Hey Cmdr! Why don't you have a cool paint job?

[ThePriestSeto]

It wasn't a joke as much as it was desperately-needed advice for you to heed.

I wasn't expecting you to come up with a lamer reply, but here you did. So here's another 10 Arx for you for surpassing my expectations.

Firstly, you not finding rationale is not really a shock. You would need to be able to understand it to identify it and I would hate to overestimate you like that.

Secondly, you can assume whatever you want, it doesn't really affect anything. If you need to make up stories in your head to comfort you, you're going to.

I am sorry, but your limited understanding is precenting you from seeing the whole picture. The world is bigger than just you, poor baby. What makes senses to you may not make sense to others. I doubt your parents taught you that.

Let's just chalk this up to you not knowing what the word "concept" means.

Also, are you implying that schools aren't real?

Again trying to evade my points and trying to shoot them down with your lame sarcasm and changing the subject. I am afraid to inform you that you have failed miserably. . Let me borrow a comment from you or a friend of yours (dunno if it's your 2nd account), but there's nothing like a concept of "cosmetics" in the gaming industry. Just because some companies add some lootboxes and argue that they're cosmetic only doesn't mean that there's a concept of cosmetics.

Oh boy there's a lot to unpack here.

I'll repeat myself, because apparently that's necessary: my statement was objective. It was definitively a fact. As in, adhering to the definition of "fact".

/fakt/
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

You know how to google the definition of a word? Congratulation, here's another 10 Arx for you. What you say is nonsense. I guess you can go and google the meaning of nonsense too, right?

Already let's tap the brakes again so I can educate you in a very basic thing that is wrong with a thing you said:

DLC has existed since around 2005. Live services existed before that.

There I kept that pretty simple for you.

Again confusing DLCs with predatory microtransactions. Where have I mentioned that DLCs have neever existes before a cetrain time? Calm down and read again carefully.

Yes, those greedy companies, trying to make money of the thing they made! What are they, a business?

Nooooo, please I am starting to feel sorry for them. I guess you're the first to buy EA, Activision and Bethesda game. "THEY'RE A BUSINESS THEY CAN CHARGE FEW DOLLARS FOR ONE SKIN". What happened to the days when companies were making a game and that was that? or even in the age of internet, releasing some story or gameplay DLC? I have seen many like you defending even worse practices by these companies so I am not surprised.

You doubt that I would see it? Did you turn to the side and put another point on your whiteboard labeled "awesome internet burns I did" with that one?

Wait, was that a joke? Am I supposed to laugh? Here's a "haha" and another 10 Arx for you.

Yeah, as long as you didn't explicitly compare the two in the context of my experience, let's check the tapes.

OOhh you interpreted "you" as if I was speaking about you literally? Ok, I think I shouldn't make any more jokes about education or comprehension here. That'd be too much.

If you spend $60 dollars on ARX, you get 100,000 ARX. With that much you could get 30 of the most expensive paint jobs in the game, or 166 of the cheapest paint jobs in the game.


A "few skins", what a ridiculous argument. Could you not even do a little math in your head before making such an absurd claim?

Judging by the math you made proves my point that you really spent some money on this and refers us to the MCQ I made. Again I can just copy paste what I wrote before 30 paintjobs = the whole game? Explain this to me? How can you justify the pricing?

"Are the same equal in value". I'm sure that's supposed to mean something. Oh, it was rhetorical. I mean, it's your terrible example using the numbers that you made up and didn't really add context for and kind of works against your point.

It was a perfect example that you couldn't even reply to and started, yet again, to throw in some sophistry.

But they you say this:

Is "free" an "over the top" price?

Talking to you is like talking to a wall (even worse). You are the one with serious comprehension issues here. I can sell "x" for 10 million dollars and say that if you wait just 200 years you'll get it for free. Selling a sking for an X price and providing it for free after some months of playing doesn't justify it. Clear enough now? I can not be your tutor you know.

So is this what you resort to when you can't make an argument? Nothing there does anything to argue against the things I've said on the topic. You're trying to muddy my "motivations" because you can't really address the things I've said.

What's my motivation, again? To... not get skins for myself, in the game I play?

You disappointed me. No answer at all, so I am afraid that no FREE Arx for you today.

