Goronmon @ Goronmon @lemmy.world

Posts

273

Comments

209

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's OK if someone disagrees with you on the internet, you know. Your world isn't going to end, haha.

In theory I'm not entirely against the idea of paid mods. I don't necessarily buy that mods are more "pure" if no one is able to make money from them. And I do like the idea that people might invest more resources in mods than if they are effectively donating their time to the projects.

That said, things can definitely get complicated quickly once you start providing financial incentives. I think it's smart to require mod makers to go through an approval process rather than just make it open.

Paid mods is almost never a good thing for the game itself.

Are there other examples of games having paid mods that you can point to for the issues you are concerned about?

I can't think of any off the top of my head, mainly because so few games provide any supported tools for mods in the first place.

Edit: People are downvoting for asking a question? I honestly want to know if there are previous examples.

Can impact, but likely not a huge one. Just like how most people playing Skyrim are playing without mods, most people playing GTA games aren't going to bother with mods and modded servers.

Just calling out nonsense when I see it.

I bet its because console players are far more likely to dump their life savings into Shark Cards 2.0 in massive fits of hysterical FOMO.

...isn't an example what I would consider a "good faith argument" to begin with, but I do apologize if my responses come off as blunt.

Yes, my post was hyperbole, I should have been more accurate.

You didn't address the topic though, are you just here to score points?

Yeah, I'm unconvinced that PC players don't purchase micro-transactions.

"Live service" games have existed almost as long as gaming has been around, so I doubt that message is going to be sent anytime soon.

Is this type of comment helpful for you? Are people supposed to follow-up with some comment about PC players are sheep and will be buy the game for consoles and then buy it PC when it releases there?

This platform war nonsense is tiring.

So, in order to maybe not want to play future GTA titles in some theoretical future, you shouldn't play current GTA titles in order to discourage Rockstar from releasing these theoretical games?

The logic doesn't add up here, haha.

You said that modern games were terrible cash grabs, which it's different from how games "used to be". So I'm interested in which period of time "used to be" actually encompasses.

Multiplayer games with some form of progression are much more popular. Games like you describe still exist, they are just less popular relative to others.

Yes, good games exist today, that doesn’t mean lots of games aren’t also terrible live service cash grabs.

So, just like older games?

I'm interested in this period of time where all video games were good and no greed was involved.

Netflix was cheap because no one valued streaming rights initially, and thus there was little competition for those rights. Once companies realized how valuable the service was, prices shot up.

One of those strange situations where increased competition increased prices.

That's the question isn't it? I believe they've already stated not to expect anything before the end of the year. But we'll see how long it takes for turned to show up after that.

A link to a Youtube Short that is an image of a date for when they announce another date.

Sorry, I'm downvoting this.

I would argue it is silly, regardless of the explanation. Every culture has silly things, but that doesn't make them somehow not silly.

This feels like a pretty big overreaction from my perspective. As far as I know, they never promised to never release expansion content, nor does the existence of an expansion make the original game "less complete" retroactively.

Either way, I also don't see what about this is "Modern gaming sucks".

I mean, it was in an article where they were assuring people there wouldn’t be DLC.

Which article is that? From what I remember the sentiment was basically "FFXVI is meant to be a complete experience, no DLC required. But if it's successful and there is demand for it, it's possible we'll work on something in the future".

This would be different from many games which have DLC planned and worked out during the development of the main game, before it's released.