harmonea

Lol, instead of addressing what argument? Your argument is entirely “nuh-uh, you are frustrated. I know you are because my argument would fall apart if you weren’t, so you are. It’s just that you like being frustrated.”

It’s just not the case. There are rare good ones out there, and if that frustrates you into claiming I’m some masochist and therefore my enjoyment is somehow invalid, that’s your own whole subscription of issues.

So I’ve heard

You’re writing all live service games as being based on frustration when that absolutely isn’t the case, so I have to think you have too many preconceived notions on this subject to actually be open to a conversation about it.

Oh well. No game is for everyone and sometimes the pay content is worth it just because it’s damn awesome.

“Clobber” implies violence, which is somehow even less elegant than the standard phrase that the haphazard “cobble” implies. Given the shitshow of X so far, clobber probably works better even if it’s not the usual way to phrase this at all.

While absolutely too many things are charged for in gaming today (exp boosts? skip potions? cheat armor that was already fully developed at launch? all ways to get your company on my high seas list)… in the specific case where (1) new content is continuously being developed AND (2) the game is not asking for mandatory spending to continue playing (e.g. no expansion pack to purchase, no subscription fees), I don’t think the concept of charging for in-game content at all is abusive.

If I buy once and then a year later some optional paid cosmetics or other goodies are added, I think that’s permissible. And if I’m in a free to play live service game, I recognize the ongoing dev costs need to get covered somewhere.

I do vastly prefer those companies that give their games TLC and updates for free, and I’m not saying the standard pricing for optional purchases in the modern market are reasonable. But I think the existence of in-game purchases, if not their current state, can make sense sometimes.

FOMO is a weird term to use here because it implies some anxiety that I could be seeing more stuff than I am.

I get bored sometimes. There isn’t enough content here to keep me super engaged, and interesting niche subs about certain small games and whatnot are missed. I end up swapping back and forth between my front page here and my youtube recs, willing something interesting to appear.

But I’m not feeling the slightest anxiety that I’m missing some stranger’s idea of wit on a site I don’t go to. There’s way too much internet for me to ever think I was seeing it all in the first place, so I’m more than fine with missing the latest lyric or pun comment chain or the hottest new AITA fiction.

I didn’t say they should cave to fans save give them what they want. I just think there was a way to say this without being mean about wanting it.

Anyway, I don’t have a horse in this race, I still haven’t played this. Just commenting on how I think I’d feel if that were me. I’ve played a fair few games where the ending left me wanting a lot more, and not always because the game was just that good.

I feel like this is an overly negative light to paint something fans of your game seem to want. There’s an undercurrent of “your wish is bad and you should feel bad” to this.

I appreciate that CDPR has a strong vision for what they want their game to be, but I think if I were one of those fans who wanted to see more of the post-ending setting, I would feel a bit gut-punched by how thoroughly dissed and dismissed my kind of love for the game was.

Maybe CDPR is okay with that though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t think the fediverse has this, but I’m a bit confused why so many of these comments are puzzled at why you would want it. We have fediverse twitter, fediverse insta, fediverse reddit, fediverse discord, etc – why not fediverse facebook/myspace/carrd? Where users could just have small personal (or corporate) pages about themselves that aren’t as blog/news focused on the main(user) page.

I don’t even think it would be a huge stretch to implement: a big focus on user page customization with a small microblog interface taking up a portion of the screen would do it. (Disclaimer: not saying easy to create, just not that far out of reach vs everything else the fediverse has).

I have a clone recipe for Chili’s chicken enchilada soup that I love making. Don’t do it often though as it’s like 50% cheese…

Just pick a good frame and wiggle the parts in Live2D or something.

The hilarious part is that hoyo is constantly pushing the boundaries of what can be done with live2d; it’s heavily used in Genshin character teasers, and their otome game uses it extensively. They’re really good at this. Why get AI involved?

Oh I see.

It would have been nice to have that in the post description for those of us who aren’t as willing to hand over data (even anonymized) for certain uses.

Thanks for locating it!

What’s the purpose of your research? Curiosity? A student thesis? A professional paper? Are you a dev actively working on improving the fediverse?

Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn’t trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that “needs to be in on all the current memes” is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we’re having with OP.

Bizarre as heck tangent.

Your comparison is still really, really unclear. Are you comparing the consumption of “extra products” for vegans vs vegetarians to the consumption of “extra products” for piracy?

If so: Do you really not understand that limited physical demand differs from unlimited digital demand? If a vegetarian eats, idk, an egg a day… that’s an extra 365 eggs that had to be produced and were paid for, thus supporting the industry, when you could have hypothetically decreased demand and possibly caused a drop in production. Whereas the media consumed by pirates incur neither profit nor cost (in that if we assume they would never have paid for those goods in the first place, it isn’t a lost sale). There is no production cost for there to be 1 sold copy and 1 pirated copy vs 1 sold copy only.

Though tbh, I’m just devil’s advocating the vegan position here. I really think you had a handful of bad encounters with militant vegans and assume the majority of the threadiverse thinks like that. And, well… we don’t? What even is this “lemmy culture”? The amount of confusion and responses that aren’t addressing the point you meant to make should show you that most of us are not engaging with this on the line of thought you assumed we would.

Hey man, I’m willing to be honest about what I do. I’m not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I’m not going to beat around the bush about that.

I don’t really understand why you’re comparing these two things? One is a group of people refraining from consumption of certain goods for personal reasons - health, ethics, climate impact, whatever. The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we’re not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

A better analogy would be comparing piracy to… I don’t know, a veg-eater of whatever type who still enjoys the taste of bacon and resorts to stealing it because it’s better to hurt the meat industry than to pay? It’s a product that person really doesn’t really need and absolutely would have never paid for, yet the person still wants it and obtains it in a way that hurts the industry.

(The analogy doesn’t hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it’s the best I’ve got off the cuff)

E: okay, after reading your other comments, I’m both confident this didn’t address the point you wanted and confident I don’t really understand your deal well enough to do so. Both of these groups have some members who have a problem with industry practices and others who are into their chosen lifestyle for other reasons. It seems like you’ve made some odd decisions about which groups are most prevalent among each and are framing your premise around that, and I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on it when the premise is Like This.

Or are you trying to say veganism should be more widely accepted because “DRM is wrong” is roughly equivalent to “animal suffering is wrong” re: “industry bad”?

How does the change do nothing to combat those interactions when they fall under the $1 sub requirement? The idea is that allegedly bots won’t pay, so they won’t be able to do those actions anymore.

Corrected archive link - OP’s is missing a character so it’s not working

Corrected archive link - OP’s is missing a character so it’s not working