So traders gonna be pushing DLC armor? Basically in game ads.

[InfiniteWarrior]

If another person can't fight that urge, that is on them

The very fact that we have to be consciously aware and protective of ourselves and our psyches when we play video games these days accounts for most of the widespread feeling that games just aren't fun anymore, as I see it.

Once upon a time, you could buy a game and play that game. Kick back, relax and not worry about thing. Now? You're constantly having to protect yourself from predatory industry practices. Skyrim was once among my favorite games of all time. Several "editions" and an in-game store later, I can't even fire it up without thinking about predatory industry practices. And Skyrim isn't even that old.

There are also the young and psychological disorders to consider. A young person who hasn't yet developed the ability to excercise good judgement -- with Mom and Dad's credit card or a gift card or what have you -- and/or someone with a psychological disorder literally can't resist the urge. Stories abound of people being financially ruined as a result. That's what makes it a societal issue despite anyone trying to make it a personal issue.

 

[bdubyah]

The very fact that we have to be consciously aware and protective of ourselves and our psyches when we play video games these days accounts for most of the widespread feeling that games just aren't fun anymore, as I see it.

Once upon a time, you could buy a game and play that game. Kick back, relax and not worry about thing. Now? You're constantly having to protect yourself from predatory industry practices. Skyrim was once among my favorite games of all time. Several "editions" and an in-game store later, I can't even fire it up without thinking about predatory industry practices. And Skyrim isn't even that old.

There are also the young and psychological disorders to consider. A young person who hasn't yet developed the ability to excercise good judgement -- with Mom and Dad's credit card or a gift card or what have you -- and/or someone with a psychological disorder literally can't resist the urge. Stories abound of people being financially ruined as a result. That's what makes it a societal issue despite anyone trying to make it a personal issue.

Eh, I don't protect ■■■■. I just ignore it if it doesn't interest me. Simple.

I can still kick back and play due to the above.

Again, I'm not saying things don't exist, just that it isn't on a game studio to worry about it. Talking about kids? That's on the parents. Not saying it's easy, but if you choose to have kids you accept the responsibility. I'm not responsible for others' children, neither are game studios. Same with people with disorders.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

I agree. It's a societal issue.

Say you're playing Fallout 76. You see a power armor skin in-game you think is really cool another player is using and would love to have for yourself, but you can't afford it, not only because the price is too high (and, of course, it is way too high for what it is) or for any one of a number of reasons, but especially due to massive economic inequality. How would you feel?

I know it's not great, but such is life.
Say you are walking down the street and you see a Lamborghini Veneno Roadster you think is really cool another person is driving and would love to have for yourself, but you can't afford it, not only because the price is too high (and, of course, it is way too high for what it is) or for any one of a number of reasons, but especially due to massive economic inequality. How would you feel? Now you replace that with one thousand things I (and a lot of people) can't buy. You should not covet other people's stuff. That is the foundation of jelousy. Earn your stuff and value it. That is no reason not to have DLC.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I know it's not great, but such is life.

Nah. It's the way 'The Suffering System' is set up.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

Nah. It's the way 'The Suffering System' is set up.

Yeah, like that. But it works the opposite way of your thinking: you must control your desires, not stop others from doing what they wish.
It's a personal growth aspiration, not a social regulation. The radical pursue of equality on all things have historically driven humanity to chaos and violence because it's usually inspired by personnal greed. Some are born without arms and can't even play a game. You have money to buy a game and even have a computer. Some don't. Will you stop playing games on their account? Should you? No. Let people have their DLC, even if we can't buy them all. It's money going to the developers and, in the end, hopefully, it will revert in new features being added to the game in benefit of all.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

it works the opposite way of your thinking

It's not about stopping others from doing what they wish or social regulation. I'd suggest reading the PDF. "Large corporations are new forms of impersonal collective self, which are very good at preserving themselves and increasing their power, quite apart from the personal motivations of the individuals who serve them." What's backward is that we're literally under corporate rule. David Korten wrote a book about it titled, oddly enough, 'When Corporations Rule the World,' if anyone's interested.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

It's not about stopping others from doing what they wish or social regulation. I'd suggest reading the PDF. "Large corporations are new forms of impersonal collective self, which are very good at preserving themselves and increasing their power, quite apart from the personal motivations of the individuals who serve them." What's backward is that we're literally under corporate rule. David Korten wrote a book about it titled, oddly enough, 'When Corporations Rule the World,' if anyone's interested.

