205
Predatory tactics in gaming are worse than you think
(www.gamedeveloper.com)
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 07 Jul 2025
205 points (99.5% liked)
Games
20323 readers
156 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I do want updated games, yes. My favorite games wouldn't be my favorite games if 1.0 was all we ever got.
Some games have predatory models, and I do oppose that. But only when it actually is predatory. I take issue with how you're trying to say nothing should ever be sold, even when what's being sold is perfectly fair.
I take issue with how you're still lying about what I said. 'Things being sold' is my entire drive. Did you miss it, in all caps? The problem is this farce of charging real money for permission to use what's already in a game you already paid for.
Games were updated before this nonsense was possible. This business model is only like fifteen years old. Unreal Tournament '99 had updates and new content for years, because people kept buying the game.
I'm not missing, I'm saying that your hardline stance against things being sold isn't reasonable.
You're repeatedly misrepresenting my stance after several clear and specific corrections.
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.
I have repeatedly, specifically, and explicitly pointed out this is a lie.
You don't care.
You don't get to sneer about a word choice I've told you over and over that I did not use, in the context you're sneering about.