Are you sure?
View attachment 148043


Incorrect. I have explained otherwise. A failure in your understanding is not a failure in communication, but in comprehension.

cough (using a meme from the middle ages to sound funny with a picture this time, yet fails again)

A failure in comprehension on your part. (there fixed it for ya)

You just saying something contrary to what I say does nothing and means nothing. You're just filling space with noise.

You have failed to address the points I have made, and just verbally flail ineffectually in my general direction. And sure, it's a good way for me to eat up time while I'm in Supercruise, but all you're doing on this topic is derailing it in an infantile effort to "get" me.

You want to pretend that you're being forced to pay money for additional, optional items that you can literally get by playing the game. You have utterly failed to rationalize anything to the effect of why you should get more for nothing, but you insist on demanding that you are entitled to things beyond your purchases.

You continue to complain about "greedy companies" but the problem is you. You're the greedy one, wanting something for nothing. These "greedy companies" are exchanging cosmetics they've created for either money or in-game rewarded currency. You want cosmetics for nothing, and despite the fact that you can literally get them for free by playing the game, you are so greedy that literally getting something for nothing is not good enough for you.

Your points are nonsense, hence they are not worthy of addressing. They're the same like talking to a "flat Earther" or some one who does not believe in evolution. You can defend microtransactions all you want and get the likes from your friends here on the forums all you want, but you'll NEVER make it normal. I can get them for free in what time frame? Can you answer that?

Calling the consumer greedy for paying full price of a game twice and asking not to pay more? the more you talk the more I see that you have never played any other game than Fortnite and the likes of it and I have every right to doubt your intentions/motivations. Go play God of War, HZD, Spiderman, Witcher 3 hell even f2p games like Warframe ..etc. These games have been created with millions of dollars (much more than ED), yet they do not include these stupid MT and that's why they gained the respect of their fans. I have not even bought all these games at release, but no body called me greedy for that. No body charged my extra money for some kratos's skin. I have no issue with paying for DLCs that add some new features or story to the game (not cosmetics).

 

[metatheurgist]

Just do me a favor.
Play the game, and give feedback if you look the shop up more often,
now that ARX are in.

I actually look at the shop less now that arx is in. If I remembered I used to check out the webpage every Friday just to see the new artwork and sometimes laugh at the spoilers. When I'm in the game I'm not thinking about the cosmetics unless I'm tired of seeing a specific color and feel like switching it out in livery. If they had put the shop in livery (which would actually have been sensible) I'd probably see more of the shop. I dunno who's in charge of getting eyeballs on cosmetics at FD but if they wanted more exposure they did the exact opposite thing for me.

 

[babelfisch]

Paid expansions, as planned?
(Obviously LEPs have complete access)
It is their business model to govern, but that does not
forbid criticizm and they hopefully knew what they did,
when they created the LEP.

At that time they also said there will be micro transactions for cosmetics. It was even approved by the community / DDF.

 

[babelfisch]

It is a shame you have that impression.
I merely wish the times back, when we got a full price title with all content and maybe got 1-3 Expansions.
Glorious times when nothing was locked behind shops and such,
times without techniques commonly used, that lull the user into spending more money.
These times are only dead, if we let them die.

To me those gating mechanics are a symptom of the greed and unrealistic growth goals in the industry,
it'll unload sooner or later. And i personally am totally opposed to them,
i was opposed to the original store aswell.

During these times most games did cost 1/20 of the development costs of today's games. Feel free to compare GTA 1 to GTA 5 or Elite to Elite Dangerous. Also these games never had continuous development like Elite. And they never had running costs like servers and support. The old times weren't as good as some people remember them (and I am saying that as someone who often plays 20 years old games).

 

[Raino]

poor boy ... this still goes on?

 

[Ezren]

I wasn't expecting you to come up with a lamer reply, but here you did. So here's another 10 Arx for you for surpassing my expectations.



I am sorry, but your limited understanding is precenting you from seeing the whole picture. The world is bigger than just you, poor baby. What makes senses to you may not make sense to others. I doubt your parents taught you that.



Again trying to evade my points and trying to shoot them down with your lame sarcasm and changing the subject. I am afraid to inform you that you have failed miserably. . Let me borrow a comment from you or a friend of yours (dunno if it's your 2nd account), but there's nothing like a concept of "cosmetics" in the gaming industry. Just because some companies add some lootboxes and argue that they're cosmetic only doesn't mean that there's a concept of cosmetics.

