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 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.