I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.
I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.
You said “Nothing inside a video game should cost real money”. Those are your words. If you want to claim that your stance is actually something else, why did you say those words?
And you keep pretending I said “nothing should ever be sold.” Or “nothing should cost money ever.”
Do you need a diagram?
If nothing costs money, nothing is sold. Are you trying to play dumb here?
I’d sound less hostile if you didn’t need this explained five separate times.
And it’s not incidental, because you are now that crank, insisting “you don’t seem to want anyone to get paid to make [content].”
Stop fucking that strawman.
I know what you said, and I know we’re on the same page because we’ve been talking about concrete examples where you say the DLC shouldn’t be allowed to be sold. I don’t know why you’re up here trying to play some silly semantics games.
The DLC is content in the video game.
That’s why you can see it, even if you haven’t paid for it.
Welcome to the conversation.
For the love of god, do not make me rub your nose in this a seventh time.
Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.
Horse armor was above-board, relative to this.
I keep telling you the precise shape of the problem, and you keep going ‘yeah, something else.’
I’m done playing your weird word games. We’ve been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy simply because it involves DLC, and I take issue with you drawing that line. You can’t pretend you’re actually saying something else at the same time.