You know how to google the definition of a word? Congratulation, here's another 10 Arx for you. What you say is nonsense. I guess you can go and google the meaning of nonsense too, right?


Again confusing DLCs with predatory microtransactions. Where have I mentioned that DLCs have neever existes before a cetrain time? Calm down and read again carefully.



Nooooo, please I am starting to feel sorry for them. I guess you're the first to buy EA, Activision and Bethesda game. "THEY'RE A BUSINESS THEY CAN CHARGE FEW DOLLARS FOR ONE SKIN". What happened to the days when companies were making a game and that was that? or even in the age of internet, releasing some story or gameplay DLC? I have seen many like you defending even worse practices by these companies so I am not surprised.


Wait, was that a joke? Am I supposed to laugh? Here's a "haha" and another 10 Arx for you.


OOhh you interpreted "you" as if I was speaking about you literally? Ok, I think I shouldn't make any more jokes about education or comprehension here. That'd be too much.



Judging by the math you made proves my point that you really spent some money on this and refers us to the MCQ I made. Again I can just copy paste what I wrote before 30 paintjobs = the whole game? Explain this to me? How can you justify the pricing?



It was a perfect example that you couldn't even reply to and started, yet again, to throw in some sophistry.



Talking to you is like talking to a wall (even worse). You are the one with serious comprehension issues here. I can sell "x" for 10 million dollars and say that if you wait just 200 years you'll get it for free. Selling a sking for an X price and providing it for free after some months of playing doesn't justify it. Clear enough now? I can not be your tutor you know.




You disappointed me. No answer at all, so I am afraid that no FREE Arx for you today.




cough (using a meme from the middle ages to sound funny with a picture this time, yet fails again)

A failure in comprehension on your part. (there fixed it for ya)



Your points are nonsense, hence they are not worthy of addressing. They're the same like talking to a "flat Earther" or some one who does not believe in evolution. You can defend microtransactions all you want and get the likes from your friends here on the forums all you want, but you'll NEVER make it normal. I can get them for free in what time frame? Can you answer that?

Calling the consumer greedy for paying full price of a game twice and asking not to pay more? the more you talk the more I see that you have never played any other game than Fortnite and the likes of it and I have every right to doubt your intentions/motivations. Go play God of War, HZD, Spiderman, Witcher 3 hell even f2p games like Warframe ..etc. These games have been created with millions of dollars (much more than ED), yet they do not include these stupid MT and that's why they gained the respect of their fans. I have not even bought all these games at release, but no body called me greedy for that. No body charged my extra money for some kratos's skin. I have no issue with paying for DLCs that add some new features or story to the game (not cosmetics).

As much as I'm sure you'd like me to, I'm not going to going go the full circuit with you, over and over again. You are going to just continue to go off on little tangents instead of making a coherent point and I don't care. Nothing I say matters, because you are unwilling to actually engage in reality and just spout of random nonsense in lieu of coherent thought.

I mean, there's no continuity. Look above, and look at what you just said:

I would not dedicate a lot of my time (unlike you who seem to have plenty of and will probably dedicate few hours of your time writing an essay replying to this with more lame jokes) quoting them as simply I gain nothing from that other than wasting my time.

Even things you say don't matter to you. I may as well be arguing with a goldfish.

 

[ZeroAi]

This is why Frontier doesn't fix ED on consoles - look at all the money they make from folks like you and me who buy the game AGAIN for PC (and then cosmetics). It almost makes me think they broke the console versions on purpose!

I hear you, but I have to say they did eventually fix the Xbox SRV co-op crashing issue... took a long time but they got it fixed.

 

[Old Duck]

@ThePriestSeto - Why are you here?

 

[ThePriestSeto]

As much as I'm sure you'd like me to, I'm not going to going go the full circuit with you, over and over again. You are going to just continue to go off on little tangents instead of making a coherent point and I don't care. Nothing I say matters, because you are unwilling to actually engage in reality and just spout of random nonsense in lieu of coherent thought.

and sophistry. You could not even counter one single argument. Go back and read your posts from another perspective.