I think you are overthinking things. TFP has between 31 to 44 employees according to RocketReach. It's privately held and no big corporation.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I think you are overthinking things. TFP has between 31 to 44 employees according to RocketReach. It's privately held and no big corporation.

Of course, the topic of my comments is the predatory industry practices worming their way into games across the spectrum and, of course, institutionalized greed is not confined to the gaming industry, but far more impactful industries. I'd be more concerned about them, but were "institutionalized greed, ill-will and delusion" either tempered or no longer institutionalized, "cosmetic DLC" likely wouldn't exist for full-priced games. No one would have to either buy them or download them because modding would be running on goodwill and possibly donations for mod authors as it was not so long ago. The "F2P" mobile gaming model might never have been adopted for full-priced games if not for institutionalized greed. Likewise the "live service" model.

I'm sure you've heard of the "stop killing games" campaign. In the short term, I think producers of MMOs (which I'd just as soon didn't exist, but they do) should all be "FTP," imo, as they make their money off the "FTP" mobile gaming model and might do well to listen to John Carmack on that score because that's more or less what he advocates: "building games that will still work 'at some level' without central server support, encourages LAN support for multiplayer games (because this allows people to write proxies), and supports user-run servers both because they can help save on hosting costs and for the community creative angle."

As I said earlier in the thread, TFP were doing everything right for the type of game they're producing on the business end up to 1.0, afic: produce a product, sell the product; community run servers; mod support. Now, for the paid DLC introduced (and a few other reasons) I personally won't be supporting or recommending it as I'm opposed to such in full-priced games of this type on principle. Others can choose for themselves if they want to support it or not.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

Of course, the topic of my comments is the predatory industry practices worming their way into games across the spectrum and, of course, institutionalized greed is not confined to the gaming industry, but far more impactful industries. I'd be more concerned about them, but were "institutionalized greed, ill-will and delusion" either tempered or no longer institutionalized, "cosmetic DLC" likely wouldn't exist for full-priced games. No one would have to either buy them or download them because modding would be running on goodwill and possibly donations for mod authors as it was not so long ago. The "F2P" mobile gaming model might never have been adopted for full-priced games if not for institutionalized greed. Likewise the "live service" model.

I'm sure you've heard of the "stop killing games" campaign. In the short term, I think producers of MMOs (which I'd just as soon didn't exist, but they do) should all be "FTP," imo, as they make their money off the "FTP" mobile gaming model and might do well to listen to John Carmack on that score because that's more or less what he advocates: "building games that will still work 'at some level' without central server support, encourages LAN support for multiplayer games (because this allows people to write proxies), and supports user-run servers both because they can help save on hosting costs and for the community creative angle."

As I said earlier in the thread, TFP were doing everything right for the type of game they're producing on the business end up to 1.0, afic: produce a product, sell the product; community run servers; mod support. Now, for the paid DLC introduced (and a few other reasons) I personally won't be supporting or recommending it as I'm opposed to such in full-priced games of this type on principle. Others can choose for themselves if they want to support it or not.

