Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blaze]

90% of vallets are attached to highly manipulable humans who will buy things based on "hype" and "well the reviews said it

*Citation needed*

So in other words, we know what's best for all those people and we should decide what's best for them.

That's the kind of attitude that causes this sort of thing in the first place.

People will pay if they believe they're getting more than they're paying for. If you're so set on believing that a majority of consumers are mindless drones that will throw money at anything then I really can't do anything.

[da_nang]

There has to be money in it before it corrupts isn't there? This, in addition to being a PR nightmare, has garnered few sales. And all those sales will come at the cost of future sales. Consumers will be voting with their wallets and reviews.

If Bethesda wants to shoot itself in the foot, then they're welcome to do it. Let it be a precedent for any other companies thinking of adding paid mods. It's sad that the modding community takes a hit, but it's better that it shows that now rather than later.

You underestimate the brutal efficiency of modern company's PR. They've managed to sell things with shit like Day 1 DLC on disk and constant online DRM and they haven't tanked in sales at all.

Voting with a vallet doesn't work when 90% of vallets are attached to highly manipulable humans who will buy things based on "hype" and "well the reviews said it was the best thing since sliced bread even though they've been obviously bought to give it a good review".

One of the reasons why we need methods other than wallet-voting. If people can elect Hitler, then there needs to be effective safeguards to prevent it from happening again.

[Sergarr]

90% of vallets are attached to highly manipulable humans who will buy things based on "hype" and "well the reviews said it

*Citation needed*

Proof: the fact that the most financially successful games have been the ones with the most money in PR. PR = guaranteed money. Quality production = maybe money, if you're lucky.

So in other words, we know what's best for all those people and we should decide what's best for them.

That's the kind of attitude that causes this sort of thing in the first place.

People will pay if they believe they're getting more than they're paying for. If you're so set on believing that a majority of consumers are mindless drones that will throw money at anything then I really can't do anything.

No we don't know what's best for all those people, but we know it's not whatever the hell they're using.

For a good example of this, let's check, how many people here have games they've bought on a sale that they've never actually played?
Or how many peopel here have pre-ordered a game based on some promises only to have these promised be broken later on?

This is proof of people being actually bad at controlling their vallet. And if people are bad at controlling their vallet, then they simply cannot vote with a vallet, because other people have essentially already voted for them.

And this'll continue because of the carefully created buying culture that promotes making uninformed decisions, like pre-orders, or buying a game on day 1, or buying everything that's on sale, because "OMG it's going to expire in 10 hours!!!1".

The majority of consumers are indeed mindless drones that'll buy anything as long as it has good PR and marketing strategy. That's the entire reason why modern games can have shit like Day 1 on disk DLC and always online DRM, and people will be angry for a while, but then they will buy another game with shit like this again, and again, and again., constantly increasing the profits of people producing and marketing said shit.

[Blaze]

Which is legal. Sadly.

You aren't in charge of their wallets, you can complain if you want, but that's all you can do.

If they're being manipulated, you can attempt to enlighten them.

[Sergarr]

Hitler coming to power was legal, too. Being legal means shit when it comes to something being good or bad, otherwise we would have no reasons to ever change the law.

[UXLZ]

The legal system is complete and utter tripe when the people involved have more money than the average middle-class.

[Blaze]

Hitler coming to power was legal, too. Being legal means shit when it comes to something being good or bad, otherwise we would have no reasons to ever change the law.

Godwin aside, are saying that consumers shouldn't be able to pay for what they want and we should have laws against it? Because they're stupid? To protect them?

[UXLZ]

I wouldn't consider most consumers stupid, it's just that the stuff corporations can get away with is absurd.

[wierd]

Do you advocate smoking bans and laws against drunk driving?

same thing in principle.

[UXLZ]

Slight difference. Those things are explicitly harmful to other people.

[Blaze]

Do you advocate smoking bans and laws against drunk driving?

Laws against smoking and drinking were placed by the majority.

So yes, majority rules.

If you can prove you are the majority here, then paid mods will not be an issue.

[da_nang]

Hitler coming to power was legal, too. Being legal means shit when it comes to something being good or bad, otherwise we would have no reasons to ever change the law.

Godwin aside, are saying that consumers shouldn't be able to pay for what they want and we should have laws against it? Because they're stupid? To protect them?

Stupid, no. Gullible? Given the effect of PR, I'd say most are.

[wierd]

It wouldnt be, if this were a democratic decision.  It is not. It is an autocratic one, produced by valve and bethesda.

There is a minority of modders who want to monetize, and there is a very vocal majority of modders opposed, who are being TOLD that they are being "selfish and greedy."

-- "explicitly harmful"

as myself, Putnam, and other modders have already stated, the move to monetize *Is* explicitly harmful to free modding, and the community that enables it.

[UXLZ]

So yes, majority rules.

Not... Really. It's more that the 'representatives of the majority (which may or may not properly represent the desires of the majority and often do not) rule.
At least in a democracy.'

[Blaze]

Well in any case, I'm getting more worked up over this than I should be. I'll go ahead and leave it at that.

My points is such:
Content creators, both game developers and modder, have every right to attempt to sell things they've created, so long as any involved asset owners have given permission.
A consumer has every right to criticize that attempt, up to and including attempting to changing the rules so they cannot.
Those who are in charge of those rules have every right to refuse the consumer, at the loss of their prestige and sales.

I think we can agree with this, right?