I mean, there's no continuity. Look above, and look at what you just said:



Even things you say don't matter to you. I may as well be arguing with a goldfish.

Ehh knowing you who "likes to have the final say and emerge as a winner of an argument on the internet", I just would not let you.

Just few more points to support my last post regarding the goodwill and charitable acts AAA publishers engage into, and how the consumers are really GREEDY:
- Back in 2012 or 2013, EA John Riccitiello was thinking about charging money for bullets in games (I am sure they'll do that someday).

- EA filing monetisation patents left and right that deliberately manipulate the consumer to face a more-skilled opponent, then offer them the option to buy that opponent's same gear. Another patent was manipulating the difficulty for players who were too good so that the game wouldn't be so easy for them and vice versa. Go figure how this works in an online game.

- Activision, in unparalleded generosity, charges 1 dollar for a dot in BlackOps.

- Take-two cancelling DLCs plans for GTA V to focus on their money making online mode and how to milk customers to pay even more. Same with EA in their sports game that the only mode that they work on is their Ultimate Team. Rest of the game is basically the same with new kits.

- Battlefront 2 lootbox progression and the backlash it got. (At least Star Wars community were not crazy enough to defend it). A character unlock would take 40 hours of gameplay. The character is there in the game and it is optional and doesn't affect gameplay like skins in ED. You can play the game without it.

- Evolve selling $136 worth of ugly cosmetic paint jobs on day 1 of the game release.

- Activision promises no monetization in Crash Team Racing then implementing it later after all review came out and copies sold. Skins and cosmetics are all obtainable in game with arguably Okish time frames for each. (comparable to ED)

- All these are few examples and do no include rigged gambling lootboxes (surprise mechanics as EA likes to call them) (

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
) Not to mention that there is a trend in schools of kids bullying each other over Fortnite cosmetics. (I bet that is your favorite game)

After all that you come and call me greedy for criticizing these companies? The only explanation I got is that you are some investor or got some stake in these companies, otherwise there is no justification for defending that. People who argue that costs of game developments have risen do not talk about the growing market, development of in-house engines and the rise of live service games. Costs should be looked at Vs returns. These companies are charging for online passes, season passes, DLC locked content on disk, lootboxes, cosmetics and that is not enough for them.

I really doubt that you'll defy the urge to reply this one post as of the reason I mentioned above, but we will see.

 

[rootsrat]

Disclaimers:

• This is a rant. If you aren't interested in hearing a rant, feel free to click the back button on your browser now.
• This rant is kind of long winded and loaded with sarcasm. If you're still reading, you should go and get a drink, and maybe lean your chair back.
• I am not an industry professional. I don't know the inner workings of Frontier or the details of their accounting and business models.
• I am, however, a gainfully employed adult. I can afford things, I just find some of them to be not worth the price tag.
• This is an account of my personal experiences and the resulting perspective of such. Also, I'm kind of a jerk.

Ahem! So, I've never posted on this forum before, but I've been around since the week Elite: Dangerous was released. I paid the full, AAA-game MSRP price tag for it. And I'm ok with that. It was a very pretty game, with a very enjoyable flight mechanic, one whole galaxy wide, even if it was only an inch deep. It seemed a little lacking in mechanics at the time, but it had promise, and there was plenty a promise made about the good things to come. And hey, there's some pretty paint jobs in the webstore! But let's hang around a while and see what this game grows into...

Oh, I see. It's grown a DLC. A DLC that costs near as much as the game itself. A DLC that "unlocks" all the neat, exciting features one would expect to be a part of the core mechanics of the game. A DLC that is required to access engineers, irrefutably a huge advantage over any CMDR with stock parts for just about any play type. And Multi-Crew, which is a cute gimmick, if a little buggy still, but nobody really uses it because it's just a disadvantage all around. There's no real point in doing it.

Well, interesting. Guess it's time to shell out some more cash for all of this new content that is definitely above and beyond the expectations of the base, AAA-priced game. Personally, I took a break from Elite and waited for it to go on sale. And this is fine. I, myself, am not going to shell out more money still for aesthetics at this point. For it's credit, Elite has grown quite a bit in its depth of gameplay over the years. Fighting aliens is cool, even though I think most of us are still at a big net Cr loss there. Still no sign of these "space legs" I keep hearing about-

Oh, they might be in the next paid DLC? I mean, ok. I guess Frontier has to make some fresh income somehow-hey-wait-a-second. What's this ARX thing now? A new way to earn pew pew colors and bobble heads in the game!? Oh happy day! I'm so excited! Let's go! How long will it take me, at the weekly cap of 400, to slap some of those pointy spikes and a mean looking piratey paint job on my ship? About... nine months? Wow uh.... ok I guess. Well, um, I guess I'll go grind out that weekly cap then.

