No, because it's still relatively new and they REALLY want it to succeed, so of course they're going to continue to push it super hard even after a few failed attempts.
No, larger things can change, too, you just have to have a mindset of constant vigilance against it. See: women's rights and roe vs wade. We had a solid 50 years of change there, but we let up for like 10 seconds and now it's in question again. Change isn't hardly ever permanent, and assholes are always gonna try to slip it in when they can.Some things can change, sure, on a smaller scale.
Like I said, it takes a culture shift to intolerance and constant vigilance. We can do that, though.It would be cool if that's wrong, but no evidence supports it on a big enough scale.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
In a free world, they also don't hold a patent.
You can't have some freedoms but curtail others, and then claim it's "a free world" like that is an absolute.
The reality is nothing is a completely free world, there's always restrictions on total freedom. It's only a matter of negotiating where they are. To ignore that selectively is major hypocrisy.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
Because a totally free world is nightmarish.
That's what I mean by selectively ignoring that some freedoms are always curtailed.
We do this for a reason: limiting some freedoms for some people to increase other freedoms for other people, aiming to have a world that (at least asymptotically and in principle) brings the most well-being to the most people. For that, some freedoms must be curtailed.
That we can't just have total freedom is really not up for debate. It's all about where we draw the lines and why.
Can´t blame them for that tho.
Might as well value your own time and play the game yourself, instead of watching someone playing it and throw money at them (not pointing at you here btw :-) ). It is the definition of stupidity really.
Lots of people seem uncapable of living their own life, so they rely on people streaming stuff. This is not always necesarily stupidity but a mental health issue, which is no joke tho and a different matter. The first ones, however, are plain irrational but hey, people can use their time and money as they please...
The streamers are just smart enough to do this and get some sort of profit out of it.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
This is actually an interesting point no one ever really criticises (except for "booba" streamers sometimes), especially just how much money some people spend just to get some attention from their favorite streamers.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh yeah, this is absolutely a valid and fair comparison. What example are you going to bring up next time when talking about p2w in gaming, Hitler?
Nothing against Quin in this case, but it's funny how there are other Streamers and YouTubers who earn millions by "exploiting" their watchers. Meanwhile those same people call Diablo Immortal's p2w system "predatory".
Not that I think that DI's monetization is any good, I really really hate the p2w and wish it wasn't the case for an otherwise good game, but it's really funny sometimes just how hypocritical many people are.
And it's not just streamers, but it's also some games too. Like where do you draw the line when a p2w game is good or isn't? For example, why do are so many people fine with Genshin Impact and Lost Ark, but not Diablo Immortal? To me it just seems like most of the hate comes from people seeking attention and nothing more. If DI's announcement timing wasn't this terrible, like if they initially announced this game at Blizzcon beside Diablo 4 as a "secondary" game, then I am sure we wouldn't see this much hate against it today. I mean even Hearthstone is a heavily P2W game and it's liked and played by many streamers.
Last edited by RobertMugabe; 2022-06-10 at 08:29 AM.
Another lie. You are confusing anarchy with freedom. You won't be able to explain in what way a ruthless person can get the most weapons in a FREE world, and more importantly why. You will have to use current examples of such people - but they are not a product of a free world.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
everyone complaining about how greedy gaming is getting and then this dumb fuck shows up. what a piece of shit making the industry a shittier place, for 1 video
Ok, fair enough; I'll agree that we *can* change when a large enough lot stand firm on something.
The real question is, is this something we, as a people and species, will pursue?
Would the US really entertain this idea if its a huge moneymaker?
I mean, look at the other conversation floating around in here, but "Big Pharma" is essentially a privatized hostage situation where they say "oh, you have a life-threatening health issue? That's too bad. Here's something to help, but it will cost an arm and a leg when it barely cost us a bead of sweat on our brow".
If I was to rally the troops, as it were, and fight a social injustice and my choice was MTX or the exploitation of 300 million people, I'd lean on the latter and that hasn't changed in any real impactful way, aside from the other side of the predatory coin (insurance).
What I'm getting at is, there's far bigger fish that need to be dealt with first.
Also, comparing microtransactions in video games to women's rights or roe v wade is a bit... much.
I mean, yeah, MTX can lead to several bad situations, but like, a kid "accidentally" charging up 500 bucks on his dad's credit card versus a human being having agency over their own body?
See above re: bigger fish.