Print

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

[Sergarr]

As stated, Day1 and "on-disk" DLC are often additional products they've had people working on once their other assignments were finished. The idea that you're somehow entitled to getting these products for free is ridiculous. Time, effort, and cost went into producing them. What company would pay people to develop more products just to give them away?

I'll just quote myself:

I'm just waiting until the inevitable moment they start to sell patches. Or even better, subscription payment for access to patches. With 24/7 DRM that automatically uninstalls all your patches the moment you go offline.

After all, people put time, effort and cost into producing patches;
what company would just give them away?

[penguinofhonor]

vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause

aggressively active (as in a cause)

Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause

Aggressively supporting of a political or social cause; adamant, combative [from 17th c.]

But you know what? If you want to keep pretending this definition doesn't exist (or all these dictionary authors are being hypocrites somehow) so you can feel smarter than me then go ahead. This BS semantic tangent is somehow more inane than arguing about video games, and I am done with it.

[Sergius]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause

aggressively active (as in a cause)

Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause

Aggressively supporting of a political or social cause; adamant, combative [from 17th c.]

But you know what? If you want to keep pretending this definition doesn't exist (or all these dictionary authors are being hypocrites somehow) so you can feel smarter than me then go ahead. This BS semantic tangent is somehow more inane than arguing about video games, and I am done with it.

Was the above post militant? Y/N

[Graknorke]

Firepole

[Bohandas]

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

Personally I believe the market should be regulated wih an iron fist at the end of a strong arm

[Flying Dice]

vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause

aggressively active (as in a cause)

Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause

Aggressively supporting of a political or social cause; adamant, combative [from 17th c.]

But you know what? If you want to keep pretending this definition doesn't exist (or all these dictionary authors are being hypocrites somehow) so you can feel smarter than me then go ahead. This BS semantic tangent is somehow more inane than arguing about video games, and I am done with it.

If you're going to be pedantic, at least do it in a way that doesn't make you look silly.

militant
[mil-i-tuh nt]

adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause:
militant reformers.

2. engaged in warfare; fighting.
noun

3. a militant person.

4. a person engaged in warfare or combat.

Origin of militant
1375-1425; late Middle English < Latin mīlitant- (stem of mīlitāns), present participle of mīlitāre to serve as a soldier. See militate, -ant

militant
adjective mil·i·tant \-tənt\

: having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something

Full Definition of MILITANT
1:  engaged in warfare or combat :  fighting

2:  aggressively active (as in a cause) :  combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

militant

Syllabification: mil·i·tant
Pronunciation: /ˈmiləd(ə)nt/
Definition of militant in English:
adjective

Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods: a militant nationalist

mil·i·tant
Share:
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mīlitāns, mīlitant-, present participle of mīlitāre, to serve as a soldier; see MILITATE.]

Cutting out large chunks of dictionary entries doesn't make you right.

[penguinofhonor]

Doesn't make me wrong either. I was never arguing that was the sole definition, I've acknowledged there are other definitions since the beginning of this. I didn't feel the need to add the rest when it was beside my point, but I guess I should have anticipated the obvious nitpick.

[Neonivek]

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

Personally I believe the market should be regulated wih an iron fist at the end of a strong arm

I really do agree with this. it NEEDS to be heavily regulated and there needs to be statements on what can and cannot be monetized to prevent something like "Pay for cheats"...

[Sergarr]

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

Personally I believe the market should be regulated wih an iron fist at the end of a strong arm

I really do agree with this. it NEEDS to be heavily regulated and there needs to be statements on what can and cannot be monetized to prevent something like "Pay for cheats"...

The best way of regulating for shit like this is doing it yourself by developing a gaming hygiene, a la eating hygiene - like, for instance, not pre-ordering games on empty promises, researching the game extensively before buying and etc. Not doing that should be seen as not washing your hands before eating.

This is the only real way to stop this industrial disease from spreading.

[Retropunch]

They... used to do that, you know. Back in the day where online connections for games wasn't a thing, they would release multiple version of a game as actual individual things should the first version be buggy. Look at Rayman 2: The Great Escape- no two versions were alike. The N64 one came first, followed by the PC version which improved the music. The Dreamcast version then expanded on some of the various models and shortened up the game a little. The PS1 version expanded on the Dreamcast version, adding a few new changes. The PS2 version changed the overworld completely. All of these were sold as individual games.

Didn't Street Fighter, for a good while, sell various "complete" or "ultimate" editions of their games that included various changes and bugfixes to improve the balance of each years after the initial release? Only recently did they make a statement that they won't do this for the next one.

In the first case though these were just for different platforms - which I can take a little bit better. The Street Fighter/Japanese games penchant for doing ultimate/complete whatever versions is definitely annoying, and it's something I'm really glad hasn't come over in a big way.

I don't think we're at risk of that really, and I think that they'd have a very, very hard time selling something like that. My fear is just that the devs start snapping up every good mod and making it paid for.

[UXLZ]

Ispil: All of those were sold as different games, because they are different games, they're on different systems. Not sure about the Street Fighter stuff, but that's Capcom so I wouldn't put it past them.

Also, remember that with Javik it wasn't just Artists and Designers who would have had to work on him before the game was launched, he wasn't just some cosmetic tat.

[BurnedToast]

The only solution is voting with your wallet. Don't buy pay mods. Don't buy games that have them. If enough people agree with you, the idea *will* be shelved. If enough people don't care and buy them anyway that means you are in the minority.

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

That's a strange direction to take the argument. This seems like one of the few times the vocal, outraged group could be the majority.

if the vocal, outraged group was the majority then very few people would buy the payed DLC (and sales for the game it's self would almost certainly be much worse) and the company would quickly drop the issue - there would be absolutely no need to get outraged at all - it would be a self correcting problem.

Instead we get literal death threats against mod makers to try and punish them and scare them into silence, because I think most of the vocally outraged people know that the truth is most gamers just don't care very much, and a significant number of them would support pay mods.

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

Personally I believe the market should be regulated wih an iron fist at the end of a strong arm

I really do agree with this. it NEEDS to be heavily regulated and there needs to be statements on what can and cannot be monetized to prevent something like "Pay for cheats"...

If someone wants to pay extra for cheats, why do you care? Don't buy them, play the game normally, problem solved.

Yeah, buying cheats would be stupid as hell and I think people who bought them are kind of missing the point - but it's their money. Why do you feel like you have to deny them that chance just because you don't want to buy them?

[AlleeCat]

"Paid mods will lead to paid patches!"

I find that hard to believe, actually. I doubt they would be able to get away with it if they're barely able to get away with paid mods.

Although, WoW gets an "expansion" pretty much every year now. It's basically a patch you have to pay for.

[forsaken1111]

Although, WoW gets an "expansion" pretty much every year now. It's basically a patch you have to pay for.

A 'patch' with a bunch of content included, but yeah we can be silly and call apples walnuts.

[AlleeCat]

Guild Wars 2 gets about the same amount of content every few months for free.