scubbo @ scubbo @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

140

Joined

5 yr. ago

They make smaller games, still charge full prices, then make DLCs that are relatively small and chare a lot for them.

So you agree with me, then, that the problem is publishers charging a disproportionate price for the amount of content being purchased?

OK - still, though, if every component (base game or DLC) that you buy is worth the money you pay for it, then what's the problem?

don't say [those words] in my presence

Will I regret asking why?

Eh - I did, but other commenters pointed out that it's not always possible to pass them depending on road conditions, so I'm with them.

Gotcha! All those "reasons why it might be bad/harmful/awkward to be stuck behind an RV" make sense, but what I was missing was that these RVs might be on roads where passing them isn't possible. Other commenters have clarified that. Thanks!

Ah, I was imagining a big American freeway like you see on TV. Thanks, that makes sense!

Thank you for answering the question rather than downvoting!

That whole Sander-lanche was aa fucking rollercoaster. The (being intentionally vague to avoid spoilers) bit-while-falling, the line ending in "you removed" - so many feelings!

I take your point, but the reasoning "this person has already demonstrated themselves willing, able, and motivated to breach a major social contract related to your safety; therefore I fear that they may try to breach more" is not unreasonable. The proportion of "home invaders who are also (willing to be) murderers" is gonna be way larger than the proportion of willing murderers among the general population.

My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don't want it, don't buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn't like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you've spent the price of the base game, but that's effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.

What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they're mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn't commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is "worth" $60, and it's split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn't exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn't mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.

Shameless Darkeye wench

Why is it a problem that you have to pass a slow-moving vehicle?

EDIT: this was a weird comment to get downvoted for. Not everyone drives, y'all - it was a genuine question, not one loaded with implication.

Neither of those things you described are intentional life-choices that people have planned, so no, it is not the same thing at all.

Why is everyone else responsible for your comfort?

This is a circular argument I've seen a lot of times on this thread (from several people), so I'm going to respond to it just once and then stop engaging here because this whole thread is not convincing anyone. Both sides of this issue believe that that argument supports them:

• Pro-babies think "other passengers should just bring earplugs, I don't have to be responsible for their comfort" (let's leave aside for a moment the question of whether earplugs are actually fully effective against screaming children (they're not) and give this view the benefit of the doubt)
• Anti-babies think "just don't bring the baby on the plane. The whole rest of the plane shouldn't have to adapt to your choices"

The thing is, one of these groups of people is knowingly introducing a factor that will cause distress to hundreds of people and is saying "fuck all of you if you aren't prepared to adapt to my choices", and the other group is saying..."please don't do that". The latter feels way more reasonable to me.

The key point here seems to be that air travel is considered to be a fundamental inalienable right, something which should not and cannot be denied. Parents are saying things like "well without air travel, how are we supposed to go on holiday", to which the answer is...maybe you're not (or you go by car/boat) until the baby's a real human? Maybe that was something you should have thought about before you had a child? Maybe, just maybe, it should be the cultural and social norm that a choice that you made does not permit you to inflict the negative outcomes of that choice on a tube of strangers?

Because, as we all know, the only way of travelling across the ocean is by plane.

No-one's claiming that it's unreasonable or unprecedented for kids to be noisy and disruptive due to (among other reasons) still-developing brains that can't fully process social norms and responsibilities.

We're saying that, given that everyone knows that fact, the parents who choose to bring poorly-behaved kids onto planes are being selfish and irresponsible.

The kids are mostly blameless in these situations - they're still developing, they can't (depending on age) be expected to be fully responsible. It's the parents that are selfish shitbags.

around the world

IME it's a uniquely American joke.

"You used to be a child once, so you aren't allowed to be frustrated at any behaviours of children or choices of their caregivers" sure is a perspective.

Yes, I was once a child. And if my parents had taken me on a flight before I was sufficiently mature not to yell during it, they would have been being irresponsible and selfish. "Babies scream, sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop them" is true, but doesn't imply that you should be allowed to take them anywhere.

Ah yes, CRPGs, famously a genre that has never had any releases since the 90's.

Except Path of Exile, Torment: Tides of Numenera, Pathfinder: Kingmaker/Wrath of the Righteous, Divinity Original Sin 1&2, Pillars of Eternity 1&2, the Shadowrun series, Disco Elysium...

It's perfectly fine to have preferences, but don't shit on a genre because of your own ignorance.

Personally I (a straight person) use it in an attempt to normalize the term, so that people who want to conceal the gender of their partner have plausible deniability. If all straight people say "girlfriend/boyfriend", then anyone saying "partner" is outed as "a non-straight person trying to conceal the fact".

EDIT: but also, it connotes a deeper level of trust, support, intimacy, etc. A "girlfriend" is some chick I fool around and have some fun with; a "partner" is someone with whom I'm building a life together.

The Vegan Society says that "In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Vegan.com says "The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products."

Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.

It's all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one's choices than simply "meat bad" - and that's a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe "ethically aligned with Veganism", but not "a vegan diet".

EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It's a noble choice, it's one I fully support, and I've seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I'm not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I'm arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.