|
that is my answer, i went into more detail in my other post. that pricing is designed so that each individual purchase is not felt, which allows certain people who have difficulty with impulse purchasing to spend hundreds of dollars without ever having their brain say hey, this is a lot of money youre spending. putting all of the same content at the same price in a single puchase would be enough to make nearly anyone balk immediately, because its a bunch of trinkets for hundred and hundreds of dollars. you split it up like this to take advantage of the segment of people who, through no fault of their own, struggle with being targetted like this. this is the explicit marketing model of a lot of mobile games that go after whales as well. its exploitative and the take of "well it doesnt work on ME" its particularly useless and is one the strategy also cultivates to stop people from going "this sucks stop doing it" it doesnt mean you cant like the game or enjoy it or think its a good game or recommend it. its not a personal attack on you or your enjoyment to point it out. ive put hundreds of hours into mhw and enjoyed it immensely, and ive recommended it to others. it doesnt mean this isnt a bad tactic though, its just one that doesnt seem as bad at first glance given that there are so many other games that are far worse. but that doesnt excuse it.
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Morter posted:Not a rebuttal but I might specifically just want a Nargacuga figure because it's my favorite monster. I wouldn't wanna pay 10-12 bux for a suite of figures that not only I don't want most of, but most of them wouldn't be able to fit in your house at once. That's another reason I feel like saying 'But people might want to COLLECT THEM ALL!' is a bit of a strawman in the case of this game: because you can't wear, nor show off that you have, all the DLC at once. It'd be senseless to reach that point, and honestly anyone who fell into that impulse would have issues with control/money handling that the game couldn't exactly assist. But that's neither here nor there. yeah again, its a really nice side effect of the tactic to get people going "those people would have a problem anyway, and what if i want to just buy one? i would have to pay way more otherwise!!" when we are talking about a level of content that could very easily just be in the game. as a normal reward you dont pay for. again the entire set of trinkets costs multiple times the cost of the actual game and dlc together. are all of those trinkets the same amount of work and effort as the entire game and dlc? are they cumulatively worth 10 times as much as the game itself? or are they some tiny models which next to the actual content in the game including all of the different equipment and weapons and monsters amount to little more than a small number of static polygons? why are they extra? why are they so much more expensive? why are they priced in this manner? its very much worth sitting down and thinking about these things when you see games take this kind of angle, and work out why they would do this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Morter posted:Out of curiosity, how many people percentage wise, of those who play MHW, do you think 'fall for' whatever predatory tactics you're asserting the store has? Just how many really trip into the impulse/habit of collecting more than they need to for the sake of it? Do you imagine it's a significant amount? Do you think 'even one is too many'? Not a rhetorical question. exploiting a single person to make a video game is one too many. obviously in games that extends far beyond getting people to buy microtransactions and into their development as well, but it again doesnt erase the issue of mtx targeting people who cannot control themselves. also there is a situation possible where people who cannot control themselves spend too much on models which arent predatory. however mhws model is absolutely targetting people, there is literally no justification for the amount and overall price of the cosmetics. it is specifically designed to be exploitative. Morter posted:seems to boil down to preying on a rather small group of whales--or people who are just irresponsible with money. I certainly don't blame the latter for falling for the kind of poo poo that Destiny 2 does, but for this game, I feel like that's a stretch to say that they specifically displayed their cosmetics that way in order to be perceived that way. i think the choice of language here is very telling, that you dont blame people for falling for what d2 does, but feel for this game they are to blame. i think that that is a very weird deliniation. i do not believe anyone is to blame, even in situations where they arent being targeted. however in this case they are which puts the blame on whoever decides to try and take advantage of it. Morter posted:I sincerely want to see your point without arguing about it, but unless I'm reading you wrong, I'm just not getting it. It seems very elaborate to exploit money from what I'd imagine is very few, especially because MHW is explicitly not a pay-to-win game. it doesnt matter how few people it is when you are selling something that costs you very little to make and each person who does go all in and buy them all provides you with a gigantic profit. also the pay to win argument is frankly severely flawed. while those models are far more blatent, the cosmetic model isnt suddenly fine when its done in this way. Cardiovorax posted:That's a facetious argument, because you could say that about any amount of content so long as it does not match your arbitrary measuring stick for what is or isn't 'worth paying for as extra content.' do you truly believe that the 200 pieces of cosmetic dlc amount to more than ten times the cost of the entire game and dlc? do you believe this is a sane and defendable pricing structure? if it isnt then why is it priced in this manner? what is the intent? that last question is very important. Morter posted:Ah, okay, this is a different argument, and personally not one I'm well equipped for. I don't plan to persuade you on changing your mind, but I see it like this: there is a very big difference between ongoing development requiring payment and $400 of trinkets. a huge gulf. i also prefer content to be free and if there has to be paid additions then for them to be cosmetic, but it is the specific structure of the cosmetic mtx in this game i am taking issue with here. it is the specific marketing and packaging of them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 01:56
|
|
I don't care to have, but with how the scenario is currently displayed: I'd much rather get free playable stuff and have the option to pay for cosmetics, than the other way around. Just about any other configuration where we would pay less money for these cosmetic trinkets, while ideal, would probably fall under the jab towards capitalism I made before ('what would incentivize devs to make more content, if not money', etc), but until I stumble upon solid arguments--rather than a flurry of 'what about/why not' questions, no offense--I can't help but consider the current state the best compromise, because everyone gets more of the hard work that would likely be enough to be another expansion. Doesn't make you wrong or me right, it's just making me less understanding of your frustration. I'm fine to leave it at that.
