- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
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.
I’m not missing, I’m saying that your hardline stance against things being sold isn’t reasonable.
You’re repeatedly misrepresenting my stance after several clear and specific corrections.
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?
And you keep pretending I said “nothing should ever be sold.” Or “nothing should cost money ever.”
Do you need a diagram?
If nothing costs money, nothing is sold. Are you trying to play dumb here?
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.
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.
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.