I totally understand where you are coming from.
I was a big Blizzard and Diablo I and II fan up until they announce D3 would feature an in-game auction house and would be online only for single player. Never bought a Blizzard title since, so I get your despise over this kind of practice, but as I said, you are perhaps oversensitive to this kind of thing. If there is a need, be it a real necessity or just a general whim from people, there will be someone to try and fullfill it. If people did not like cosmetic stuff they would not pay more for premium seats on a plane. Heck, there is even a make up and cosmetic industry. People buy magazines just to watch photos in it and toss them in the garbage the next week. People are not wise in regards to how they spend money and, of course, there will always be someone that will cater to your whims.
If you dig deep enough in your own line of though, a game itself, being a completely made up product with no real life value, would fall into your own reservations. You can try to rationalize, I'm buying a game. No, you are just buying a DVD or BluRay that is not worth the cost you pay. All the inherent value is only in the perceived entertainment one derives from the experience of playing. In that regard, if one finds amusement in seeing their ingame character in a certain fashion who am I to say that is wrong? Or overpriced? I know a bunch of teenagers bacj then that would have paid a fortune for a Lara Croft nude patch, had it existed at the time.
As I have stated, the gaming experience is preserved for all, with no added benefits besides the intended appearance. Of course you may choose your battles as you wish, but it's a very small hill this one you chose to die on. Not really worth getting upset about.

 

[Old Crow]

And where do you have to buy the mentioned dlc armor vs the other armor he sells?

That is how companies test the waters with what they can get away with.

Its only cosmetics armor its no big deal, its only an exp boost to lessen the grind its no big deal and so on.

Companies test what they can get away with and they love folks who defend scummy ■■■■ they do to help push the narrative of its ok for X and Y reasons.

Having a quest giving NPC mention DLC armor that you pay for with real money is an issue. Its a test to see what they can get away with and then push more on later.

This will just get worse as more DLC is added and eventually ways to color your armor with paid items.

It's a good thing they're optional, huh? No one's holding your family at gunpoint if you don't buy them.

Trust me dude, they're way more wrong with this game than a voice line mentioning some cosmetic armor.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

you are perhaps oversensitive to this kind of thing

Nope. I just don't make exceptions and know it's connected to something far larger than TFP, you or me and could be changed.

 

[meganoth]

Of course, the topic of my comments is the predatory industry practices worming their way into games across the spectrum and, of course, institutionalized greed is not confined to the gaming industry, but far more impactful industries. I'd be more concerned about them, but were "institutionalized greed, ill-will and delusion" either tempered or no longer institutionalized, "cosmetic DLC" likely wouldn't exist for full-priced games. No one would have to either buy them or download them because modding would be running on goodwill and possibly donations for mod authors as it was not so long ago. The "F2P" mobile gaming model might never have been adopted for full-priced games if not for institutionalized greed. Likewise the "live service" model.

I'm sure you've heard of the "stop killing games" campaign. In the short term, I think producers of MMOs (which I'd just as soon didn't exist, but they do) should all be "FTP," imo, as they make their money off the "FTP" mobile gaming model and might do well to listen to John Carmack on that score because that's more or less what he advocates: "building games that will still work 'at some level' without central server support, encourages LAN support for multiplayer games (because this allows people to write proxies), and supports user-run servers both because they can help save on hosting costs and for the community creative angle."

As I said earlier in the thread, TFP were doing everything right for the type of game they're producing on the business end up to 1.0, afic: produce a product, sell the product; community run servers; mod support. Now, for the paid DLC introduced (and a few other reasons) I personally won't be supporting or recommending it as I'm opposed to such in full-priced games of this type on principle. Others can choose for themselves if they want to support it or not.

There was a time when I was strictly against cosmetic DLCs. Then I found out that a large percentage of the players **wanted** cosmetic stuff, some because they want to run around with pets or new clothes, and a probably smaller group just to support developers they like. They were not just accepting it, they were asking for cosmetic stuff. At that time I realized that my position was not defendable, it wasn't the industry alone who was supporting this change.

I am still ignoring any pay-to-win schemes and all games that prey on weaknesses of their clients (especially F2P games). It may look similar there (some players want f2p games) but in these cases it has an impact on my gameplay and the front against it is still largely intact. I have to pick the fights I can still win. In my view this isn't the case with cosmetic DLCs.

