It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So you like shallow offerings that are of low value and hardly worth the money. I'll be sure to remember that when you comment highly about a game, that your standards aren't very high.TheDarkrayne said:No one said they didn't like it.BillMurphy said:Guys, it's OK to not like Destiny 2. But it's ALSO OK to like it a lot.
Liking something doesn't mean you automatically ignore it's faults, especially when it comes to the business model.
At least this person is honest about wanting to control you. Now you have to ask yourself, do you want people like this controlling how you game, how you pay for it, and eventually everything else you do.Slapshot1188 said:Actually... the battle isn't "lost". It's just getting started. People sat back and didn't take notice of what was happening. Now they have. The games not over my friend. Far from it.Torval said:The only way to ensure reliable authentication is to have no remove internet anonymity and have a biometric ID associated with an online ID.
There is no easy, inexpensive, or most importantly non-intrusive solution to identity verification. The intent here should be to do no more harm than is being done. Why do we need intrusive regulation where no problem has been evidenced.
The only verifiable problem we've seen is that people don't want to feel forced to pay more for games to get the whole package. All this talk about gambling and drugs is irrelevant and specious until there are facts and data to support evidence of a problem. All these issues are hypothetical scare scenarios designed to prey upon our sense of survival.
The problem isn't that people don't like loot boxes or they're "bad". The problem is a lot of people don't mind living with them and will play and pay for the game. Therefore since the people who don't like it lost the argument and those nasty games still get made, they want to legislate their way "for the good of the children and those who are too stupid to agree with them".
Yeah because red herrings are about the only argument you bring to the table. You can't even be honest with yourself or present anything other than the ridiculous. Next windmill is that way.Iselin said:It's funny how it's the same people who believe having loot boxes in your games is a first amendment right calling this guy a troll and a dim-wit.
Narius seems to be the only honest guy around here because he freely admits that he wants lots of MTX in games so that he can be subsidized and play them for free. The rest of you need to get your story straight lol.
I don't doubt they'll come up with good proposals. I have zero confidence they'll address root problems or be effective in any way, but instead they will go for the low hanging symptomatic fruit making laudable but useless suggestions. At best they'll end up like the IEEE or the W3C - great bodies with great intentions that have both failed miserably.Superman0X said:Hey! I am 4 (B,C,E,F) of the 7 you listed. Why are you so negative?Aeander said:At this point, I'm assuming he's:
A) Absolutely invested in playing devil's advocate to the degree of ignoring his own cognitive dissonance.
B ) A corporate shill.
C) A troll.
D) Desperate to justify his own gambling addiction as normal behavior.
E) An EA employee or stockholder.
F) Someone with financial stake in gambling - IE: a casino owner.
G) Someone who has disposable income and a desire to buy power. (I would consider this to be the likely scenario).No need to be suspicious. This is an industry think tank designed to put together solutions to the current problem... the angry mob. They will come up with best practices, and white papers that will help developers avoid this in the future. Companies don't like to be seen as the bad guy, and with proper practices, they will not be.Mendel said:Interesting. But once I look beyond the moralistic aspects of this type of committee, what companies are going to take actions on these findings? How are they going to change games in response to this committee, or is this just an industry catch-all that game companies can point to and say 'they said it was okay' or 'we did not find any problems with a particular practice'.
Maybe I'm just in an extra-cantankerous mood today, but I'm always skeptical when a group steps forward to regulate the actions and thoughts of others.