Off to the asteroid ring I go. Still no word on how much these upcoming fleet carriers will cost, so I guess I'll blow up some big, gray space rocks for little, shiny space rocks. That pays well, and it's genuinely enjoyable to do, being one of the newer mechanics and all. A few hours one day, a few hours the next, and what a haul! Let's just find a nice, high-demand station and cash out... 210 Million Cr! Nice! Now for that cherry on top, let's log out and see how many ARX all this lucrative mining earns. Wait for it... Yeah buddy! A whole... wait, six?
SIX?
...
...
...
What ?

* It's at this point that I expect the white knights among you to be panting heavily over your keyboards, fingers flying in a flurry of Cheetos dust: "Well! But! Actually! Frontier doesn't have to give you any ARX for free! You should be grateful! If you're so upset about not having a paint job like mine, why don't you open your wallet-"

Ok ok, that's enough. I've gotten that part out of the way for you, so you don't need to.

See, I'm ok with the pretty aesthetics being in the webstore. I'm not personally inclined to shell out for them myself, but if that's what you want to do, more power to you. But Frontier has chosen to dangle the prospect of "earning your aesthetics in game," while structuring it such that making actual, tangible use of it requires several hours of grindy play per day, several days a week, every week for months.

Or! You could spend a few bucks to supplement your pitiful in-game earnings! There, look at that pretty paint job you've totally earned with your hard work! Want another one? Just loosen those purse strings a little more!
"Free ARX" is a gateway drug.
"Free ARX" is a distraction from the real purpose of ARX: obscuring the real world price of in-game purchases.
"Free ARX" is Frontier jumping the bandwagon of manipulative, predatory game industry practices, and it is intended entirely to exploit you.

Keep an eye out for special lootboxes on alien homeworlds in the next season! Keys purchasable in the ARX store!

Anyway, back to blowing up rocks.

Fly safe, cmdrs o7,
Erro

¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Old Duck]

Somebody's having a meltdown

Source: https://youtu.be/1AFSb3v9oXI?t=78

Source: https://youtu.be/1AFSb3v9oXI

 

[Rick6549]

and sophistry. You could not even counter one single argument. Go back and read your posts from another perspective.



Ehh knowing you who "likes to have the final say and emerge as a winner of an argument on the internet", I just would not let you.

Just few more points to support my last post regarding the goodwill and charitable acts AAA publishers engage into, and how the consumers are really GREEDY:
- Back in 2012 or 2013, EA John Riccitiello was thinking about charging money for bullets in games (I am sure they'll do that someday).

- EA filing monetisation patents left and right that deliberately manipulate the consumer to face a more-skilled opponent, then offer them the option to buy that opponent's same gear. Another patent was manipulating the difficulty for players who were too good so that the game wouldn't be so easy for them and vice versa. Go figure how this works in an online game.

- Activision, in unparalleded generosity, charges 1 dollar for a dot in BlackOps.

- Take-two cancelling DLCs plans for GTA V to focus on their money making online mode and how to milk customers to pay even more. Same with EA in their sports game that the only mode that they work on is their Ultimate Team. Rest of the game is basically the same with new kits.

- Battlefront 2 lootbox progression and the backlash it got. (At least Star Wars community were not crazy enough to defend it). A character unlock would take 40 hours of gameplay. The character is there in the game and it is optional and doesn't affect gameplay like skins in ED. You can play the game without it.

- Evolve selling $136 worth of ugly cosmetic paint jobs on day 1 of the game release.

