295
Dragon's Dogma 2 mods negate the need for microtransactions on PC
(www.eurogamer.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
295 points (96.0% liked)
Games
16651 readers
722 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a slippery slope fallacy. Adding paid for cheats in single player games doesn't make pay to win more normalised if you have a sense of a moral limit. My limit is when game design is changed to account for microtransations. Shadow of Morder was horrible because the game was almost unplayable without it's boosters. Dragons Dogma is the same game.
If Elden Ring came out and had boosters I'd feel the same way. I'd ignore them and feel weird about people who used them. But it literally doesn't effect the game for me or my experience if they existed or didn't
Tell that to the horse armor lol back in the day no one would buy a game with these kind of MTX and we would laugh at it. But now we're saying "it's not that bad come on, it's still a good game". The slippery slope is very much a thing.
No one was saying "no one would buy a game with these kinds of MTX" Skyrim was already out and wildly successful at that point and secondly the Skyrim horse Armor criticisms were amount Bethesda adding paid mods to get cuts of all mods which is a hugely different situation. When Diablo IV and Street Fighter created extremely overpriced costumes we laugh at them because it's stupid to assume anyone is going to buy them
Oh, my dear, sweet summer child, they're not talking about Skyrim. When people say "horse armour" they're talking about one thing:
In the year of our lord 2006, when Skyrim was still half a decade away. the Xbox 360 release of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion had a $2.50 "DLC" for two sets of horse armour, and it was roundly mocked for it. It wasn't the first microtransaction, but it was certainly the first one that set everyone talking about its absurdity. The conversation was absolutely about charging money for cosmetics. In fact the general tone was, perhaps ironically, the opposite of today's prevailing zeitgeist; this was a time when people were accustomed to spending $10-20 for a sizable "expansion pack" or "content disc", and the idea of dropping $2.50 for horse armour that didn't even do anything was absolutely ludicrous.
Fair enough, I don't really remember that and I guess Horse Armor is almost a recurring event at this point
This is the slope having already slipped.
It's not a fallacy to say that this is gameplay features for pay and I am only ok with cosmetics being for pay in a game that isn't free at its base.
I don't want to let them move that goalpost.
Also, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
While it is possible that a company like Capcom, driven to increase its profit margin, and having normalized pay-to-win-through-convenience-features in this game would choose to not do more pay-to-win options with deeper gameplay impacts in a future game.
Being vocal about hating this game's micro-transactions, especially with the reviews going so negative, is one of the only ways we can communicate that we don't want either.
I never said all Slippery Slope are incorrect. I just think this isn't one of them
In order for an argument to be a slippery slope argument it needs to require that step one leads to step two.
My argument wasn't even a slippery slope argument and is therefore not the slippery slope fallacy.
My claim was that normalizing this type of pay-to-win-light game design makes it easier for them to normalize pay-to-win-full game design. It did not claim that normalizing this will lead to normalizing that.
I don't want either in my games.
If we push back against this now it should make them think twice about considering full pay-to-win single player non-free games, because it could have a much bigger backlash. Which is what I was saying.
I used to be able to just cheat in the game. Just input a cheat and get infinite lives.
Why do I have to pay money for that now?