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.

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.

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).

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”?

You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don’t think it’s a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a “thank you” - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of “YOU’RE the problem” response?

I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you’re not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There’s data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you’re just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.

That is not good faith.

No way. Why should OP change? He’s not the one who sucks.

People see it as a way to spread awareness about the fediverse alternatives that are out there. Like “hey, if you like this, there’s more where that came from.” It’s not for viewers who are already here, but for those where the post inevitably travels.

I dunno. Both watermarking and being annoyed at the watermarks seem like a waste of energy to me. If people are going to generate content, I’m not going to sass them about how unless it makes something about the content worse (harder to read etc).

Again with the fixation on the OP. Let me be more direct: I didn’t ask you.

Sure, but that was just additional context for my question, which was what this poster feels is the difference between changing owners and buying out a company.

What is the difference, in your mind, between changing owners and buying out a company?

To me they’re the same thing and this is an appropriate reply for OP. Is it just a matter of scale for you? (I think we’d all like bigger examples, but this still works)