missingno

joined 1 year ago
[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (16 children)

This is an entire market of games where you can pay $1000 and still not have the whole thing.

Those aren't the games we're talking about. We're talking about DBFZ, an example of fixed DLC being sold at a reasonable price, which you want to dishonestly conflate with more predatory models in order to say that nothing should be sold ever.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (11 children)

DLC is honest. I get a thing in exchange for money. I know what the price tag is, and I'm happy to pay what I think is a fair price. And I only pay once to keep the thing I paid for, unlike a subscription.

Let me just cut straight past all your deflecting. Do you think that the final version of DBFZ, with all of its DLC, sold at its price, should be able to exist in this form?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 3 days 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.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (13 children)

And you know goddamn well that fighting games had incremental re-releases, decades before this abuse was possible.

Of course I know, I know how much it fucking sucked! No one wants to go back to that!

You'd rather spend $60 on Street Fighter II: The World Warrior, then spend $60 on Street Fighter II': Champion Edition, then spend $60 on Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting, then spend $60 on Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers, then spend $60 on Super Street Fighter II Turbo?

That's better to you than being able to get the patches for free, with the option of buying characters at a reasonable price, all while still retaining compatibility with opponents on the latest version even if you don't spend a dime?

How is that better? How?

Or, if you want continuing revenue for an online service - make it a service. Sell subscriptions. Oh sorry, do people not like that?

No, no I don't like that! I would much rather buy a character once than have to subscribe to them forever! If I buy a character I get to keep them, if I subscribe I don't. And I'm not getting gouged, I know what the price tag is. If anything, a subscription is gouging because I have to keep paying again and again in order to keep what I should've only had to pay for once.

I'm actually baffled that you're seriously trying to suggest subscriptions as a better alternative. Like... seriously? Really?

I do not respect the dishonest conflation of 'FighterZ doesn't get to expand forever' with 'FighterZ would be banned.'

FighterZ as we know it would not exist in your world. In your world, it'd just be the 1.0 base game and that'd be it, but I know you know we're talking about what FighterZ was able to become over the course of its lifespan thanks to DLC.

You're taking this needlessly aggressive tone accusing us of misconstruing you, but I know you know damn well what we're saying here while you keep misconstruing us. Don't accuse me of being dishonest when you're playing dumb like this.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (41 children)

We're saying the games we like couldn't exist without the business models you want to ban. How does something like Dragon Ball FighterZ continue to expand if you are forbidding them from selling anything that would make character expansions possible?

If you want to say "nothing should cost money ever", then the natural outcome of that is that we just don't get new characters anymore. In effect, you are banning these games by making it impossible for them to exist like this.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 6 points 4 days 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.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I think there's an argument to be made that some level of retention strategy may be a necessary evil in today's market, especially when all your competitors are doing it. No developer wants to run the risk of letting that playerbase dry up. You can have the best multiplayer game in the world, but all the brownie points for playing fair wouldn't mean much if I'm sitting in an empty queue with no one to play with.

It's fine line to walk to make sure players are coming back for the right reasons, but you do want them to come back.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago

What is the comparison you are trying to make?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 9 points 4 days ago

Define what you mean by 'crash'. What's been happening will continue to happen, but if you're expecting any kind of singular dramatic moment, what would that be?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 6 points 4 days ago

I hope you stub your toe and it really really hurts.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are more tells than just that.

Actually, the biggest tell is that for how long it is, it's mostly noise with little signal. Some of it doesn't even make sense, "check what instances or users you're federated with"?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They've raised the bar considerably from Nichijou with these production values.

1
rule (files.catbox.moe)
view more: ‹ prev next ›