|
Cardiovorax posted:Realistically? Making a lot more money than the content is worth from something that is very easy and cheap to produce. I won't defend that, because profiteering is absolutely what this is. Corporations do that, and gently caress them for it heartily. There's a reason I don't spend money on cosmetic content and it's not only because I don't care. The other half is "gently caress this poo poo trash garbage which is not worth a tenth of what it costs." yeah again i have far more issue with pay to win stuff and lootboxes. i do not disagree that they are worse at all, however i dont personally feel that means i have to let other, relatively more benign but still bad, things by with a pass. in fact thats kind of what a lot of gaming companies are going to be betting on as lootboxes are forcibly removed from regions, we'll get stuff that isnt as bad and theyll hope we'll go "this is ok" because our expectations have been put in the dumpster lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:fwiw i routinely get sucked in by MMOs and similar things and for a while raided pretty high end content in ffxiv, with all the time-limited stuff gating that implies. MHW is an exceedingly mild variant of those things, with the content being on very generous windows and schedules. the little tchochkes you can get put on your sword or whatever and the little room stuff you can get (which most people never engage with in teh first place) is exceedingly mild compared to say the intensity with which OW skins or FFXIV clothes etc. are shoved at you. it's pretty stark. Although if you have a feeler out for this stuff I can see how it would trigger those instincts if you were ready to condemn something for it. with the power of my human brain i can think about many different things
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Black box warning that says warning: feeble minded people please don't buy our DLC out of obligation, this is for people who actually want it. agreed that is a weird argument that you just made up in your head
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Gay Rat Wedding posted:I am indeed, because it's so insanely out of the way and inconsequential that I have never been able to care about its existence in the slightest. and I actually play the game lol just a blanket response to this "well i dont care" response: you are not representative of every person on the earth. other people have entirely different brains to you and do not think the same way as you or respond to things the same way you do. this is not some personal failing on their part but just how things are. your personal position as someone who assumably doesnt get drawn in to compulsive spending is as useful and enlightening as chiming in that you can drink alcohol with no issues when people mention its addictive to some people. as an adult you should be far beyond the myopic thinking of a child who cannot understand that other people exist as seperate entities unrelated to them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Wait until you find out how much money some people spend on their real life skins to apply different clothing textures to them, with even more stories of bullying and worse if they wear the default skin. struggling to work out what you were attempting to say with this post lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That spending money on cosmetics isn't some new thing only games came up with. Someone said people get bullied for wearing the default skin in Fortnite, but obviously if you don't buy cosmetics IRL and just go around without clothes you'd be arrested in most places. Probably should have left out the last bit though since it didn't add anything given that the broader point was about luxury goods and people choosing to consume them. your clothes physically protect you, we are hairless apes that have to cover our bodies. skins are polygons on a screen. you couldnt have picked a worse comparison. and choosing to consume is loaded, the specific problem with things like the mhw cosmetic structure is it is designed to trigger compulsive spending in people susceptible to it. and it works, really really well. companies dont employ people to work these things out for a joke. they dont make them for no reason or price them randomly. its not accidental or happenstance, its quickly becoming the backbone of the industry. its great if it doesnt work on you but that doesnt change that it does work on people, and it is designed to. that sucks, and the people to blame are the ones pushing these forms of monetization and who are not only aware of this but banking on it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
the cosmetics by themselves wouldnt nessecarily cause a deficit in other content. they could very easily have been things just in the game, or not in at all at worst. its really completely irrelevant. you could even sell the same cosmetics in a way which is nowhere near as bad!! really not worth getting hung up on that specific part of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 06:58
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Alexa what is clothing some would say the difference between the clothing you wear, which will have aesthetic considerations, but primarily serves an extremely practical purpose that is tied into how we have evolved to survive in different climates, is vastly different to digital skins in games despite superficial similarites. or alternatively you could conflate the two and look like a windup monkey toy slamming cymbals together while your eyes rotate around and a big horn noise goes off. impossible to say which is right.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 07:01
|
|
|