----

Also, the size of a DLC should not make a difference. Either you think the price is acceptable or not. When I buy a headset for example and there is an optional gadget to connect it to some other equipment than my PC I don't look at the size of the gadget but at the usefulness in comparison to its price.

20 or 30 years ago much of the games market was distributed over physical media. It was simply not practical to produce and distribute small addons because the price of distribution was much too high compared to the value of the contents. This is why big expansions were the norm. Not because games companies followed some strange ethic for big addons only. With digital distribution this simply changed and now addons of any size are possible. I don't see an ethical question here. The ethics only come into play with in-game shops and ways to induce players to buy them on a whim

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

At that time I realized that my position was not defendable, it wasn't the industry alone who was supporting this change.

Of course it was defendable. I've said the practice has become widely acceptable both in the industry and among players despite the far more healthy and symbiotic manner in which the modding community worked not even that long ago. Predatory industry practices worming their way into everything is not something that's within my control, so I don't worry about it, but I also don't support or recommend full price games that include "cosmetic DLC" and assorted other fluff when every fiber of my being is telling me not to regardless how acceptable the practice has become otherwise. Nor is my point of view swayed by arguments in support and defense of predatory industry practices but, especially, by corporate CEOs who "see opportunity." CEOs feel they have no choice but to see and think and act as they do because the present, unconscionable system demands they do, else they'll lose their jobs. Full price video games can now cost players anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars to be experienced and enjoyed fully. Of course, no human being is required to bat an eye (and can even turn a blind eye) to that due to the technicalities the industry has conjured up to ease acceptance of predatory industry practices among the public.

Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else, to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another. ~ R.W. Emerson, Sefl-Reliance

This is one of those times I'll have to abide by my spontaneous impression. As I've also said, I'll worry about TFP when and if they head down the Star Citizen route.

 

[meganoth]

...

This is one of those times I'll have to abide by my spontaneous impression. As I've also said, I'll worry about TFP when and if they head down the Star Citizen route.

Didn't you already say that TFP is a lost cause to you?

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@InfiniteWarrior A cosmetic DLC is not going the Star Citizen route. They have mentioned several time over the years that there will be no pay to win. Only cosmetics. You start to sound like someone who wears a tinfoil hat. Not concerned for this game. Looking at dead by daylights DLC politics (317€ for all DLC´s) and the upcoming release of Blood Moons is where i am a bit concerned, but we will see.

Star Citizen now sells you upgrades for the ships that already cost money btw. That´s pay to win on a new level.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

cosmetic DLC is not going the Star Citizen route

Did I say that? No. I said, "I'll start to worry about TFP when and if they head down the Star Citizen route." Context, my good man. Context.

Stephen Covey was quite correct when he said, "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply." But, of course, he and others like him are just repackaging ancient wisdom in modern form and selling it as "self-help." I'm skeptical of that practice as well.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

You are implying that they might take that route. Good enough.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Didn't you already say that TFP is a lost cause to you?

No. I said 7DTD is. I think development is too far gone to make major changes and it would take some major changes to address what I see as cut corners, shallow gameplay, etc. in 2.0. They're already behind their self-imposed schedule and I very much doubt there's enough time and money left in the budget for this particular game to address community concerns properly and in-depth. If that's the case, that's too bad, but I'll stick around and see how it all ultimately turns out and wish them well on their next venture, regardless.

 

[meganoth]

No. I said 7DTD is. I think development is too far gone to make major changes and it would take some major changes to address what I see as cut corners, shallow gameplay, etc. in 2.0. They're already behind their self-imposed schedule and I very much doubt there's enough time and money left in the budget for this particular game to address community concerns properly and in-depth. If that's the case, that's too bad, but I'll stick around and see how it all ultimately turns out and wish them well on their next venture, regardless.

To be sure I looked back in your post history and yes, I was wrong about that. Memory keeps failing me