- Activision promises no monetization in Crash Team Racing then implementing it later after all review came out and copies sold. Skins and cosmetics are all obtainable in game with arguably Okish time frames for each. (comparable to ED)

- All these are few examples and do no include rigged gambling lootboxes (surprise mechanics as EA likes to call them) (

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
) Not to mention that there is a trend in schools of kids bullying each other over Fortnite cosmetics. (I bet that is your favorite game)

After all that you come and call me greedy for criticizing these companies? The only explanation I got is that you are some investor or got some stake in these companies, otherwise there is no justification for defending that. People who argue that costs of game developments have risen do not talk about the growing market, development of in-house engines and the rise of live service games. Costs should be looked at Vs returns. These companies are charging for online passes, season passes, DLC locked content on disk, lootboxes, cosmetics and that is not enough for them.

I really doubt that you'll defy the urge to reply this one post as of the reason I mentioned above, but we will see.

Paying 2$ for a paint instead of 1.50$ != 60$ dlcs for 60$ games and having 20$ skins

 

[Eliza]

and sophistry. You could not even counter one single argument. Go back and read your posts from another perspective.



Ehh knowing you who "likes to have the final say and emerge as a winner of an argument on the internet", I just would not let you.

Just few more points to support my last post regarding the goodwill and charitable acts AAA publishers engage into, and how the consumers are really GREEDY:
- Back in 2012 or 2013, EA John Riccitiello was thinking about charging money for bullets in games (I am sure they'll do that someday).

- EA filing monetisation patents left and right that deliberately manipulate the consumer to face a more-skilled opponent, then offer them the option to buy that opponent's same gear. Another patent was manipulating the difficulty for players who were too good so that the game wouldn't be so easy for them and vice versa. Go figure how this works in an online game.

- Activision, in unparalleded generosity, charges 1 dollar for a dot in BlackOps.

- Take-two cancelling DLCs plans for GTA V to focus on their money making online mode and how to milk customers to pay even more. Same with EA in their sports game that the only mode that they work on is their Ultimate Team. Rest of the game is basically the same with new kits.

- Battlefront 2 lootbox progression and the backlash it got. (At least Star Wars community were not crazy enough to defend it). A character unlock would take 40 hours of gameplay. The character is there in the game and it is optional and doesn't affect gameplay like skins in ED. You can play the game without it.

- Evolve selling $136 worth of ugly cosmetic paint jobs on day 1 of the game release.

- Activision promises no monetization in Crash Team Racing then implementing it later after all review came out and copies sold. Skins and cosmetics are all obtainable in game with arguably Okish time frames for each. (comparable to ED)

- All these are few examples and do no include rigged gambling lootboxes (surprise mechanics as EA likes to call them) (

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
) Not to mention that there is a trend in schools of kids bullying each other over Fortnite cosmetics. (I bet that is your favorite game)

After all that you come and call me greedy for criticizing these companies? The only explanation I got is that you are some investor or got some stake in these companies, otherwise there is no justification for defending that. People who argue that costs of game developments have risen do not talk about the growing market, development of in-house engines and the rise of live service games. Costs should be looked at Vs returns. These companies are charging for online passes, season passes, DLC locked content on disk, lootboxes, cosmetics and that is not enough for them.

I really doubt that you'll defy the urge to reply this one post as of the reason I mentioned above, but we will see.

Quite a list you offered here...will there be a sequel? Still missing FDev's cruelty.

 

[Stealthie]

Somebody's having a meltdown

Source: https://youtu.be/1AFSb3v9oXI?t=78

Source: https://youtu.be/1AFSb3v9oXI

Reminds me...

As a kid I bought the VINCENT and Maximillian Airfix (or, whoever) kits and they were absolutely dreadful.

They were designed so you glued together various sub-assemblies and then they clipped onto the main model so you could do stuff like fit VINCENT's lasers or Maximillian's food-mixer hands.
Trouble was that none of the clip-on assemblies fitted very well and every time you looked at it something else would have fallen off.
Eventually you had to just pick one configuration and glue it all together, which meant that approximately half the parts went into the bin.

Also, they had a display stand made from a length of coat-hanger (presumably so they'd look like they were hovering) but that used to gouge at the plastic and meant the model would eventually fall off the stand... which meant that all the poorly-fitting clip-on parts would fall off.

When I bought them I was sooooo pleased to have them and there was them a period of roughly 3 months where they looked shoddier and shoddier as bits fell off or broke and then I just binned them.

 

[Bloodsign]

All video games are exploitative. Probably (I'm hoping to find some exceptions one day) most people outside one's family group are exploitative too. That's life. If you don't want to be milked like a cow for your hard earned money by somebody, go live by yourself in the woods.