Morter posted:How do you do this with regards to MHW. Do you mean like, bundles? Sinteres posted:What's the solution other than complaining about it though? Like a lot of us agree that lootboxes are bad and should be regulated as a form of gambling, but 'they made too much stuff some people wanted to buy despite not needing any of it and that's unfair' is harder to nail down a specific solution for. Of course game developers prey on consumer psychology, but the amount of money spent on advertising suggests many other industries do the same. literally any other option. do you not understand how egrigious $400ish is? for digital garbage? its really easy to frame it as you are trying, as "they made too much stuff some people wanted to buy despite not needing any of it and that's unfair" because you are not personally affected. the actual situation is "they specifically created a system which targets compulsive spenders in order to psychologically trick them into spending more than they otherwise would have, because no one would buy hundreds of dollars worth of digital refuse in one go, but some people will unwittingly spend that same amount in small increments, because their brains fundamentally do not process these two things in the same way". there are entire branches of marketing and business focused on working out how to make people spend money in ways where they are not making a choice, by preying upon certain peoples blind spots or weaknesses. yes, there are absolutely far worse examples even just within gaming. but that doesnt make this one fine because theres worse. go back 20 years and put this same dlc model in front of yourself and you would happily say its unacceptable because worse things hadnt been normalised yet. just because those things are now normal doesnt diminish how bad this is. its also bad when other industries do it! but this is a forum and thread about games! do you want everyone to append any post complaining about how businesses operate in the gaming space with a 500 words explaining how other things are also bad?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 07:14
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:You can cover your nakedness with a coal sack looted from a disused factory. Everything else is companies preying on peoples inability to not buy things apparently going for the monkey banging cymbals option, very bold Xarbala posted:The vast, vast majority of MHW's cosmetic content is free in the game and it isn't constantly applying pressure on players to spend more money the way OW or Fortnite does, so you'll be hard-pressed to convince most Monster Hunter players to care about the cosmetic DLC, either for or against. yes its like cosmetic systems like this are used specifically because you can target the same demographics of compulsive spenders but the people who arent no longer complain because they dont care because its not something they personally want, and they can rationalise anyone who does fall prey as failing personally Cardiovorax posted:The problem there is that you're conflating "you could spend 400$ on this" with "people are guaranteed to spend 400$ on this," when even the majority of people interested in cosmetic content will never do that. It's hard to consider it terribly egregious when 'but how many people actually do that' is a legitimate counterargument. this is literally how mobile games operate and the "but how many people actually do that" counterargument is completely destroyed by the answer of "enough that the entire industry functions off of it"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 07:22
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I meant what's your solution for getting them to stop. We get that you think they should, but how specifically would you suggest the government should regulate cosmetic DLC? Companies aren't going to stop doing it voluntarily without an immense consumer rebellion which doesn't appear to be in the offing. Most consumers who even bother to think about this believe they actually benefit from this system where people who buy nonessential DLC help to cover development costs. glad we've quickly moved from "its not real" to "its real but how are you personally going to stop it" feel like we have made progress here today at least. are you saying you dont think countries currently banning lootboxes will look at other forms of dlc once companies using lootboxes have to move onto other ways of making people compulsively spend, because that feels like a bad bet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Lol you are an idiot and I tip my $1.99 dlc hat to u good DAY sir da epic cyberpunk av mod STANNING the big corp ftw 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Your “perfect world” where “artist” doesn’t get to be a real career and is just something people do in their spare time sounds like a really lovely place. im not going into the argument anymore cos ive made my point now, but dont do this. trying to throw out peoples viewpoints because "they arent real fans" or "they dont actually play the game" is a pretty stupid position to take and one some real gross people use in the same manner to shout down concerns from people who think maybe a game shouldnt have a homophobic joke in it. i own mhw on ps4 and pc, including the dlc on pc, and i have around 300 hours in the game across both platforms. if you disagree with someone then just disagree with them, dont try and justify it in your head that they dont care and are kicking up a stink for the sake of it and its not because they also play the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:
insane to pick an example that is literally legislated against in europe because of it targeting kids lol you do realise there has been serious discussion about the issue of companies being predatory in their practices in the specific area of targeting kids with sugary and otherwise unhealthy food? things like putting very large clear info on packets as a legal requirement to point out with a big red number when something has a ton of sugar to put parents off buying the, trials with removing candy from just before the till to cut down on compulsive purchasing of unhealthy foods, specifically targetting advertising that is focused on selling junk food to kids etc, with the WHO saying things need to go further beyond this because its all so effective at preying on kids to get them to eat sugary and salty food in excess and to a level that can cause addictive behaviors in some? lol amazing
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
having a cyberpunk av and then sardonically posting about predatory capitalism in regards to food when the western world is in a decades long obesity epidemic specifically because of predatory capitalism and how it has affected food consumption is a level of eiither irony or idiocy i cant parse
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I think you can't even compare it to alcohol meaningfully, because quite unlike alcohol, there's no kind of need to ever buy more of it after your first figurative bottle, because cosmetic DLCs don't get used up. Once you have one that you want, there is absolutely nothing forcing you to keep buying more. They don't wear out, they have no limited usages. You can't really argue that it ensnares people by being disposable or coupled with a physical addiction the way drugs are. youre still doing the thing where you think everyones brain is the same as yours Sinteres posted:Alcohol is physically addictive and can literally kill you (including, almost uniquely, through withdrawal), whereas cosmetic dlcs are not and do not. Despite the regulations surrounding alcohol though, people who have problems with the stuff still have to find a way to navigate in a world in which it's widely available and even celebrated, and I'd encourage people who have issues with buying unwanted or unnecessary dlc to find a way to avoid the temptation there as well. but there are significant regulations. and it cannot be sold or marketed to children. in many countries it can barely be marketed to adults. it is one of the most heavily regulated markets in terms of advertisement. saying "look at these heavily regulated markets for alcohol/tobacco people still buy them" is missing that the regulations in place prevent many people who would otherwise fall victim from doing so. you are comparing a market that has been so unregulated it had gotten to the point of selling gambling products to children to the most well regulated markets lol and these things work. you can literally watch for example the smoking rates fall as more and more regulation was put into place on how tobacco products were sold and marketed. and something being worse again doesnt make the other thing fine. something literally killing you doesnt make the thing that can cause financial issues ok. one being a physical addiction and the other psychological doesnt make the psychological one not destructive. i honestly do not understand how anyone can argue that, while we can allow things that can be addictive as most people wont get addicted to them, we should probably take steps to protect people prone to addiction from companies willing to directly target them, is somehow incorrect. no ones saying ban all post game content forever, theyre saying that specific marketing methods which target people who will likely compulsivly spend is a pretty bad thing we should avoid.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I said I support action against lootboxes, and I don't think anyone has been arguing against that. I'm still not seeing any suggestions for dealing with the plague of too many pretty skins beyond 'do something, it's bad' though. Like the idea that something is predatory just because there's a lot of it available in different varieties for this one type of product just seems so weirdly specific an ask for regulation to fix when it's not an objectively harmful substance in the same way that a specifically regulated product like alcohol is. I mean maybe games could give players the option to eliminate the cash shop from their UI unless they go back into the settings to enable it so they aren't constantly being advertised to, but if it's a multiplayer game they'll still see other people wearing the stuff so idk. probably the exact same stuff they do for other industries that specifically target at risk people as part of their business model, i really dont know how you are unable to work out what that can entail. ive outlined exactly why its predatory earlier, the pricing structure is designed to make people buy many little things over and over. to use a food analogy, you and i know very well that a big bag of candy is full of sugar and calories, and if you sit and eat the whole bag that will be bad for you. in fact its safe to say probably every person knows this, even most kids. we also know that a meal has a lot of calories in it. in fact in many cases you can buy a bag of candy that has the same amount of calories in it as a full meal. yet its very very easy for many people to absent mindedly eat an entire pack of candy in a way that they would not absent mindedly eat an entire cooked dinner. given that we can accept that this is a very probable outcome of selling a bag of sugar, and given that there are many people who will absolutely do this, and given that there are many companies whose business it is to sell the candy and for who making their money is their only concern and who will gladly target people who, through no fault of their own, struggle with self control and compulsive eating, we can reasonably assume that we should probably put at least some basic barriers in