Oh Blizzard, how you have fallen (Diablo Immortal).

[Elim Garak]

Comparing quality of game systems to quality of physical products, especially fast food - classic.

Britney Spears is objectively a good singer and performer. Kardashians are good entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress.

Your subjective taste is irrelevant to the actual quality of their "product"

Just like you might not like some food - but it's top quality nevertheless. Gourmet quality, just not what you usually order.

Yes, there are a lot of people with different (in your mind - lesser) standards.

Deal with it.

[BeepBoo]

TIL "objectively good" is synonymous with "appeal to popularity."

Idiotic. Just because a lot of people like something and something is successful as a result doesn't mean it's OBJECTIVELY GOOD. The fucking definition of objective. Uninfluenced by opinion or feelings. Meaning if you're deeming something "objectively good" without a qualifier attached like "good at making money", you're just wrong. Here's a hint: if people all of a sudden changed on a whim and started hating things and then the game floundered and died, would it still be good? Objectivity doesn't change just because enough people start feeling differently.

[Blackcoffin]

You use those words but I don't think you know what they mean.
Now you are just doubling down on a strawman. Like a cornered beast.

I already explained that we are not talking about morality.
Good is not a question of moral equivalency. Unless you are talking morality but I am not.

I already explain why Diablo monetization system is a good one. It's like you don't read.

You can say it is profitable - thats objective, because data supports it. To say it is good - is subjective, because good is based entirely on perception, moral values or principles. It's fine you think it is a good system, I think it is bad. Welcome to the world of subjectiveness, and stop pretending to stand on top on some objective hightop looking down.

Dunning Kruger effect on full display here.

[Battlebeard]

"If you ignore the flaws, it's good" is perhaps the dumbest defense of this piece of trash I've seen yet.

Why? The flaws are irrelevant to like 99% of the playerbase, cause it's only really maybe 10-15 people per server who spend enough to not be beaten, overall, that's a very small percentage. For the rest of us, who don't care about leaderboard, we can just enjoy an awesome game.

[Delekii]

I already explain why Diablo monetization system is a good one. It's like you don't read.

You have said literally nothing that explains even subjectively why DI monetization is "good" other than another nebulous phrase, "it works". It's like you don't know what subjective actually means.

Comparing quality of game systems to quality of physical products, especially fast food - classic.

Britney Spears is objectively a good singer and performer. Kardashians are good entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress.

Your subjective taste is irrelevant to the actual quality of their "product"

Just like you might not like some food - but it's top quality nevertheless. Gourmet quality, just not what you usually order.

Yes, there are a lot of people with different (in your mind - lesser) standards.

Deal with it.

Good does not have an objective meaning. Your definition relies on populism and/or profitability. There is no objective measurement of the "good" value of a thing that has only subjective value. You might be able to say that a basketball player who scores 50 points in a game played a "good" game, but you cannot define an artistic endeavor as "good" besides subjectively.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? The flaws are irrelevant to like 99% of the playerbase, cause it's only really maybe 10-15 people per server who spend enough to not be beaten, overall, that's a very small percentage. For the rest of us, who don't care about leaderboard, we can just enjoy an awesome game.

Every single activity that you take part in, even when it doesn't directly involve other players, is intimately affects by the existance of pay to win. It defines every aspect of the game. At the most basic level, it informed decisions about the way that every system in the game was designed. Every system in the game that you interact with would have been designed differently were the game not designed as a overtly pay to win game.

At a less direct level, every player you play with may, or may not, have spent money on the game, and you won't know it unless you actively seek that information (and even then, I'm not sure you can see it? I only assume you can, since that's half the point to whales). Even if you can see, you won't be able to see unless they have spent a LOT of money, since prior to that the effect is less pronounced and provides only benefits that you could get by playing a lot more, rather than overtly unavailable benefits. You have no idea if the players you play with are spending shitloads of money and significantly worse than they seem, or spending nothing. This directly impacts the experiences you have in any place where you interact with another player in any way.

[Blackcoffin]

Why? The flaws are irrelevant to like 99% of the playerbase, cause it's only really maybe 10-15 people per server who spend enough to not be beaten, overall, that's a very small percentage. For the rest of us, who don't care about leaderboard, we can just enjoy an awesome game.