 

[MaxG10]

Probably (I'm hoping to find some exceptions one day) most people outside one's family group are exploitative too.

Until you hit the wrong family that is....

 

[Eliza]

All video games are exploitative. Probably (I'm hoping to find some exceptions one day) most people outside one's family group are exploitative too. That's life. If you don't want to be milked like a cow for your hard earned money by somebody, go live by yourself in the woods.

Nice, but not thougt out till the end, because then (S)HE'LL be exploitative against the woods. To build a shelter, hunting food etc. There goes moralty and ethics again.

The only suffice solution would be: killing oneself.

 

[Old Duck]

How much money did you spend on that popcorn at the movie theater? At least my paint jobs don't end up in the loo the next day.

 

[Ezren]

and sophistry. You could not even counter one single argument. Go back and read your posts from another perspective.

See, you don't make arguments. You make little stories with tangential comparisons and pretend they are equivalent to conflate situations to create circumstances to support what you want to believe.

Ehh knowing you who "likes to have the final say and emerge as a winner of an argument on the internet", I just would not let you.

A shame it's not really up to you. Also what you said just there completely blows past what I said and pretends it didn't exist, which just proves exactly what I pointed out. There is no continuity, you're just going to put some completely unrelated words down and call it a response.

Just few more points to support my last post regarding the goodwill and charitable acts AAA publishers engage into, and how the consumers are really GREEDY:
- Back in 2012 or 2013, EA John Riccitiello was thinking about charging money for bullets in games (I am sure they'll do that someday).

- EA filing monetisation patents left and right that deliberately manipulate the consumer to face a more-skilled opponent, then offer them the option to buy that opponent's same gear. Another patent was manipulating the difficulty for players who were too good so that the game wouldn't be so easy for them and vice versa. Go figure how this works in an online game.

- Activision, in unparalleded generosity, charges 1 dollar for a dot in BlackOps.

- Take-two cancelling DLCs plans for GTA V to focus on their money making online mode and how to milk customers to pay even more. Same with EA in their sports game that the only mode that they work on is their Ultimate Team. Rest of the game is basically the same with new kits.

- Battlefront 2 lootbox progression and the backlash it got. (At least Star Wars community were not crazy enough to defend it). A character unlock would take 40 hours of gameplay. The character is there in the game and it is optional and doesn't affect gameplay like skins in ED. You can play the game without it.

- Evolve selling $136 worth of ugly cosmetic paint jobs on day 1 of the game release.

- Activision promises no monetization in Crash Team Racing then implementing it later after all review came out and copies sold. Skins and cosmetics are all obtainable in game with arguably Okish time frames for each. (comparable to ED)

- All these are few examples and do no include rigged gambling lootboxes (surprise mechanics as EA likes to call them) (

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
) Not to mention that there is a trend in schools of kids bullying each other over Fortnite cosmetics. (I bet that is your favorite game)

After all that you come and call me greedy for criticizing these companies? The only explanation I got is that you are some investor or got some stake in these companies, otherwise there is no justification for defending that. People who argue that costs of game developments have risen do not talk about the growing market, development of in-house engines and the rise of live service games. Costs should be looked at Vs returns. These companies are charging for online passes, season passes, DLC locked content on disk, lootboxes, cosmetics and that is not enough for them.

I really doubt that you'll defy the urge to reply this one post as of the reason I mentioned above, but we will see.

See all this? It has nothing to do with anything, just conflation and cherry-picked comparisons. It's just more noise you're making. This is like reading a book report written by somebody who clearly didn't read the book.

 

[Rick6549]

See, you don't make arguments. You make little stories with tangential comparisons and pretend they are equivalent to conflate situations to create circumstances to support what you want to believe.


A shame it's not really up to you. Also what you said just there completely blows past what I said and pretends it didn't exist, which just proves exactly what I pointed out. There is no continuity, you're just going to put some completely unrelated words down and call it a response.


See all this? It has nothing to do with anything, just conflation and cherry-picked comparisons. It's just more noise you're making. This is like reading a book report written by somebody who clearly didn't read the book.

Its no use arguing with that guy, he thinks hes some kind of genius philsopher, just ignore him