place to help protect people. it doesnt mean we ban candy. and its not "do something its bad" because it has a material cost on people, and we know the companies absolutely will take advantage of people if left unchecked. it doesnt need to be a harmful substance to cause harm to people. financial harm is still harm, and purposefully triggering psychological addiction is in fact a harm to peoples health as well. just because its not as obvious or as bad as literal poisonous substances doesnt mean its fine. Cardiovorax posted:Dude, if you're going to compare the fact that there are million billion different types of Barbie dolls to alcohol addiction because "but people are different from each other!!!1" and little girls will want to keep buying more of them, no one is going to be able to take your argument seriously, because that's just complete bullshit. you are consistently either willfully misreading me or not paying attention. the issue is not with having cosmetics. its not the issue that there are choices. the issue is a specific marketing tactic designed to trigger compulsive behaviors. if your contention is that companies do not try and do this when there are no regulations in place to rein them in and that cosmetic dlc pricing structures are not often deliberately designed around this, you are extraordinarily naive. sebmojo posted:it is the weirdest loving thing to be (apparently) extremely mad about companies that do this will very quickly change tact against any extremely specific law so you would have to be flexible, it needs to be done both broadly against trends and narrowly on a per case basis when certain companies think theyve found a loophole. an example recently that came up with another gaming related marketing problem is in streaming, where companies are attempting to sidestep advertising regulations as well as streamers ad pay structures by simply donating to streamers with a low key advert, or gifting subs with an account named after their company. this will need a very narrow adjustment to how things work to ensure this is isnt an exploitable loophole. the idea that you need to put in place a perfect solution to do anything is fallacious, it isnt how things work, and people are allowed to suggest things without offering a solution as if they are themselves a legislator or legal expert qualified to put forward such a detailed response.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:My point was that there's a meaningful and substantial difference between a physically addictive substance and the, yes, highly manipulative and finely tuned presentation of overpriced products that no one really needs and often probably also wouldn't want. Your response to this was "you keep thinking everone's brain works like yours does." addiction is addiction. you do not need a physically addictive substance to create it because your brain literally does that part for you. in fact even in physically addictive substances the psychological addiction can be the harder part to break. for example someone who quits smoking by switching to vaping, tapers down the nicotine to nothing and yet still compulsively vapes with no physical addiction in sight. and we already know purely psychological addiction can be severely damaging, no one would try and say gambling addiction isnt a serious issue. even trying to switch in this conversation to an argument about which form of addiction is worse is an attempt to deflect by bringing up a more "serious" or "real" problem, theres no actual relevance to trying to argue about the difference between addictions at all. someone mentioning that companies use the same tactics in exploiting different addictions is not an invitation to attempt to downplay one form of addiction because of the harms of another. and my response was to you attempting to argue that this form of addiction cannot really be addiction because there is no physical addiction. what that says to me, is that you seem to fundamentally disbelieve that people get addicted to compulsive spending. or if they do that it is a personal failing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Huh? i am all for regulating/banning lootboxes, because it's literally gambling. gacha games and their ilk are insanely sketchy. they are absolutely predatory. its $400 worth of cosmetic dlc priced at $1-2 per pop. it is extraordinarily clearly aimed at getting some people to keep eating pieces of candy until theyve eaten 1k calories in flavored sugar. you clearly prefer to snipe with at this point assumably purposeful misreadings of what the argument is than deal with addressing anyones actual points
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'd much rather see games put cosmetic dlc as optional purchases using real money in a storefront outside the game instead of using the techniques more commonly recognized as predatory such as lootboxes or premium currencies that give people a false sense that the money they're spending isn't real despite having spent real money to acquire it. I think you're conflating a number of issues to make the most transparent version of selling add-on products to people there is seem underhanded, but what you're complaining about is simply making products available to be purchased. You've mentioned that junk food (as in your candy example here) is being regulated in some places, but it's not because the governments are concerned about people spending money on these things. It's because junk food makes you less healthy, whereas cosmetic skins only take away your money like any other purchase. at the end you are missing the very important step where marketing methods that target compulsive spenders are causing a health issue. a psychological addiction is also a health issue. and the idea that the choice is between the absolute worst of