Is it not possible to dislike the monetization system, and still play the game?

[Battlebeard]

You have said literally nothing that explains even subjectively why DI monetization is "good" other than another nebulous phrase, "it works". It's like you don't know what subjective actually means.



Good does not have an objective meaning. Your definition relies on populism and/or profitability. There is no objective measurement of the "good" value of a thing that has only subjective value. You might be able to say that a basketball player who scores 50 points in a game played a "good" game, but you cannot define an artistic endeavor as "good" besides subjectively.

- - - Updated - - -



Every single activity that you take part in, even when it doesn't directly involve other players, is intimately affects by the existance of pay to win. It defines every aspect of the game. At the most basic level, it informed decisions about the way that every system in the game was designed. Every system in the game that you interact with would have been designed differently were the game not designed as a overtly pay to win game.

At a less direct level, every player you play with may, or may not, have spent money on the game, and you won't know it unless you actively seek that information (and even then, I'm not sure you can see it? I only assume you can, since that's half the point to whales). Even if you can see, you won't be able to see unless they have spent a LOT of money, since prior to that the effect is less pronounced and provides only benefits that you could get by playing a lot more, rather than overtly unavailable benefits. You have no idea if the players you play with are spending shitloads of money and significantly worse than they seem, or spending nothing. This directly impacts the experiences you have in any place where you interact with another player in any way.

I absolutely disagree, I have not once felt the need to spend anything, or felt I am falling behind or missing out on anything as a F2P player.

[Delekii]

I absolutely disagree, I have not once felt the need to spend anything, or felt I am falling behind or missing out on anything as a F2P player.

What you feel is simultaneously irrelevant and based on your incapacity for critical thinking. Lucky you for being dumb enough to enjoy the game, I guess. I think I remember you making a comment about religion previously; religion relies on a similar feature of human beings (as capacity for critical thinking and intelligence goes up, religiosity goes down, and visa versa).

[Battlebeard]

What you feel is simultaneously irrelevant and based on your incapacity for critical thinking. Lucky you for being dumb enough to enjoy the game, I guess. I think I remember you making a comment about religion previously; religion relies on a similar feature of human beings (as capacity for critical thinking and intelligence goes up, religiosity goes down, and visa versa).

Why is it dumb to enjoy something? Some people like baseball, I would personally call that dumb as I personally think it's the most boring sport in the world, but their interests is not my business. I would say it's smart to spend your time doing something you enjoy. Life is too short to waste on things that are boring. And since I don't spend anything, it's a free hobby, so it's even better.

[Delekii]

Why is it dumb to enjoy something? Some people like baseball, I would personally call that dumb as I personally think it's the most boring sport in the world, but their interests is not my business. I would say it's smart to spend your time doing something you enjoy. Life is too short to waste on things that are boring. And since I don't spend anything, it's a free hobby, so it's even better.

It's not dumb to enjoy something; some things require a lack of critical assessment to be enjoyed. Nobody can help what they like (nor their capacity for thinking).

Like I said; lucky you that you're stupid enough to enjoy DI. Some of us aren't so lucky.

[Edge-]

Britney Spears is objectively a good singer and performer. Kardashians are good entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress.

You're mistaking "Success" with "Good" here. Two things that are in no way, shape, or form inherently connected.

[Battlebeard]

It's not dumb to enjoy something; some things require a lack of critical assessment to be enjoyed. Nobody can help what they like (nor their capacity for thinking).

Like I said; lucky you that you're stupid enough to enjoy DI. Some of us aren't so lucky.

I am happy I'm smart enough to enjoy it Smart enough to spend my time doing something I truly enjoy!

[Ghost of Cow]

You're mistaking "Success" with "Good" here. Two things that are in no way, shape, or form inherently connected.

People say this a lot, and I guess it's because they want to feel like they're somehow better or smarter by "not following the crowd" or something?

But in reality, if you make something with the goal of making money, it's "good" if it makes money. If you make something with the goal of being popular, it's "good" if a lot of people like it.

