that, you get exactly what you pay for. It's just that they're charging for things they shouldn't charge for. > hundred-billion-dollar behemoth convincing your kids that addiction and frustration are what video games are for? I'm a better parent than that. I don't let my kids play that nonsense, and I don't think other parents should as well. I make it very clear to other parents that we won't be playing those games and why. But at the end of the day, it's not my place to force people to think like me. Just like I can choose for my kids what they can play, they can do the same. People should be free to make stupid decisions as long as they know all the facts. Go ask anyone who plays these games and they'll admit they're a bad deal. Yet they play them. They're not getting scammed, they know exactly what they're doing. It's just like someone who smokes cigarettes, they know they're expensive and bad for their health, but they like how they make them feel.

You don't balance it with tedium, in a live service game, the tedium gives time to balance it properly. By the time people adapt to the meta, it has already been nerfed.

Flip it the other way around. Who am I to say their choice of video game is incorrect? Is it really *my* responsibility to prevent them from making stupid choices? They're either adults or have adult guardians, and therefore are capable of making their own choices. I don't like gambling and tell others they shouldn't do it, yet I think they have the right to do it if they want. Likewise for drugs and other "bad" habits. I can't and shouldn't control their decisions, even if I'm convinced they're terrible. How they choose to get their dopamine is their business, and how I choose to get mine is my business. As long as we can both get what we want, the way we want, I'm happy.

Right. One person's choice can't. But one person's choice turns into recommendations to others, which turns into more and more people making those choices. That won't kill predatory games, but it will preserve non predatory games. As long as options exist, I'm satisfied satisfied.

Metroid is too new, Contra was much more of a "git gud" game.

Well, pretty much everything in Ultima was either innovated or popularized there. It came out in 1980, there really wasn't a lot before it with any kind of complexity.

Agreed. Super Mario Bros on NES is universally recognizable, kicked off the Mario franchise, and really brought gaming into relative mainstream success. It's not the best game ever, but that wasn't the question.

Eh, Super Mario Bros was super influential, and kicked off the Mario franchise. So I'd probably pick that. Or maybe Pong, which normalized digital gaming. Or maybe Space Invaders.

Ok, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the game. If someone rerolls a dozen times, yeah, maybe they're dumb, but that doesn't mean they should have to pay a "dumb tax." Either make it a proper feature, or take it out entirely, charging for it doesn't benefit customers in any way.

> if you cant get your character right after 2 tries and you pay to edit again, i dont exactly have sympathy It's this that I found to be ironic. You say in the first post you don't have sympathy, but then later that pointless monetization is bad. So it sound like you're defending Capcom and attacking them at the same time.

Sure, and I can't control systemic problems. I _can_ control my individual purchasing choices, and my point is that _you can too_. And what do we call large scale individual choice that results in systemic change? A systemic solution! Buy good games and avoid bad games. That's the most effective thing you can do to combat predatory practices. Maybe it won't solve the problem for _everyone_, but it'll solve the problem for _you_.