the worst, literally targeting kids with gambling, and something still pretty bad but not as bad is false. we know this because this is a relatively recent "choice" and previously when the choice was what you are now saying is acceptable and "no cosmetic dlc at all" people were rightly annoyed about it. conditioning people into accepting something bad but not as bad is also part of it, you push the boundaries out to the point of breaking and then you walk back to something that wouldve been completely unthinkable a decade ago but is now deemed ok in comparison to the worst possible version of it. quote:If you have an issue with compulsive spending, I still think the best option for you is to not play games that challenge you in this way, in the same way I'd urge people with overwhelming compulsive urges to set aside open world games with essentially endless quests to avoid those games if they find themselves joylessly spending far more time on them than they think is good for them. And I'm not saying that to be dismissive! I've had MMO brain, and freemium brain, and all that poo poo, and while I think there's a more clear relationship between those experiences and addiction than there is with buying cosmetic optional purchases in an online store (as in both MMOs and freemium products are actively working to create an addictive response in people), I still think the simplest solution to people selling products you don't like is to take yourself out of their environment/stop viewing their storefront so you aren't being marketed to anymore instead of expecting them to only sell what you consider a responsible amount of products. if "just dont do it" was an effective method of getting people to stop doing things there wouldnt be an issue with any of these things, not even the lootboxes. unfortunately that isnt how humans work and there has to be limits put in place to where there is at least some semblance of a balance between letting the majority of people who have no issue do x and protecting the minority of people who will be exploited by companies. again there are certainly worse examples, but this specific example is absolutely targeting people and the "benefit" to everyone else to have the freedom to... buy a tiny thing for $2? is negligble if it even exists.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
goferchan posted:Nobody is exactly wrong here, but ultimately we all have to survive in an often cruel and unjust world, and if $2 new haircuts for your Monster Hunter or packs of gum in the checkout line at the grocery store are a major stumbling block for you then you are sincerely in my prayers. i thankfully dont have any compulsive spendign problems but thank you for the thought.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
how is it a hypothetical
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
craftopia is an incomprehensible janky mess in the best way possible and so i have high hopes of or pal world
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:This thread has way too much drama about non-game-related stuff. you know you can just not post. no one cares. shut up lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
[devs bring back team member who posted literal nazi heil hitler holocaust denial genocide poo poo] yall mad about this? sick of this outrage culture and drama.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:My biggest regret is joining this dumbass forum. If I could delete my account, I would. Goons are a bunch of pathetic idiots. you can delete your account very easily. simply ask a mod for a permaban. please do it quickly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
why are u guys melting down over someone postin g a thread in your forum lmao
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
ArfJason posted:Found this hidden gem in the palestine bundle: lmao
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Artelier posted:Okay, Unbeatable white label is very hard alternatively I'm very bad , either or theres an auto thing in the options to adjust your delay by tapping along with a steady metronome, v worth doing that to make sure everything is in sync when youre playing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
postings more fun when a few people who only complain are around to lose their minds over percieved slights or because you posted lol at their big posts
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
ArfJason posted:qq moar that wasnt about you or the others lol Read Agian.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
dont shoot me
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
listen here paradox has been doing that for far longer than any recent trend
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Play posted:And also no-one exists who actually asked for such a thing. Therefore making perfect sense that it is what Kojima is delivering. yeah no one wants more of one of the best games of last decade lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
ah nooo pls kojima dont make more of your good game
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Play posted:I think I see the issue here.... lol Play posted:First of all, people can like a game and even say a lot of good things about it without calling it the best game of the past decade. And I would say it was at least an even split between people who loved the game, people who tolerated the game, and people who found it just about the most boring game on god's green earth. If you look at reviews they are pretty consistent: "a mess worth playing", "a beautiful story burdened by a dull game", "the best video game movie ever made," etc. lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
death stranding Owns
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 20:26
|
|