I don't know if some people just believe in some kind of weird, philosophical absolute cosmic art concept or something. Where things they deem to be "good" are just objectively the absolute best things according to the universe. But down here on Earth, no matter how much I personally dislike something, it can still be "good" at what it does.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not dumb to enjoy something; some things require a lack of critical assessment to be enjoyed. Nobody can help what they like (nor their capacity for thinking).

Like I said; lucky you that you're stupid enough to enjoy DI. Some of us aren't so lucky.

Check out the big brain on the Rick and Morty fan over here.

[RobertoCarlos]

People say this a lot, and I guess it's because they want to feel like they're somehow better or smarter by "not following the crowd" or something?

But in reality, if you make something with the goal of making money, it's "good" if it makes money. If you make something with the goal of being popular, it's "good" if a lot of people like it.

I don't know if some people just believe in some kind of weird, philosophical absolute cosmic art concept or something. Where things they deem to be "good" are just objectively the absolute best things according to the universe. But down here on Earth, no matter how much I personally dislike something, it can still be "good" at what it does.

- - - Updated - - -



Check out the big brain on the Rick and Morty fan over here.

Black tar heroine is pretty damn profitable. Is that good? Or is that just being contrarian mannn

[Ghost of Cow]

Black tar heroine is pretty damn profitable. Is that good? Or is that just being contrarian mannn

There you go again, "bUt HeRoIn MaKeS mOnEy LoL". You really have a thing about heroin, I guess. Just drag it into every single conversation.

And yes, if your goal is to make money, then heroin is good at making money. Do you understand the concept of compartmentalizing things rather than just reacting emotionally?

[RobertoCarlos]

There you go again, "bUt HeRoIn MaKeS mOnEy LoL". You really have a thing about heroin, I guess. Just drag it into every single conversation.

And yes, if your goal is to make money, then heroin is good at making money. Do you understand the concept of compartmentalizing things rather than just reacting emotionally?

Yeah because it's addictive. That's why it makes money. Similar to a video game on mobile where you can spend 25 dollars on a rift run. Nothing to do with quality

[Kyanion]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53843029

Plan on addressing this @Ghost of Cow ?

[Ghost of Cow]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53843029

Plan on addressing this @Ghost of Cow ?

Addressing what? I said you can do all the content, not get BiS items.

[Blackcoffin]

People say this a lot, and I guess it's because they want to feel like they're somehow better or smarter by "not following the crowd" or something?

But in reality, if you make something with the goal of making money, it's "good" if it makes money. If you make something with the goal of being popular, it's "good" if a lot of people like it.

I don't know if some people just believe in some kind of weird, philosophical absolute cosmic art concept or something. Where things they deem to be "good" are just objectively the absolute best things according to the universe. But down here on Earth, no matter how much I personally dislike something, it can still be "good" at what it does.

- - - Updated - - -

Has nothing to do with following a crowd. Its one person trying to remove the distinction between being subjective or objective.

You can't objectively say, the game is good because it makes money. Rather you could say, the game is profitable, because data supports it.
While the game can be good for Blizzard, because it makes money, it might not be good for competitive gamers, who wants to compete, and in doing so, has to spend a metric ton of money.

You can't objectively say, that Britney Spears is a good singer, because she has made a lot of money, has many fans/followers. Rather you could say, she's made a ton of money being a singer/popstar, because data supports it.

Objectivity doesn't change by human perception, subjectivity however, does, because what we individually determine to be "good" is based on opinion, which is based on experience, morals, princriples and so on.

[Ghost of Cow]

You can't objectively say, that Britney spears is a good singer, because she has made a lot of money, has many fans/followers. Rather you could say, she's made a ton of money being a singer/popstar, because data supports it.

This is the one that always gets me the most. Like there's some single, pure measurement of what a singer is.

She's singing to entertain people. Well, and to make money. If she succeeds in those goals as a singer, then she's good at that.

You can say, "But Bovinity, she doesn't measure high enough on this measurement of vocal range, so she can't be a good singer!" or something. It's like saying that a Monet isn't a good painting because it's not photorealistic and that's the only "good" form of painting.

Does that mean that I like everything that's popular? Of course not, just because I recognize that something is good or successful at it's goals doesn't mean I like it. But me not liking it doesn't automatically make it "bad", either.

I suppose that ultimately this is really just a debate on art, though, and that generally goes nowhere.